LOADING...
Pinned
Deleted
Locked
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)09:48:49
No.
119
<section>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl9G4voWfDQ
One more MatthewMatosis video.<span class="post-quote">
>This video presents theories about general game design concepts.</span><span class="post-quote">
>It’s not meant to prescribe a set of ideals which all games must follow.</span><span class="post-quote">
>However valuable any guideline might be, it’s always (or almost always) possible to imagine a game which is made better by ignoring such considerations.</span><span class="post-quote">
>A great game cannot necessarily be made just by applying a set of principles.</span></section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)09:50:42
No.
120
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#119">>>119</a></span>
00:00
Ghost Trick is an entirely context-sensitive game. There's only one action button: the Trick button. And it always does something different depending on which object is possessed.
I'm not about to renounce my love of this game, but I do see it an outlier, because I've come to believe that most games which stand the test of time share one thing in common:
They minimize the amount of "Context Sensitivity".
Before we go any further, it seems wise to highlight why this has become a larger issue over time, and then try to clarify what does or doesn't count as context-sensitive.
The "A" button in 'Ocarina of Time' is a perfect starting point. Normally, it causes Link to roll, but pressing it in front of an NPC will initiate dialogue instead. Elsewhere it might be used to pick up a pot, or open a chest. Put simply, the outcome of a button press depends on the context. The same is true for the "A" button in 'A Link to the Past', but the term "context-sensitive" rose to prominence with the advent of three-dimensional games, which often presented more complicated worlds than before. While the complexity of environments exploded by an order of magnitude, the complexity of controllers could only increase a comparatively small amount, by adding two sticks and a few buttons. After decades of refinement, controllers have become much more complicated, but it's still arguably not enough for 3D games.
If we imagine potential actions in a 2D environment, and then examine what players can actually accomplish with a controller, it's clear that most - if not all - types of movement can be accommodated. 'Celeste' features an 8-way dash on top of regular jumps and gimmicks which cover just about every style of locomotion. Dustforce features robust movement with complicated momentum and directional attacks. Even a game like 'Viewtiful Joe' could have fully featured, varied movement options along both axes, while still primarily focusing on combat.
An equivalent 3D control scheme would allow players to see the entire surrounding play-field while also having access to movement abilities which work along each possible combination of axes. 3D games are arguably unable to fulfill that first condition, since the perspective has to be subjective, as opposed to 2D where it can be OBJECTIVE, but regardless, you might at least argue that a good 3D platformer reaches a similar level of control as Celeste. True in some ways, but certainly not in others. Remember, it's not just that you can fall downwards; you can also dash downwards, or upwards, or diagonally. This single ability covers eight directions, which roughly encompasses every direction possible in 2D.
The 3D incarnation of Shinobi (2002) has a similar dash ability, and since it uses an analogue stick, it's not even locked to eight directions, which seems better at a glance, but doesn't give the full picture. Under normal conditions, dashes in Shinobi are always parallel to the floor, but the 3D equivalent of a circle is a sphere. For this to be Celeste's 3D counterpart, the dash would need to be capable of moving: upward; downward; left; right; forward; backward; diagonally downward to the rear left; diagonally downward to the front left; diagonally upward to the rear left; and so on. It doesn't work that way because the controller can't support it. After all, the analogue stick itself is mapped to a 2D plane. In order to represent that third axis, the stick would need another layer of analogue movement in or out as well.
First-person perspective necessitates an alternative control scheme, where we can easily envision an ability sending the character in any direction thanks to free aiming. Still, this does come with limitations, since a player will have to take their eyes off a target if they want to dash elsewhere. Regardless of the perspective or the control scheme, there always seems to be some kind of trade-off which isn't necessary in 2D. Now this doesn't mean that 3D games are automatically bad; all it means is that controlling a character becomes much more complicated in 3D space. Traversing 'Super Mario Bros' requires only two directional keys and a jump button, whereas getting even basic control over Quake Guy requires four keys, a jump button PLUS a mouse which occupies a separate hand, and even then, your movement options are technically limited by which direction you're facing. In all likelihood, there will continue to be controller improvements over time, but it's only natural that a 2D game would be easier for us to manipulate. In order to continue making complex games in 3D environments with current control schemes, it therefore seems necessary that certain actions be streamlined, or shared by a single button, hence an increased amount of context-sensitivity.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)09:55:46
No.
