Dzz
stmia r0!, {r2-r9}
It would be sort of nice to have standards but it will be very difficult to achieve:
1. Different people have different opinions about what makes sense. For example, I think that requiring three buttons to be pressed simultaneously to do ANYTHING is a really bad choice. Even requiring two buttons at once except for very complicated applications is usually better handled with a menu of some kind. Other people feel differently. Given that there is no widely-used standard already nobody wants to use a new standard that they think is dumb.
2. Other consoles and operating systems have not been particularly consistent with the use of their buttons and symbols, so making a scheme that is natural for everybody's past experience is impossible. For example, to me 'X' means close or cancel because that is how it is used in the devices I use most. But apparently other devices use 'X' for select. For emulators, it makes sense to me to try to map the controls as closely as possible to the controls of the emulated system's controller (when possible).
3. People are ornery and unwilling to do things just because some guy on the internet said they should. So when somebody makes a proclamation about "here is how you should do things" the natural reaction is to say "who made you god?" instead of following along. GPH could make such a proclamation and make sure it applies to any games published using the gp2x logo. That might gradually drag the homebrew crowd along, but I doubt they will.
4. Different games and applications simply have different needs. It's fine to talk of "primary action", "secondary action" and "menu", but what about a fighting game where there's a dozen different actions, or a strategy game that needs complicated selection mechanisms or a game that needs six different menus? For consoles there is probably a lot of thought that goes into this and everything probably funnels through a central "interface police" who attempt to make things as consistent as possible while taking the needs of a game into account.
I expect the upcoming Community Game Contest will have 20 or more decent games. The organizers of that could proclaim that a particular set of interface guidelines need to be followed to enter, though it would be risky (because disqualifying good games on those grounds will be tough to do and people who hate the standard chosen might just quit) and it might be too late now anyway.
To me it's natural that START should start the game, and then since its functionality has already become associated with "game control" that pressing it in game should pause the game, producing a menu where pressing START again will restart it (and other options are available). However, other people think that having START pause the game is not natural (though there is no button labeled PAUSE). I doubt I'll convince them and I doubt they'll convince me.
1. Different people have different opinions about what makes sense. For example, I think that requiring three buttons to be pressed simultaneously to do ANYTHING is a really bad choice. Even requiring two buttons at once except for very complicated applications is usually better handled with a menu of some kind. Other people feel differently. Given that there is no widely-used standard already nobody wants to use a new standard that they think is dumb.
2. Other consoles and operating systems have not been particularly consistent with the use of their buttons and symbols, so making a scheme that is natural for everybody's past experience is impossible. For example, to me 'X' means close or cancel because that is how it is used in the devices I use most. But apparently other devices use 'X' for select. For emulators, it makes sense to me to try to map the controls as closely as possible to the controls of the emulated system's controller (when possible).
3. People are ornery and unwilling to do things just because some guy on the internet said they should. So when somebody makes a proclamation about "here is how you should do things" the natural reaction is to say "who made you god?" instead of following along. GPH could make such a proclamation and make sure it applies to any games published using the gp2x logo. That might gradually drag the homebrew crowd along, but I doubt they will.
4. Different games and applications simply have different needs. It's fine to talk of "primary action", "secondary action" and "menu", but what about a fighting game where there's a dozen different actions, or a strategy game that needs complicated selection mechanisms or a game that needs six different menus? For consoles there is probably a lot of thought that goes into this and everything probably funnels through a central "interface police" who attempt to make things as consistent as possible while taking the needs of a game into account.
I expect the upcoming Community Game Contest will have 20 or more decent games. The organizers of that could proclaim that a particular set of interface guidelines need to be followed to enter, though it would be risky (because disqualifying good games on those grounds will be tough to do and people who hate the standard chosen might just quit) and it might be too late now anyway.
To me it's natural that START should start the game, and then since its functionality has already become associated with "game control" that pressing it in game should pause the game, producing a menu where pressing START again will restart it (and other options are available). However, other people think that having START pause the game is not natural (though there is no button labeled PAUSE). I doubt I'll convince them and I doubt they'll convince me.
)
