Christ Centered Gamer

First, Kingdom Hearts camera is not uncontrollable. You just need to adjust. For example, Kingdom Hearts 2 uses he right analog stick to rotate the camera. On top of that, holding the L2 button and using the right analog stick to maneuver through the command list- the controls are sick. No lie. It is so comfortable.

When fighting:

Fight and when you need to re-evaluate/when enemy disappears, rotate the camera to find him OR L2 + right analog stick to move through command list.


Easy.

While I adore KHII, I agree with Drew about the controls being pretty messy.

DeadManReedeemed wrote:First, Kingdom Hearts camera is not uncontrollable. You just need to adjust. For example, Kingdom Hearts 2 uses he right analog stick to rotate the camera. On top of that, holding the L2 button and using the right analog stick to maneuver through the command list- the controls are sick. No lie. It is so comfortable.

When fighting:

Fight and when you need to re-evaluate/when enemy disappears, rotate the camera to find him OR L2 + right analog stick to move through command list.


Easy.

Or, I could just play games I like and not have to worry about any of that.

Thing is, I like plenty of games, and I adjust to controls all the time. I never adjusted to the controls in KH1 or 2. Don't tell me that I need to adjust how I play games; I've been gaming for a significantly longer time than you, judging by your posts, so that's really not a problem.

Well as I said,
everyone has different tastes.

I bet if I played one of those games you like I probably would not like the controls/style.
(Though, I would not post about how I dislike it in the game's own thread. *hint hint* )

(Anyways I still think you would like the combat system for Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep. )

Drewsov wrote:Don't tell me that I need to adjust how I play games; I've been gaming for a significantly longer time than you, judging by your posts, so that's really not a problem.

Controls should have a very easy and quick learning curve. The longer it takes, the more poorly made the controls are.

ArchAngel wrote:Controls should have a very easy and quick learning curve. The longer it takes, the more poorly made the controls are.

I totally disagree.

The control scheme for many great fighting games can take ridiculous amounts of time to get a handle on, but it's totally worth it.

QWOP 2: Fists of Rage.

jester747 wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:Controls should have a very easy and quick learning curve. The longer it takes, the more poorly made the controls are.

I totally disagree.

The control scheme for many great fighting games can take ridiculous amounts of time to get a handle on, but it's totally worth it.

That's true, but what is it about Kingdom Hearts that makes it "worth it"?

To me, there's this nostalgia factor in the characters featured... and that's about it. I don't care about the world. I don't care about Sora's adventure. Donald and Gooby are the only ones that I actually cared about, because they made me laugh sometimes. The rest of the game felt so much like a PS2 game, which was great for when it came out. (This is as opposed to stuff like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus, both of which are incredibly playable now and feel current.) Now, though? Everything it did has been done better, and it only really serves as a lesson on how to do licensed games right, with a minimum of story.

The rest of it?

The controls are a mess. I don't have a problem with a lock-on system. As I said before, I love the Zelda games (and if DeadManRedeemed had bothered to read any of the reviews I've written for this site, he'd know I have a pretty extensive experience playing games that have varying control systems), and I've played a great number of games with lock-on systems. That's not the problem. The problem is that, while most games utilize targeting systems that dynamically change the camera, Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 feature a targeting system that essentially requires you to recenter the camera on your character in the middle of battle. This is because, instead of dynamically changing the camera to show enemies in a way that actually helps gameplay, the camera spazzes out, and you end up dying/getting hurt/etc. because of the constant need to reorient yourself in the environment.

That's not good game design. It's not good controls. It's called, "This game came out seven years ago, and didn't get things right that games that came out in 1998 got right, but everyone puts up with it anyway because it's Square."

I mean, seriously. That's stuff that I had problems with in Super Mario 64.

Ocarina of Time's solution was to keep the camera centered on the character. The view was pulled back enough that it wasn't a problem. Kingdom Hearts had a tight lock on the character, which made the constant camera flips, twirls and seizures generally nauseating.

And then, of course, there's the "combat system".

It'll always baffle me how Kingdom Hearts got away with its battle system for two main games on the PS2, but Final Fantasy XIII was constantly criticized for its battle systems, which are a far cry above the stuff featured in the KH series.

Drewsov wrote:

jester747 wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:Controls should have a very easy and quick learning curve. The longer it takes, the more poorly made the controls are.

I totally disagree.

The control scheme for many great fighting games can take ridiculous amounts of time to get a handle on, but it's totally worth it.

That's true, but what is it about Kingdom Hearts that makes it "worth it"?

Oh, I don't think that the controls in KH are even really a matter of learning curve; I actually agree with you. I was just trying to dispel the notion that the longer it takes to learn a game's controls, the worse the control scheme is.

Drewsov wrote:It'll always baffle me how Kingdom Hearts got away with its battle system for two main games on the PS2, but Final Fantasy XIII was constantly criticized for its battle systems, which are a far cry above the stuff featured in the KH series.

I totally agree. While I only got 15-ish hours into FFXIII, I thought that the system was actually pretty smooth.

It's a good rule of thumb. Non-intuitive controls are almost always poorly wrought.

Drewsov wrote: That's true, but what is it about Kingdom Hearts that makes it "worth it"?

To me, there's this nostalgia factor in the characters featured... and that's about it. I don't care about the world. I don't care about Sora's adventure. Donald and Gooby are the only ones that I actually cared about, because they made me laugh sometimes. The rest of the game felt so much like a PS2 game, which was great for when it came out. (This is as opposed to stuff like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus, both of which are incredibly playable now and feel current.) Now, though? Everything it did has been done better, and it only really serves as a lesson on how to do licensed games right, with a minimum of story.