121
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#120">>>120</a></span>
04:06
Now we should try to define the difference between "sensitive" or "insensitive". If we take Zelda's "A" button as our example, the distinction seems intuitively simple, but the term "context-sensitive" can't be taken to mean its literal definition. The term is only useful if it can be used to distiguish "context-sensitive" actions from "context-insensitive" actions, but such "insensitive" actions may not even exist. Take 'Space Invaders'; it might be tempting to say that moving left or right is "context-insensitive", since the player can do so freely without restriction, except there IS at least one tiny constraint: if you're touching the edge of the screen, you can't go any further. In this context, the action of moving left isn't possible. Even shooting could be considered "context-sensitive" since there's a maximum rate of fire. Put another way, that means: in the context where a bullet has just been shot, the shoot button doesn't do anything.
These kinds of technicalities can be found everywhere. For example, in a platformer, you can't jump unless you're grounded, and you can't double-jump unless you're already in the air. Perfect insensitive actions may exist in some cases; the counter-example to 'Space Invaders' is 'Defender'. Since the play-field loops back on itself, it's always possible to move left or right, no matter the circumstances. Sometimes doing so will get you killed, but as long as it's still an option, we might count that as "context-insensitive", with the one catch being that you can't move BOTH left and right at the same time. Of course, that's a pedantic objection, but it illustrates my point: depending on how rigorously we want to define the term, it might even be impossible to come up with an example of a TRULY "context-insensitive" action. Without getting too bogged down in semantics, it may even be true that the very definition of an action requires some amount of relevant context to distinguish it from other actions. At the very least, there usually seems to be some kind of constraint involved, and even if we found some "unconstrained" actions, we're forced to admit they're the exception rather than the rule. Nearly all actions are technically context-sensitive in some way, making it a questionable label, and yet I feel the term taps into a real, if somewhat vague, distinction to be made between two broad kinds of outcome to an input.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)09:57:54
No.
122
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#121">>>121</a></span>
06:04
Something which blurs the line would be picking up a Shell in 'Super Mario Bros 3'. This is reliant on Mario being positioned next to a Shell while the B button is held, but you might not consider it a "context-sensitive" action. Maybe that's because the B button doesn't interact with items in any other way. It does also cause Mario to run, but its effect on an item is always identical. There's something about this level of consistency which grounds our button-press on the controller as a part of the game's rule set in a way which feels natural, like an extension of our own body.
Much of this can probably be attributed to the use of consistent visual language. 'Ico' is a cinematic platformer, so it leans toward more weighty animation, but it's important to note that doesn't necessarily mean an increased amount of context-sensitivity. Even the most responsive, fast-paced action title would appear to have lengthy animations if your experience of time was halved. Or to put that another way, the combat of something like Demon's Souls isn't context-sensitive just because it runs at roughly half the speed of something like Devil May Cry. It's also worth noting that context-sensitive animation isn't synonymous with context-sensitive action. Most 3D games have at least some context-sensitive animation, such as inverse kinematics which can be used to determine how a character's feet should rest on slopes. Similarly, a character might turn their head to look at nearby objects, but neither of these animations are mechanically relevant.
It only crosses from "animation" to "action" when it affects the underlying game state in some way. How the character's body parts behave could be considered a visual flourish. For the purposes of this video, what we really care about are how the visuals impact a player's understanding of the mechanics. In 'Ico', the boy can climb chains, which is a specific context, but notice how there are ONLY chains to climb this way. Apart from one rope, it's ALWAYS chains, which matters because the visuals of a game aren't JUST about setting the scene; they also convey information about each item's mechanical purpose. In other words, when your brain processes a game environment, it actually has two layers: a visual layer, and an implied mechanical layer. By using a single type of object, it becomes part of the game's visual language, and as a result, it seems to get translated into a mechanical object much more easily by your mind. Like Mario's Koopa Shells, you stop question how you might interact with chains, and instead add them to your understanding of the game's rule-set. This is why if you can go back in time, Mario's grab action probably would seem somewhat context-sensitive the very first time you did it, but thanks to consistent visual design, this feeling quickly dissipates.
Clarity is important, but unfortunately, it isn't everything. Kratos also exclusively climbs chains in the Norse God of War game, but unlike Ico, it's not possible to initiate this behavior by simply walking or jumping onto a chain. Instead, an arbitrary button needs to be pushed which automates the process of attaching to the chain, sometimes causing Kratos to move several steps in the correct direction without player input. For this reason, I hope we can agree that climbing in God of War is more context-sensitive than Ico, even if only a little.
