The Benefit of Awkward Controls
I like awkward controls. I love that feeling of building familiarity with an arcane or obtuse control scheme, that almost feels like learning a new language, or an instrument. I like the challenge that comes from something being hard, not just because it’s punishing or complicated but because the interaction requires careful, almost hesitant button presses. I don’t like bad controls. If something is unreliable, nonsensical, or doesn’t feel right that’s just bad. But awkwardness, there’s value in that.
Metal Gear is awkward. The difference between strangling someone and throwing them over your shoulder is subtle, and consequently annoying to get wrong, but getting used to that nuance is part of its charm. I loved the awkwardness of the original Tomb Raider, though the controls are bad by today’s standards. However, while the clunky grid structure and occasionally stupid camera need not return, I would have loved to see the newest Tomb Raider demand the same thoughtful approach to its platforming as the original. Instead, you get a sticky, automatic system which magnetises you to ledges even if you jumped wrong. It sucks all the tension out of those explosive platforming sequences.
That’s what awkward controls create: tension. There’s a reason Silent Hill and Resident Evil are unwieldy. It makes it tense. Even Resident 4, the one people point to as both the series pinnacle and the one where they started becoming action games, is still incredibly awkward to control. The camera in Resident Evil 4 is claustrophobic, limiting your field of view. You can’t strafe, you can’t move and shoot. You don’t have a reticule, only a laser dot, which swirls around where you point it; creating moments of panic as a Ganado stumbles towards you and you don’t even know where you’re aiming. Stealth and survival horror benefit from this extra layer of tension, Tomb Raider’s platforming likewise.
The difficulty awkward controls give is different to other forms. Making things more difficult usually involves scaling things up. More enemies with more hit points, more stringent time limits, more complexity, extending how long the player is required to be perfect, etc. This is fine, usually, but it is a limitation nonetheless. However, awkwardness can create challenge while still keeping things at a small scale. For example, bullet hell games and twin stick shooters are generally easy to control so ramp up difficulty by adding more and more stuff to dodge. However, Velocity with its teleport mechanics and The Binding of Isaac with its limited 4 way shot and use of momentum both subvert what their genres usually demand of the player. They are both about grappling with and learning specialised mechanics, rather than being forced to deal with loads of stuff on screen. It’s a refreshing change.
Not only can awkward controls give particular games a unique feel and challenge, but can make the fiction feel more consistent. In Metal Gear, taking down one guard is challenging and can easily go wrong. If it wasn’t it would undermine the threat. Further, because the mechanics don’t require that many guards for a challenge you rarely encounter huge numbers of enemies, as is common in a lot of video games. Guards in Metal Gear are a challenge, not because they’re super human, but because there are control barriers to stop them being flippantly dispatched. Compare this with the newest Splinter Cells which quickly falls into ridiculousness as your movement and abilities in the world make you and the guards seem like different species. It’s initially satisfying to tap X when you get the prompt and watch Sam grab a guy from round the corner and knock him out within seconds, but it’s a hollow empowerment that ultimately makes the world feel inconsistent.
Awkwardness can be a problematic area to approach because it overlaps with depth of control. Every permutation exists. Obviously, there are games with deep controls that aren’t awkward, like Mario. There are awkward to control games that don’t really have deep controls, like Silent Hill. Games that get their awkwardness from being deep, like Bayonetta. And games that are deep and awkward but separately, like Spelunky, or Catherine. And overlaps in between. Why this is important is that depth of control is something that is valued, while awkwardness is something that is not.
The obvious problem with awkwardness is that it can be frustrating. Knowing what you want to do, but being unable to do it because the controls are obtuse or difficult is something some people will never grow accustomed to. This has lead to awkwardness being seen as something to be avoided. However, it is still present in modern games, though is often referred to as part of a game’s depth. It limits and can confuse discourse around video games if awkwardness in some games is valued but is being referred to or thought of as ‘deep controls.’ It’s a misunderstanding of what makes something good. Awkwardness, even at the risk of frustration can be good. There are games that are pleasurable to play because they are awkward, in addition to being deep. That should be celebrated and encouraged.
The trend to make controls simple and intuitive is on the whole a good thing, but, whether by accident or design, many older games were fun because of their awkwardness. Modern video games are now able to remove a lot of the control limitations, but that doesn’t mean they always should. Tension, challenge and character representation are all key outcomes of adding elements of awkwardness into a control scheme. When appropriate, it is a valuable tool, and one that I’d like to see in more of.