The rest of it?

The controls are a mess. I don't have a problem with a lock-on system. As I said before, I love the Zelda games (and if DeadManRedeemed had bothered to read any of the reviews I've written for this site, he'd know I have a pretty extensive experience playing games that have varying control systems), and I've played a great number of games with lock-on systems. That's not the problem. The problem is that, while most games utilize targeting systems that dynamically change the camera, Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 feature a targeting system that essentially requires you to recenter the camera on your character in the middle of battle. This is because, instead of dynamically changing the camera to show enemies in a way that actually helps gameplay, the camera spazzes out, and you end up dying/getting hurt/etc. because of the constant need to reorient yourself in the environment.

That's not good game design. It's not good controls. It's called, "This game came out seven years ago, and didn't get things right that games that came out in 1998 got right, but everyone puts up with it anyway because it's Square."

I mean, seriously. That's stuff that I had problems with in Super Mario 64.

Ocarina of Time's solution was to keep the camera centered on the character. The view was pulled back enough that it wasn't a problem. Kingdom Hearts had a tight lock on the character, which made the constant camera flips, twirls and seizures generally nauseating.

And then, of course, there's the "combat system".

It'll always baffle me how Kingdom Hearts got away with its battle system for two main games on the PS2, but Final Fantasy XIII was constantly criticized for its battle systems, which are a far cry above the stuff featured in the KH series.

I agree that controls are important,
but I think the controls in Kingdom Hearts are good.

I really never had a problem, except for the camera in the first game.
I am not questioning your experience, but I just don't think it's your "style."
It's not hard to confuse good controls with bad controls when it's just not your style.
Besides, you said your self people don't complain about the controls in Kingdom Hearts.
(That must mean something right.)

Now honesty,
I don't understand why your trying so hard to prove your point.
You know, you might be acting no different from those ranting about the controls in FF 13.

Basically,
if you don't have anything good to say, then why say it?

Well, sorry if I am being rude and such.
(by the way... is there really that many people complaining about FF13's controls? )

JOJ650s wrote:Basically,
if you don't have anything good to say, then why say it?

Because not everything is good, and some things that aren't good can be fixed when pointed out. And if they can't be fixed, maybe they can be learned from.

This is primarily a game review site. Allow me to emphasize review. We should point out the good and the bad things because that's how you give the most accurate depiction of a game.
If all we said were good things about a game, our reviews would be borderline worthless and if not, incredibly cryptic in it's message. Is a person to differentiate between a great game and a mediocre game by only the amount of compliments we bestow? No. If it has a poor control scheme, it has a poor control scheme. Say it. And if people take an insult from it, it's because they are a small person unable to live in a world that doesn't form itself to their view.

I have such an absolute disdain for that disney-philosophy "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" mentality. I will punch that rabbit right in its stupid little face. No remorse. Right in the kisser.

Am I being harsh? Absolutely. But it bothers me that people would rather wallow around in ignorance from fear of having their pride hurt rather than venture out, take a couple blows and maybe learn something. If you're surrounded by a bunch of people who just say nice things and shy away from confrontation or conflictory statements, you'd be stuck in a perpetual loop of cowardice-fueled ignorance.

*takes breath from rant* (I'm not actually very heated, but it'll help if you perceive me as such. brings tension to the whole thing. Drama. Ooooohh)

So yeah, go ahead and disagree with me and criticize what I just said. Who knows, maybe I'll learn something.

Well said Arch,
though that was not what I meant by it.

What I should have said was,
"Be part of the answer, not part of the problem."

Though, I hesitated since it was already in my sig,
and I did not want to sound like some guy who claims know all the answers in the world.
So, I switched it.

So what I mean by it is,
why say something that's going to end up a problem?

Say I go to a random board, (With somewhat civil people.)
and there was a thread for people to talk about say... Mass Effect.
Then I appear and just say "The story stinks, not a fan of the series."
This is what is likely to take place,
-Someone asks "how so?"
-Then I say the ending was horrible, etc.
-Then a lot people who like Mass Effect would defend it.
-Then a few other people will agree about the ending being bad.
-Then things will go back and forth. (People defend it and then people bash it.)
-Then I go on to say, I didn't care about the main character, etc.
-Then things will go back and forth again.
-Then at last the people stop talking about it.
Then might end up with these results.
-The people who did not like Mass Effect or the ending will most likely end up the same way they were. (And may form a grudge.)
-Then the people who liked it are annoyed. (And may form a grudge also.)
-The thread would be de-railed, and might be abandoned after the big discussion took place.
-Then the people who weren't involve would see the destruction. (Even if the discussion was pretty civil, it can easily look like a mess to those not involved.)
-Also a few people might even get offended.

Basically you end up with a mess,
and it all started with an unnecessary post that could have been easily left unsaid.
This is when I find the quote "if you don't have anything good to say, then why say it?" make since. (Not in all cases, but this one I think it does.)
Though "Be part of the answer, not part of the problem." is the quote I still prefer.

Do you think there would be any gain from starting a discussion like that?
Possibly, but I feel like there would be far more of a loss then a gain.

Once again, I hope I have not been rude or anything.
I think all you guys are awesome, even if I may disagree with you.

The only one guilty of rudeness would be me.

Thanks for clarify. I had an inkling that perhaps you meant it in more of a "constructive" sense than a "nice" sense, but I guess I couldn't pass up a chance for a rant. Props for handling it like a champ.