In turn, Ico can be compared to Shadow of the Colossus, which uses a grassy surface as a consistent visual cue, and also enshrines climbing as a core element of gameplay, allowing it to feel even less context-sensitive again. Finally, we can compare this to Breath of the Wild's "climb anywhere" approach, which seems even LESS sensitive than Shadow of the Colossus. This looks like a spectrum - ranging from more context-sensitive to less context-sensitive, rather than a hard distinction.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)09:59:49
No.
123
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#122">>>122</a></span>
09:23
Although I spent an hour reviewing Breath of the Wild in a separate video, I didn't give this aspect of its design the spotlight it deserved. Of course, the "A" button pulls multiple duties as an inspector, collector, and interactor [sic], but outside of that, it's a remarkable example of “context-INsensitivity”, considering the plethora of interactions which are made possible through its underlying systems. Fishing mini-games had been a long-time inclusion for the series, which was conspicuously absent from this installment; especially strange when considering the survivalist premise. However, if you imagine the developers were aiming to minimize the amount of context-sensitivity, then it makes perfect sense. In previous entries of the series, some of the mini-games used custom control schemes, but in Breath of the Wild, every single one uses core gameplay mechanics instead. Fishing isn't a mini-game, but it's something you can kind of do just by using the tools already provided. In a game that might take 100 hours to complete, there isn't a single moment where it snaps into a different mode of play. There are some occasional restrictions on what Link can do, but never substantial changes or additions. Hard to imagine that's a coincidence.
While I can't speak to anyone else's experience, one reason I found this game so enchanting was a difficult-to-articulate quality of the gameplay which made it somehow reminiscent of 2D games. Knowing that the prototype itself was made in 2D, it seems worthy of scrutiny. This talk doesn't call attention to the idea of "context-sensitivity", and they may not have even thought about it in those terms, but just look how the 2D version gets translated into 3D. When you want to light a stick on fire in the prototype, there's no need for a context-sensitive action; you just pop the stick into the fire by pressing the attack button. Breath of the Wild works the exact same way. On a surface level, this prototype just seems like a fun way to determine which interactions will be possible, so the developers know what systems the full game will require, but it's actually much more than that. They didn't simply use this prototype to generate or refine ideas; it also determined EXACTLY how the player would interact with each mechanic. If you can cut down a tree just by swinging your sword in 2D, then the 3D version should work the same way. Prior 3D Zeldas always required a context-sensitive prompt for pushing objects, but the 2D prototype works differently, so Breath of the Wild does as well.
I now believe that the "2D feeling" I couldn't put into words actually stems from a lack of context-sensitivity. A large part of this game's value is attributable to the way it blends this "insensitivity" with a robust set of simulations and the kind of "pre-made open world" only possible on a major publisher budget.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)10:01:57
No.
124
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#123">>>123</a></span>
11:49
Zelda isn't the first series to undergo this shift toward "context-insensitivity". Although Resident Evil 4 is such a prominent example of quick-time events - which are about as context-sensitive as you can get, outside of those, it does a phenomenal job of working its mechanics into the actions Leon can innately perform. In this game, guns aren't just weapons; they're versatile tools which can unlock doors, deflect projectiles, disarm traps, rescue collectibles, and even do some fishing. There's a few places where pushing objects around is crucial, but outside of those moments, the only major context-sensitive element during combat are these attack prompts. When attempting to conserve ammo, these special attacks take on a larger importance. Ganados need to be in a vulnerable state for these actions to become available, but if there was some way of signaling that to the player, then we could easily ditch the prompt and have a dedicate "roundhouse kick" button instead. Shinji Mikami's very next game - 'God Hand' - did just that. Gene can freely kick to his heart's content, but an enemy needs to be in a vulnerable recovery animation for the full hit reaction to take effect. Guard-breaking an opponent triggers an audio-visual cue indicating the opportunity. If Resident Evil 4 has a similar system, then players would have to time and space their kicks carefully, rather than allowing the game to automate that process.
This example also demonstrates where context-sensitivity is felt. Ganados have different hit reactions depending on their animation state and place of impact. It seems impossible to formulate any way of explaining this which doesn't sound like context-sensitivity. In the context where a Ganado is running, a shot to the leg will trip them. Intuitively, this doesn't FEEL context-sensitive in the slightest though, which is obvious if we think about this in terms of simpler games. The difference between hitting or missing a Space Invader depends on the enemy's context, but likewise, it doesn't FEEL context-sensitive. We mostly feel context-sensitivity through the player character, not elsewhere.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)10:05:02
No.
