Relative to "traditional" football videogames, any control scheme that allows the gamer to control more than one player at a time is going to be more complicated than what the average (aka casual) fan is accustomed to. The multitasking involved is enough of a learning curve for these types of players. Obviously, an avid gamer (such as yourself) isn't going to be as easily fazed by such a change. But PES isn't going to win back the mainstream football gamer (I'm assuming Konami cares about competing against EA's FIFA) without catering to a lower denominator though.
I do not think that Konami is going to make the serious footy sim, Konami is merely EA's bitch, EA shares the mainstream market with Konami.
Though having said that, I believe that a third party could produce the serious footy sim, which is where my interest lies, as I could not care less about appealing to the masses whom are dumb enough to be baffled by the baffling task of actually thinking when they play video games.
All I'm saying is the pointer system is more intuitive than assigning all these actions to buttons. In other words, you can switch around the buttons and assign L2 to the secondary DMF instead of the primary DMF and it wouldn't make much difference (aside from preference) as button assignments are mostly arbitrary. On the other hand, you're not going to point at defender A to manipulate the actions of defender B because that makes no sense. The act of pointing at defender A to control defender A makes intuitive sense. To a seasoned gamer, this subtle difference will be forgotten/overlooked quickly but to a more casual gamer, especially one who would be new to controlling multiple players at once? Could be the difference between loving the game and being frustrated with the game.
I disagree. In my opinion the pointer system is more obvious and more literal, but that doesn't make it more intuitive at all. I have tried the two systems, the pointer system and the preset system, and I find that the preset system is much more intuitive because the control scheme is more intuitive and responsive.
The pointer system is flawed, it forces the user into thinking about direction, and therefore forces the computer into having to pull off balancing stunts. The system that I propose is much more substantial, as well as much simpler to use.
I'm taking into consideration, the fact that I expect movement within the space to be a possibility in the next few years. Therefore, I do not want the gamer to be baffled by the amount of directions, direction of passing, direction of dribbling, etc, etc.
To date, movement within the space is impossible, which means that you only think about the direction in which you move through space, but never about the direction in which you move inside the space that you occupy.
When movement within the space is possible, the pointer system will just overload the game with directions. On the other hand, the preset script system can handle more directions, can be much more specific, and at the same time would not interfere with the direction in which you move inside the space, the direction in which you move through space, the direction of passing, etc, etc.
The pointer system is stupid, as simple as that. There's no substance to it, it's just a gimmick to further divert your mind, but it does not actually add substance to the game.
Your stipulation of limiting overlapping runs seems to be based on your preference for realism over "arcadey" gameplay so I'll chalk that up as differing tastes and not really worth arguing over. Different strokes for different folks.
Agreed. I just want a video game where, if I fail as a gamer, I can find a reason that explains why I failed in that particular situation. I do not expect Konami nor EA Sports to produce a serious footy sim, but I'm hoping that a third party is aware of the fact that there is market for a serious footy sim.
Okay, you lost me lol. Of course, a single player game is going to be determined partially by how the computer controls the opposing team. Every single player videogame ever made is based upon how the player reacts to what the computer does (all which are bound by a set of rules specific to the game).
Not necessarily. I mean, we do have CHESS VIDEO GAMES, and the computer does not determines the choices that you have; I mean, yes, you do react to whatever the computer does, but the computer does not forces you into choosing one out of three randomly dictated choices.
The problem with PES is that it is a video game where THREE different choices will materialize simultaneously so that you can choose one of them. Of course, the problem is, that you are not in control of the game, you cannot control when the AI makes a mistake; only the AI can control when the AI makes a mistake.
When you play a CHESS VIDEO GAME, you have countless of choices from which to choose from, but only ONE CHOICE will actually materialize. This means that on the defensive end, your opponent can react accordingly.
On the other hand, what would happen if you are playing a CHESS VIDEO GAME where, out of 50 possible choices, the computer picks 3 choices out of a total of 50 choices, so that you can chose 1 out of the mentioned 3 choices that the computer picked for you without your consent?
This would mean that instead of choosing ONE out of 50 choices per play, your freedom and control over the video game is reduced into just ONE out of 3 choices per play; whereas the computer, has the power and the freedom to chose ONE out of 50 choices per play.
How do you win a CHESS MATCH if your opponent literally determines what you can and cannot do?
With PES, if you want a cheeseburger, the computer might just provide you with a chicken sandwich, a hamburger, and a pizza, three different choices materialize at the same time, yet that does not mean that you get what you wanted. On the other hand, with CHESS, if you want a cheeseburger, you get a cheeseburger.
Therefore, OBVIOUSLY, all video games revolve around what the computer does, but not all video games give you complete freedom, and PES is one of those games that does not give you complete freedom.
When the Wii gamer is on offense, he/she can wait for the opposition AI to "make a mistake" with player positioning, thereby exposing gaps for him/her to exploit. Generally not recommended for obvious reasons. Space can be created by the gamer when the opposition AI is man-marking the forwards - simply drag the forward to a certain area of the pitch and the defender follows (voila, space is created and another attacking player can move into the space created to receive a pass!). The opposition AI not playing enough zone defense to counter this type of tactic is a downside that should be remedied since offense does become easier once the gamer is used to multitasking different areas of the pitch. Against human players, this is not a problem since the other guy can recognize the tactic and deal with it accordingly.
