Slashdot Mirror
Why Should It Take Two Hands To Play Videogames?
Thanks to StatePaper.com for their article discussing a Nebraska radio talk show host's plans to create a one-handed game controller. The host, Mike Reed, "has learned to play many of the games using a controller with only one hand", following an accident which happened when "an acquaintance at a party pointed a loaded .410-caliber shotgun at Reed [and fired]", leaving him with very limited use of his right arm. He says that "many games are impossible to play one-handed", and has "designed a dual-motion game controller that consolidates all movement, button response and directional function into a one-handed video game controller", although he and his partners "haven't built a prototype yet." In the meantime, are there any existing console controllers that might work for those only using one hand?
Sticks designed for flight sims seems to have most if not all of the buttons accessable to one hand, though this tends to be the right hand (I am left handed and notice).
Remapping the keys and clamping it to a flat surface should help too.
I would have thought a gameboy would work, with the pad and buttons close together, I'm sure someone else with a better knowledge of them could suggest a few
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
Many Arcade games could be easily modified to be used with one hand since they only featured a control stick and an action button. Simply put the button on top of the control stick, voila, a one handed controller.
But with modern day games, the closest you'd come to a one hand remote would be something like a remote control, because there are so many buttons on your Xbox/PS2/Gamecube controller.
As long as you choose to use an automatic, driving wheels with pedals aren't going to be just fine with one hand.
Super Monkey Ball (and, lets face it, gaming doesn't get much better than the mighty Expert 7) just demands one analogue pad and no buttons during play, so that isn't a problem. Same with its inspiration, Marble Madness.
Many, perhaps most, things on PC should be reasonably playable with the Microsoft Strategic Commander, as it has three analogue axes and a myriad of buttons. Flight sticks offer much the same.
There are always going to be some games that require both hands though, and that is probably only right. Basketball would be pretty difficult to play one-handed as well, but we don't get rid of that. Ensuring games are playable by as many as possible is a good thing, but as a designer you shouldn't break the game just to ensure this.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
but with shooting games, like Time Crisis, you only need one hand (for the pistol) and one feet (for the pedal). Then, for PCs, there are roguelike games.
The truth is that (most) games are made for the people with two hands, not completely deaf and without any visual disability to discern objects in the screen. When (read if) 3d displays become the norm people with less than two eyes will have also problems with most games. And the same will happen for people with only one good ear when surround sound is important for a game.
There are games that can be played by almost anyone with some little tweaks, but it would be non-optimum for the sofware companies, unless the game is a complete hit or was designed that way from the beggining.
I'm a disabled gamer, and I face no end of frustration when playing modern games. And that's with use of BOTH my hands.
The problem is that I brace the controller against a table, rather than hold it in a two handed grip -- therefore those ergonomically placed shoulder buttons and triggers are difficult for me to access quickly. Holding down R1 while manuvering and shooting in Resident Evil? No. Using triggers for gas/brake while flipping gears with buttons and steering? No. Playing Hunter: The Reckoning which requires use of both analogs, all face buttons and both triggers simultaneously? HELL no! How about fighting games which use six buttons? Forget it, unless you can find a controller which sticks L1 and R1 on the face (which thankfully I have, for the PS2 at least).
What's worse, it seems that game designers have been REMOVING button remap features lately. Often games will give you 'Type A', 'Type B' and 'Type C' controls -- all of which map critical features to hard to reach buttons, none of which you can customize to your liking. A few years back I could at least shuffle the less useful map button somewhere distant and the critical 'aim weapon' button to a face button...
But the absolute worst offender, and my favorite anecdote, was trying to play Goldeneye on the N64 at a party. The N64 had analogs, face buttons, shoulder buttons, AND the z-trigger on the BOTTOM of the controller. I had no hope in hell of properly playing, particualrly with 'shoot gun' being mapped to the z-trigger, so I asked if they had an ordinary flat control pad.
They did. And the ordinary flat SNES style control pad... had a z-trigger on the bottom, against all design common sense. That blew my mind, man.
I don't think designers have to to take the disabled into account, but it would be nice if some third party controller manufacturers did. It'd also be nice if the game coders didn't limit how customizable their controls were in-software. Those two things alone would solve all the problems.
"I think it is safe to assume that they weren't friends, and that they most definitely aren't now."
You're forgetting something: alchohol.