125
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#124">>>124</a></span>
13:39
Looking at all these examples, they seem to outline context-sensitivity as a process of automation, or interpretation. It arises when an invisible layer inserts itself between the player's input and the output on screen. There's at least two major reasons why this can have negative consequences.
Firstly, it can remove the possibility of failure, which is illustrated by those chains from earlier.
Another reason why these feel more "context-sensitive" than Ico is because you can't fall off them. At least in Ico, it IS possible to miss a jump onto, or off, of a chain. The only way to "botch" a highly context-sensitive action is to accidentally perform it when you didn't mean to. Once an automated action starts, it can by definition never be a failure, because the player has no control over that intermediate stage.
This might explain why context-sensitive actions can be appealing to designers, since accounting for all the possible behaviors of a user is one of the hardest tasks to accomplish in any piece of software, let alone games. By automating certain processes, the potential for player interference is reduced, or even eliminated, which accordingly reduces some development burden. In theory, this allows for an increased focus on other aspects of the game, but of course that benefit may not always materialize.
Whatever the reason for WHY context-sensitive elements appear, their existence gives rise to a second problem, which is more pervasive, more subtle, and more important:
The existence of context-sensitive actions leads to uncertainty about the outcome of an input.
Disabling the "balance" prompts in Death Stranding also happens to disable all button prompts which indicate when Sam can use an item, vehicle, or terminal. Playing it this way illuminates a problem: if you're in a precarious position and want to mount a ladder, you have no way of knowing FOR SURE whether pressing the action button will snap you to the ladder, or punch the air. Context can be "fuzzy". I might think I'm sufficiently close to the ladder and pointing the right way, but the algorithm might see it different for a multitude of reasons. To be fair, these kinds of scenarios have become more common, but they're far from new. If you need to crouch near a staircase in Castlevania, you might find yourself walking down it instead, and thus taking a fireball to the face. These problems are both the result of "fuzzy context".</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)10:08:06
No.
126
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#125">>>125</a></span>
15:46
Nowadays, the most common way I think this uncertainty presents itself is with lock-on or aim-assist.
Shinobi (2002) suffers from this problem immensely at times. Core gameplay revolves around building up power by killing weaker enemies, then using that power to perform one-hit kills on larger opponents. This is clearly established as the optimal way to play, with the scoring system incentivizing players to kill everything in the fewest possible strikes, but despite it being such a crucial component, the lock-on system fails to take it into account. Even during boss fights, it will run its usual prioritization algorithm which seems to favor enemies that are on-screen than enemies which are closest. This can sometimes results in frustrating moments where you hope to lock on to one target, but get a different one instead. Shinobi (2002) is such a fast-paced game that saying it requires split-second decisions could be misleading; to be precise, it actually rewards actions which are performed faster than human reaction times.
That might seem confusing or difficult to believe, but many games work the same way. Executing a juggle in Devil May Cry requires players to make assumptions about the near-future state of enemies in order to press buttons fast enough to keep them airborne. Shinobi (2002) is similar, except that enemies often die in one hit, which means that playing Shinobi (2002) competently requires a player to jump between different targets frequently. As such, players need to trust that the lock-on will do what they want, WHILE they input their next move, BEFORE they can visually confirm the result of the pressing the lock-on button. Usually this works, but sometimes it doesn't.
This is especially detrimental to Shinobi (2002) since it's so fast-paced and so punishing, but playing any game at a high level will require players to trust EVERY tool in their arsenal. In this sense, Shinobi (2002) merely shines a spotlight on a problem which has been widespread ever since Ocarina of Time popularized "Z-targeting".
Shinobi (2002) would be greatly improved by prioritizing weak opponents above all else, which is what players will obviously want to do, but that wouldn't remove the game's reliance on lock-on to accomplish tasks which could be performed directly in 2D. If you're playing a twin-stick shooter, the task of circle-strafing an opponent is done entirely through player input, whereas for Demon's Souls, there's no way to point a shield one direction while moving another direction, without using lock-on.
Something similar is true for Shinobi (2002), where the only way to add a vertical component to the dash is to lock-on. Depending on the game, some actions are simply impossible without utilizing this feature. This increases context-sensitivity, because when a player presses the lock-on button, an algorithm MUST decide which target to face, which means - for a split-second - the game is essentially playing itself. At their worst, these kinds of context-sensitive behaviors force you to react to an action you never intended your character to make. Those malfunctions cause the invisible layer to shimmer into view, generating a kind of frustration which would be impossible to experience in a less context-sensitive game.