There you go again, completely disregarding the fact that I want a video game where you can find an explanation to every mistake. I do not want the AI to determine when the AI makes a mistake...... because obviously..... it goes without saying that you have fuck all control over the video game.
The bottom line is very simple. The pointer system is helplessly flawed, to begin with, because on the defensive end, the computer cannot counter it without the necessity of disregarding the ability of the gamer. That's the only reason that you need, to know why the pointer system is stupid.
I don't even know where to begin with the "gives you control over just ONE player" comment. <insert obligatory "Are you trolling?" comment here> At any given instant, you can control at least two players simultaneously (one with the analog stick, one with the pointer). Expand the timeframe past a single instant and you can conceivably control every teammate on the screen if you do drag/point commands one after another. Feel free to elaborate on why you think such a control scheme is random or even limited.
Can the Wii controls be better? Yes, definitely. Can they be simpler without losing function? I don't believe so.
Comparing a button press that represents 1/8th of your proposed control scheme to something that is half of another scheme is a bit disingenuous, no? Yeah, a single button press is simpler than infrared pointing. But you're not going to be very effective at controlling a team with just one button or even two buttons.
That's funny, I always believed that trolls disregarded your opinion, which doesn't really describe me as a poster, yet describes you just fine.
Again, and I'm hoping that this time you do understand the simple point: it does not matter if you have control over two players simultaneously, because the 1st payer (with the ball) and the 2nd player (without the ball) can do anything at any given time; which means, that on the defensive end, the computer is not intelligent nor competent enough to effectively counter what the team in possession of the ball is going to do with the ball, because the computer does not know in which direction the 2nd player will move, the computer does not know when the 2nd player will move, the computer can only create the scenario to encourage one direction at a given time, but other than that, the computer has no idea.
Whom will be the 2nd player the next time? In which direction will the 2nd player move? When will the 2nd player move? The computer has no idea, and this is why the Manual Cursor Change System is necessary, which is also why midfield battles do not exist as far as PES and FIFA go, because the precious split-seconds that are needed in order to actually have midfield battles are wasted on the redundant task of Manual Cursor Change.
Manual Cursor Change does not require any type of critical thought, it's just a button to change from one player to another player, yet the circumstances that determine the functioning of the Manual Cursor Change are completely and randomly determined by the computer; which is why, again, we have no midfield battles, because the Manual Cursor Change has nothing to do with tactics nor with off the ball movement; you're just a mouse running after the cheese.
In order to have MIDFIELD BATTLES, the gamer needs to have the freedom of choosing just ONE idea per play, so that only ONE choice becomes a reality. As a result, this means that, on the defensive end, the computer can easily contain the ball carrier by making the ONE decision that is needed. The difference between having space and not having space, would finally be sustained by a logical explanation.
On the other hand, when you have THREE different choices that have materialized simultaneously..... this means that ONE out of the mentioned three choices must be the correct one; the bottom line is, that the gamer is not creating anything, the gamer is merely reacting to whatever choices the computer provides, which is very easy because the difficult part of midfield play is creating, not reacting.
If the ball carrier cannot create, if the ball carrier can only react to whatever the computer creates on the attacking end; then what does the computer do on the defensive end?
Essentially, the computer provides you with three choices on the attacking end, the three choices materialize without your consent, you chose one of the three choices, and then the computer reacts on the defensive end. Of course, the obvious problem with such a system, is the fact that the AI determines when the AI makes a mistake, therefore completely disregarding your ability as a gamer.
How do you play a MIDFIELD BATTLE that plays itself? Simple, you cannot play it, you just ride it.
Can the Wii controls be better? Yes, definitely. Can they be simpler without losing function? I don't believe so.
Comparing a button press that represents 1/8th of your proposed control scheme to something that is half of another scheme is a bit disingenuous, no? Yeah, a single button press is simpler than infrared pointing. But you're not going to be very effective at controlling a team with just one button or even two buttons.
With the preset script system, the CF would run in accordance to the preset direction and in accordance to the preset time: from Point A (any area of the pitch) to Point B (any area of the pitch), exactly ten seconds after the 1st Sequence of the Script is manually triggered by the user.
A little clock would be seen at all times on top of the ball carrier, therefore making it easier for the ball carrier, and for the defender, to know how many seconds have passed since the 1st sequence of the Script was triggered. There are no loose ends, and the player individuality would be twice as good.
And yes, absolutely, one button is enough to dictate the movement of many players: CF moves from Point A to Point B exactly 10 seconds after the first sequence of the script is triggered by the gamer; SS moves from Point A to Point B exactly 4 seconds after the first sequence of the script is triggered, etc, etc. I do not see any flaw with it, and it can easily be aided by a new passing system to further maximize the options that you have on the pitch.
If you try to find the logic and the flaws of it, you will eventually realize that the preset script system can be perfected, unlike the pointer system.
Its function really reduces the number of necessary buttons so I'm not seeing how traditional controls are "simpler to execute."
