With the abundance of touchscreen-enabled mobile devices in the market, touchscreen gaming is becoming increasingly widespread among all age groups. The immense popularity does not indicate that mobile gaming is flawless – far from it. Hardcore gamers and people who are used to more conventional haptic input and physical interfaces seem to struggle when tackling lackluster touchscreen controls.
Lack of the haptic feedback
Perhaps one of the biggest gripes of touchscreen gaming, is lack of physical or haptic feedback from the on-screen buttons. Some developers tried to rectify the issue by incorporating faint vibration effects, in order to simulate the haptic feedback physical buttons provide. Unfortunately, while the effort is commendable, it is hardly a substitute for physical buttons found on conventional gamepads. A gamer who has tried Street Fighter IV both on a console and on a touchscreen-only device could testify to such statement.
Since virtual buttons provide no tangible feeling of haptic response – other than a sheet of glass or plastic shielding them – it is becomes very hard to determine which button player’s finger is resting on. Due to this, fast paced games, with plethora of on-screen buttons can become extremely frustrating to play, since the player either has to be very careful with his finger placement, or peek over his fingers from time to time, putting him in a possible gameplay disadvantage. Such issue is virtually non-existent in gamepads, providing the player has familiarized himself with its button layout, since the location of physical buttons can felt easily with fingers and thumbs.
There are possible ways this issue could be improved. One of the most obvious design decisions is to ensure that the buttons are big enough leaving little room for finger creep. Also, incorporating vibration will enhance the feedback provided by the virtual buttons. While they will not provide the physical travel conventional buttons have, it will greatly improve usability and responsiveness.
Obstructed view
While many developers are tempted to make use of the screen estate offered by smartphones and tablets, such decision leads to somewhat less practical outcome for the player when it comes down to actually controlling the game. Hands will undoubtedly obscure the screen, regardless its size. With a careless button placement, such issue might render the game downright unplayable.
Perhaps the easiest fix for this problem would be more careful button placement, and ideally, button isolation into a separate area. By segregating controls from the main game screen, player’s hands would no longer obstruct the view, in turn making the experience more enjoyable.
Borrowing a page from virtual keyboards, which are found on all touchscreen devices, should also work fine in this context, since they solve obstructed view problem rather well by displaying a blip over a finger (or a thumb) which is currently pressing on the key. This usability aspect could be easily implemented into many games, with very little effort but to a great effect when it comes to usability and user comfort.
Lack of thumbstick travel
Many of us, who are familiar with console gamepads, know how precise and invaluable analog thumbsticks are. They give us full control over our character’s speed and allow us to aim precisely. Considering such advantages they provide, it may sound like a good idea to implement them on touchscreen devices too, right?
Unfortunately, the results are hardly, if ever, satisfying. Having tried several well-known mobile games like N.O.V.A. and Modern Combat, both of which rely on virtual thumbsticks to control the camera and the character, I could safely conclude that using such method of control is frustrating at best.
Perhaps the main culprit of this issue is poor design implementation. Some game designers evidently fail to realize that virtual thumbsticks, as opposed to physical ones, have no physical travel, yet they still strive to implement some sort of simulated travel, which is does more harm than good.
While it may sound counter-productive, the best way to solve virtual thumbstick problem is to eliminate them altogether. Instead, provide players with buttons with immediate response, free of any arbitrary travel which attempts to mimic that of physical thumbsticks. However, if the gameplay requires some sort of gradual adjustment achieved with a thumbstick, perhaps implementing swipe gestures across the screen would be a better choice. The reason behind is, that virtual thumbsticks also confine the movement of the thumb, and without any haptic feedback, it is hard to determine its position while playing. Gradual swiping gestures should eliminate such problem at least to some degree.
Lack of customizability
Tailoring game controls to appeal to every player can be very tough. Thus, every game should include an option allowing the player to customize the controls to his liking. While it sounds like a simple fix, it goes unnoticed too many times, which is unfortunate.
In an ideal scenario, players should be allowed to change every aspect of game controls, such as button mapping and control sensitivity. More complex games should allow players to rearrange on-screen controls to their liking, in turn making the game feel more enjoyable.
Albeit being hardly suited for touchscreen devices, GTA 3 released in 2011 on iOS devices, provided players with a vast array of options allowing them to customize the game controls specifically to their liking. It allowed full button remaps, sensitivity adjustment, customizable on-screen button placement, and various gameplay tweaks, ostensibly making touchscreen controls more tolerable. Praiseworthy effort displayed by Rockstar Games, albeit the fact that the game was still rather difficult to play on a touchscreen-only device.
Poor use of the motion sensor
You will be hard-pressed to find a tablet or a smartphone, which does not come with some sort of motion sensing technology, built it – be it an accelerometer or a gyroscope (latter being more precise in many cases). It was just a matter of time until mobile games started to implement this technology in various gameplay scenarios. Even though tilt controls can be enjoyable and fun, there are many ways they can impede the gameplay experience.
Probably the most common implementation of tilt controls can be seen in racing titles, such as Real Racing for iOS devices. The reason why racing titles are a popular choice for tilt control implementation is rather obvious – tilting the device gives the player a superficial feeling of steering a racing wheel. Although such implementation seems logical given the context of the game, tilt controls can hardly provide the player with a realistic feedback a real steering wheel can provide. The reason behind for this is again very simple: while a real steering wheel has a pivot it can rotate upon, tilting the tablet or a smartphone provides user with no physical feedback. In turn, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine where the center point is, especially in fast-paced racing titles.
It’s not all that bad, however. Motion sensing controls can be used effectively in slower paced games, where the player is required to perform slow and smooth movements. Tilt controls are hardly ever enjoyable in fast paced titles, since wildly wafting the device around makes it very difficult to focus on the screen. Not to mention that it looks silly and it can be tiring, too.
Poor ergonomics
Let us face it – while interacting with a touchscreen can be very enjoyable, contemporary phones and tablets are becoming less and less ergonomic. While complaints about ergonomics used to be directed mostly towards the tablets, smartphones seem to be violating rules of ergonomics more frequently than before – 5-inch smartphone screens are becoming a new commodity, with 6 inch devices slowly gaining traction as well. Even though modern touchscreen displays are beautiful to look at, an old saying “too much of a good thing” really speaks volumes here, considering the contemporary mobile display trends.
Couple of years ago, Nokia Research conducted a study in order to determine the perfect screen sizes for smartphones and tablets. After extensive testing and research, it was concluded that a 3.9-inch screen size proved to be a sweet spot for smartphones, while 8.9 inch was perfect for tablets. Couple of years ago, Nokia Research conducted a study in order to determine the perfect screen sizes for smartphones and tablets. After extensive testing and research, it was concluded that a 3.9-inch screen size proved to be a sweet spot for smartphones, while 8.9 inch was perfect for tablets. Surprisingly, phone manufacturers seem to ignore such data, as they continue to incrementally increase smartphone screen sizes.
But what does it have to do with gaming? Unfortunately, such fluctuation in screen and device sizes makes it difficult to create responsive UI elements and control interfaces. Larger and heavier devices exert more fatigue on the player, meaning that their game sessions may have to be shorter and their fatigue may be undeservedly blamed on the game itself, while poor device ergonomics is the main culprit.
Final word
In the end of the day, it is up to developers to come up with control schemes, which translate well to touchscreen-only devices. Mobile gaming is still a relatively new thing and it may be so, that many developers are stuck in the mechanical control mindset, which leads to unintuitive user interfaces and controls. Perhaps the only suggestion that could be made is to be creative, be daring and stop implementing ideas, which are best suited for physical medium.