For example, Spectre Knight's signature move is a context-sensitive slice, which automatically overrides the attack button when a viable target is close. As a result, attempting to do a neutral attack in the air might cause an accidental slice instead, and if two targets are next to each other, there's always a risk of pressing the button JUST as the highlighted target changes, causing Spectre to move in an unpredictable manner.
This is a type of lock-on which doesn't require a dedicated button - a "soft-lock", which is more commonly found in 3D games, probably because 3D camera systems tend to make precise positioning more difficult.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)10:37:26
No.
127
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#126">>>126</a></span>
19:00
<div class="post-image-holder"><span class="post-image-type">PNG</span><img alt="dmc1_guess_the_autoaim_target.png" class="post-image" data-image-hash="1b9a5e7a4a21590fd020306edfa841bb3c5dbed339c86ab7c0c1a32e9a7da906" data-media-id="531" data-media-supertype="IMAGE" data-media-type="image/png" data-url-src-full="https://media.jovian-embers.net/up_906/1b9a5e7a4a21590fd020306edfa841bb3c5dbed339c86ab7c0c1a32e9a7da906.png" url-src-thumb="https://media.jovian-embers.net/up_906/t_1b9a5e7a4a21590fd020306edfa841bb3c5dbed339c86ab7c0c1a32e9a7da906.png" /></div>
Consider this moment from Devil May Cry. I know the next time I press the attack button, I'll soft-lock to a new target. The one I'd prefer to hit is to my right [figure A], so I'm holding the analog stick as far right as I can.
This foreground enemy [figure B] is a bit closer though, and for all I know, the algorithm will prioritize proximity over the relatively minor difference between a STRAIGHT-right input and a LOWER-right input on the analog stick.
The intuitive probability I estimate for this bad outcome is 1%. A single percent might sound small... but it's not.
To understand why, it's important to recognize that we're talking about CONTROLS. The word "controls" pops up in discussions and in menus so often that it's easy to become numb to its true meaning: The thing you control most often in life... is your own body.
Assuming you're in a healthy condition, if I ask you to extend your index finger, what probability would you assign to this event? My answer is 100%.
Technically, I know all manner of things could go wrong in the interim, but barring some freakish unavoidable twist of fate, the chance of me extending my finger at will really is 100%. It's THAT reliable. It's SO reliable, we use our hands to play incredibly complex games, and sometimes forget we HAVE hands while doing that. This is what games are competing with, because we all know how easy it can be to control something, so games are at their best when their controls reach 100% certainty.
Now you might say control mishaps occur all the time. The analog stick, or a mouse, have a level of precision which is nigh impossible for a human to fully master. Likewise, even digital actions such as a simple jump can become incredibly difficult when attempting to execute a frame-perfect trick. We don't just have to think about extending our fingers, but also exactly WHEN, or by precisely HOW MUCH. In most cases, you'll probably find that control mistakes happen due to momentary indecision, which can't be solved by any control scheme, or alternatively it might be the result of tight timing, which again is something that will never go away, since players will ALWAYS try to push games to their limit. Those situations drop our ability to execute certain tricks below 100%, but at the very least, we can say that we don't want to stack this imperfection on top of ANOTHER imperfection.
This is where Resident Evil 4 and God Hand swap places, because Resident Evil 4 manages to avoid a soft-lock, but God Hand doesn't. Play them back-to-back and you'll probably find some relief knowing that Leon will aim the gun PRECISELY where you direct him, whereas Gene will sometimes snap from one target to another, of his own volition.
Going back to my example from Devil May Cry, I actually soft-locked to the marionette BEHIND me, which goes to show just how unpredictable these systems can be at times.
To be fair, this is a particularly bad outcome, which would probably never happen in Devil May Cry 5, but that improvement has nothing to do with ME. It's only less likely nowadays because the programmers have added more checks and balances. Lock-on algorithms ARE deterministic, but in the moment, it's always fuzzy. Since the outcome must be dynamic, there will always be edge cases; there will always be some scenario where the determining factor crosses from 0.99999 to 1, which is the kind of analog change that's indistinguishable for a human. Depending on the game, even a screenshot, combined with the precise knowledge of the controller inputs AND the full implementation details of the lock-on algorithm, might not be enough to determine which character will be chosen, since each character COULD be within a certain range of sub-pixel positions.
As shown by the Spectre Knight example, it's also not enough to just highlight which target will be chosen, because the delay between the current frame and the input gives time for the outcome to change. In summary, there's a temporal and spatial resolution gap between the player and the computer. These gaps can be reduced by higher frame rates and more pixels, but will NEVER disappear unless the player and computer essentially merge. Given the improved reliability of lock-on systems in the short time-span between the 1st Devil May Cry and the 5th, it's safe to assume that further improvements will be made.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:02:54
No.
128
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#127">>>127</a></span>
22:52
There's many approaches which could be used to improve the reliability of such a system, but for the sake of this thought experiment, let's imagine two variations.
The first technique uses a machine-learning approach, where play testers are instructed to flag the lock-on system any time it returns an undesired result. Using that feedback as training data, it arrives at an algorithm which works for players of all skill levels and attitudes. When the lock-on button is pressed, the algorithm is run, and the result is NEVER undesirable.
The second technique uses additional hardware - an eye-tracker which is precise enough to match the frame-rate and resolution of the game. This presents to the user as a small cursor which is always in the center of their vision. When the lock-on button is pressed, the selected target is whichever one overlaps with the cursor. If no target overlaps, no target is chosen.
Even though the first technique never fails, it requires interpretation of player input, and therefore is context-sensitive. The second technique has a possibility of failure, thanks to the temporal resolution gap, but it DOESN'T require interpretation, and therefore isn't context-sensitive. Even if you try to argue that the eye-tracker IS somehow a form of interpretation, it's a level of interpretation which the player themselves can understand and account for, no different to the buttons on a controller. The possibility of misinterpretation isn't necessary to make something context-sensitive; even if a lock-on system never failed, some players may still find it dissatisfying as long as they don't have EXCLUSIVE control over their avatar.
By now, I hope to have demonstrated my conception of "context-sensitivity", but in case you think this is a petty issue, I'd like to highlight some evidence to the contrary.
If you view trends over the past few decades in light of everything I've said so far, you'll notice that shooters began to really take over with the rise of 3D. That's not to say Shmups weren't popular, but they existed in a more comfortable equilibrium alongside action games and platformers.
Once games moved into 3D, shooters really began to dominate, to the point where shooting itself spread to more genres than ever before. At this point, it might even be fair to say that "shooting" is the DEFAULT method of interaction for 3D games. Several major explanations for this phenomenon have already been put forth in this video.
To recap: context-sensitivity is felt through the player character; a cross-hair removes fuzziness from the targeting process; and 3D camera systems tend to make precise positioning more difficult.
That last point seems especially relevant to shooters, since controlling the camera IS the gameplay. This removes the need to juggle attention between actively playing and merely framing, giving shooters a HUGE advantage over other genres. Pointing the camera to fire projectiles which appear in fixed locations is a VERY low context-sensitivity action, and the entire industry seems to have gravitated towards it.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:06:25
No.
129
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#128">>>128</a></span>
I'll point out that when talking about the "second technique" in this hypothetical, he's showing footage of Metroid Prime 3, which uses the Wii-mote's infrared pointer for precise aiming within the general area you're facing, which is definitely close to the "eye-tracker" being talked about.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:07:56
No.
130
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#128">>>128</a></span>
25:36
Conversely, platformers were hit particularly hard by this transition because for them, cameras introduce even more sensitivity. This stage in Crash Bandicoot 4 is a straight line, so you could be forgiven for thinking that the D-pad would suffice. In reality, pressing up on the D-Pad will cause Crash to go askew. Unfortunately, this strange outcome isn't unique to this stage, or even this game. It's actually happening all the time; the D-Pad just makes it more obvious.
If you position yourself so you're directly aligned with a crate, then try to jump on it, the camera will track Crash as he moves. Unless it stays perpendicular to the direction of movement, this means that the necessary input to land on the crate is constantly changing.
Unlike a 2D game, there is no way to move left or right in absolute terms; only relative to the camera. And since the camera can shift of its own volition, this causes every input to become an exercise in co-op with the computer. If you've played a significant number of 3D games with dynamic camera systems, then you've already cultivated this skill of perpetual adjustment. Even if you just want to walk in a straight line, you're constantly shifting the left stick ever so slightly to account for the actions of your virtual partner who controls the camera. It's a testament to the human mind that so many of us can become so good at this that it becomes an unconscious exercise, but even so, it's innately more strenuous and imprecise than the absolute direction offered by 2D games. This might help explain the decline of platformers.
Developers attempted to adapt 3D platformers in various ways, perhaps best illustrated by the Super Mario series, which has continually evolved its camera system.
Bowser's Fury opts for minimal intervention, which is exactly what makes it so remarkable. It's passive to the point where neglecting the right stick will often leave the camera in a terrible position. The developers were certainly aware of this, because the very first tutorial is about LOOKING, rather than moving.
It shares this in common with Odyssey, where the camera adjusted itself more frequently, but was still relatively passive, and as a result, it can sometimes fail in spectacular fashion if the right stick remains unused. Players are now expected to control the camera themselves, which seems like the kind of added complexity Nintendo would typically avoid for the beginner-friendly Mario series.
By contrast, 3D World took the approach of building a game around the camera, rather than vice versa. These two systems could be considered opposites in many ways, but they share one thing in common: both allow skilled players to act with precision more easily than many prior entries in the series, since you're no longer forced to play co-op with Lakitu.
Think about it this way: the cost for reduced camera sensitivity in the Mario series was the addition of an entire analog stick to the control scheme, and yet, Nintendo saw this as the more desirable outcome.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:09:09
No.
131
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#130">>>130</a></span>
28:17
It would be unwise to dwell on an appeal to the authority of Nintendo, or the popularity of Monster Hunter, but it's worth noting that Capcom's current best selling title ever is an action game without any type of soft-lock or move-assist, which at least proves that such elements AREN'T a prerequisite for a commercial success. Thanks to their absence, Hunts are almost entirely about positioning and aiming attacks, where the bulk of context-sensitivity comes from each weapon's attack strings. Such strings cause the same button to execute a different action depending on the player's state, which clearly meets even a loose definition of context-sensitivity. Still, similar to Mario's turtle shells or Ico's chains, adherence to a simple set of rules allows players to acclimate to this context-sensitivity more quickly.
Bayonetta features an intuitive system where attacks are mapped to hands or feet, and accompanied by an impressive variety of consistent audio-visual cues which inform players about what will happen when the next button is pressed. Monster Hunter's strings are not nearly as elegant, which makes it more difficult to adapt when switching weapons. Despite that, Monster Hunter is ultimately LESS context-sensitive, because both games have attack strings, but only Bayonetta has a soft-lock.
It really shouldn't be surprising that players would enjoy aiming their attacks with precision, and thus taking ALL the credit for landing a juicy combo on a weak point. Any kind of accomplishment can only fully belong to the player if they're the one with EXCLUSIVE control over their avatar. The more the burden of control is shared, the less responsible the player is for the outcome. Monster Hunter's influence might also explain why From Software's recent titles remain similarly low on context-sensitivity. While there are issues with lock-on outlined earlier, at least there's no interference with your general movement or attack direction. Both of these examples share other commonalities, such as progression systems and multiplayer, but it seems they found success at least partially because of what they LACK.
They don't have soft-locks, move-assist, quick-time events, or any other intrusive context-sensitive elements. The absence of those elements might be of paramount importance for many people.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:11:54
No.
132
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#131">>>131</a></span>
30:14
The rise of shooting, the fall of platformers, the direction of Super Mario, and the popularity of Monster Hunter are all indicators pointing AWAY from context-sensitivity. I won't argue that the matter is settled by these examples, as some counter-examples can be found, but I'd like to address at least one objection: licensed games. These tend to be quite popular, and also have higher levels of context-sensitivity. Maybe because developers struggle to implement a preconceived set of actions within the limitations of a modern controller. It's possible that many players enjoy these games simply for their gameplay, but it also can't be ignored that a licensed game exists because the license itself is popular enough to be appealing. For that reason, they shouldn't be used as evidence one way or another, in relation to context-sensitivity.
Licensed or not, excuses only go so far. The amount of context-sensitive grappling hooks in recent titles has become comical, and Spider-Man one-ups them all by using webs to open doors as well. This means you can't even open doors while standing next to them, because it's done via a context-sensitive prompt. Sometimes you have to walk further away from a door before this prompt will appear, which means they now function in an exact opposite way to their real-world counterparts.
That's a particularly absurd example, but these problems are not usually so overt. In fact, they can seem small, and specific to individual titles. Sometimes you move to the wrong grappling point; sometimes you pick up an item by mistake; sometimes you snap to the wrong enemy. Players can't express a preference for reduced context-sensitivity unless they know what to ask for, but context-sensitivity tends to hide in plain sight. Individually they seem like minor unrelated annoyances, but they actually belong under the same umbrella.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:14:39
No.
133
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#132">>>132</a></span>
31:55
After everything discussed so far, it would be tempting to say that context-sensitivity is undesirable, but there's at least one complication:
If a designer were to prioritize the reduction of context-sensitivity above all else, it could lead to some strange places. For example, a designer attempting to add a wall jump might decide to use a dedicated "wall jump" button for that task so as to eliminate any overlap with the regular jump button. Applying that principle to every action would get restrictive and unwieldy pretty quickly. To some extent, it seems desirable for inputs to have multiple functions, since it can streamline the process of control, which SHOULD allow designers to add more functionality by freeing up the hypothetical wall-jump button for something more useful.
It's a difficult quandary, but the designers of Super Metroid already threaded this particular needle. A Super Metroid wall-jump requires Samus to be next to a wall, while she's turning around.
As a player, this means a quick flick in the opposite direction before pressing the jump button, which can be tricky to master. At a glance, it seems convoluted, but it serves a purpose, because it dramatically decrease the likelihood of an ACCIDENTAL wall-jump. In the intervening years, many games have implemented wall-jumps, but this might be the only one where I've never wall-jumped by mistake.
That's because most games simply check whether the character is close enough to the wall, without considering that a player might want the more neutral trajectory offered by a double-jump instead. Again, this happens because of fuzzy context. I might want to get close to a wall, but not SO close that I trigger a wall-jump by mistake. It's hard to know that boundary for sure, especially since many games are deceptive about what counts as touching the wall. Super Metroid solves this problem by adding an additional requirement to the wall jump, which removes that last bit of fuzziness from the context. This even allows players to be touching a wall and space-jump up it instead without any risk of accidentally triggering a wall-jump. Granted it might not look like much on video, but there's peace of mind here. I have no doubt whatsoever that Samus will STAY flush with the wall no matter how many times I press the jump button.
That certainty is precious. That certainty is CONTROL.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:15:56
No.
134
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#133">>>133</a></span>
33:54
Not everyone would like Ghost Trick, but for those who do, being unable to predict the outcome of the Trick button can be enjoyable in its own way. Some of the interactions in this game are surprising, and made all the more delightful BECAUSE of that surprise. Even so, it's still an outlier, because most of the time, inputs are the way players EXPRESS their desires to the game.
With that in mind, designers should be aware that core gameplay tends to be lower in context-sensitivity, and as such, the existence of highly context-sensitive actions might be a sign of superfluous or poorly integrated mechanics. At the very least, it's important to remember that the idealized interactions of an imaginary player don't always translate to reality; doubly so when that player is forced to co-operate with a system they can never fully understand.
Likewise, players should be aware that context-sensitivity isn't just when a button prompt appears on screen; if you find it frustrating when the computer seems to misunderstand inputs, or even just dissatisfying to know that the player character is not exclusively within your control, then the underlying problem might be context-sensitivity.
As for my opinion, I believe that games can get away with a certain amount of concessions. I really don't think the "A" button has been much of a problem for the Zelda series, largely because there's such little overlap in what it does. It's uncommon to have a chest, pot, and NPC all right next to each other, and even then, an undesirable outcome isn't going to be catastrophic the way it might be for Shinobi (2002). A generic interact button ISN'T necessarily a grievous flaw, but it IS the first step down a path that can lead to some aggravating places.
Many of the minor annoyances in modern games are all this same class of problem.
Unfortunately, since context-sensitivity covers such a vast range of issues, there's no "silver bullet" solution, but thinking every challenge can be solved the same way... is half the problem in the first place.</section>
- Posts: 187
- Threads: 28
- Joined: 2025 Jun
2025-12-09(Tue)11:18:42
No.
135
<section><span class="post-quote"><a class="post-backlink" href="#133">>>133</a></span>
I have played Downwell, and I can confirm that its wall jump works pretty much the same as Super Metroid's as described here.
Downwell's wall-jump requires:
- Running along the ground enough so that when you jump, Welltaro does a somersault in the air
- Getting against a wall while in this "somersault jump" state.
- Moving away from the wall; for a small moment, you'll see Welltaro posing like his feet are planted on the wall.
- If you jump at that very moment, you do a wall jump. Otherwise, Welltaro will fall downwards like normal.</section>