#1 Posted by Vandersveldt (80 posts) -

Alright, why does everyone call them tank controls? It's first person controls, except the camera isn't directly behind you. Not that hard to comprehend. The people that invert their controls have no problem with tank controls, it's the ones that can't grasp this that have problems with it, at least that's my theory. Non inverters tend to think of the top of the controller as "up", and the bottom as "down". This is inaccurate, in many scenarios. The top is "Forward" and the bottom is "Back". Therefor, you push forward to look down, and pull back to look up, at least in an FPS. And in these so called tank control moments, you push forward to walk in the direction you're going, and pull back to go backwards. I really don't get why this is so hard to grasp :-P

#2 Edited by Vandersveldt (80 posts) -

Just checking one thing, is this how I get "The Chaste Monk" quest?
 
*edit* Damn, I guess not

#3 Posted by ArchScabby (5809 posts) -

Well you see becoming a tank operator is very difficult.  The "tank controls" you use to operate the tank are very complicated.  And if you want to become a tank driver you need to memorize the "tank controls" inside and out.  Only a few have the intelligence and willpower to become a tank driver. 
 
 Do you have what it takes?  Find out at Army.com.

#4 Posted by EvilTwin (3324 posts) -

I think you might be a little confused.  Describing something as having "tank controls" has nothing to do with the camera, only the movement.  It basically means you can only either rotate or move forward but not both at the same time.

#5 Posted by PureRok (4235 posts) -
@EvilTwin said:
" I think you might be a little confused.  Describing something as having "tank controls" has nothing to do with the camera, only the movement.  It basically means you can only either rotate or move forward but not both at the same time. "
This, and the inability to just run around in general. Everyone has a huge turning radius as if they were a large vehicle. If you need a button combination to just turn around you are probably failing at game design.
#6 Posted by Vandersveldt (80 posts) -

When Deadly Premonition does the thing on stairwells where the camera jumps into the sky, they were calling it tank controls. The controls had not changed, you could still rotate and go forward and backward a the same time.
 
And about failing at game design, all they failed at was making you bad ass. I'm pretty sure most game with tank controls (Resident Evil, Silent Hill), you weren't supposed to be the super bad-ass you are in most games. What's the point of trying to make a scary game if the player has the skills to kill everything without being worried. Like both of those series after game 4.

#7 Posted by MrSnow (1213 posts) -
@Vandersveldt:  blog
#8 Posted by schizogony (974 posts) -

I just came to suggest that this thread needs more HItler with tank treads.

#9 Posted by hpv (177 posts) -
@EvilTwin said:
" I think you might be a little confused.  Describing something as having "tank controls" has nothing to do with the camera, only the movement.  It basically means you can only either rotate or move forward but not both at the same time. "

You're absolutely incorrect.  Resident Evil has the quintessential "tank" controls and you most certainly can turn and move forward at the same time.  In fact it'd be impossible to beat the original game in the 3 hours required to unlock the unlimited rocket launcher without doing so.  The name was borrowed from real tanks because they move in relatively the same manner, though obviously their input mechanism is significantly different than a dpad or analog stick.
 
@Vandersveldt said:
" When Deadly Premonition does the thing on stairwells where the camera jumps into the sky, they were calling it tank controls. The controls had not changed, you could still rotate and go forward and backward a the same time.  And about failing at game design, all they failed at was making you bad ass. I'm pretty sure most game with tank controls (Resident Evil, Silent Hill), you weren't supposed to be the super bad-ass you are in most games. What's the point of trying to make a scary game if the player has the skills to kill everything without being worried. Like both of those series after game 4. "
I'm pretty sure Silent Hill had camera-relative controls, not the "tank" controls seen in Resident Evil.  But it's been a damned long time since I last played it and I could be wrong, but your point is spot on either way.  In fact, I'd go a step further and say that the Resident Evil movement solution is not just the best way to handle a third person game with constantly changing, fixed camera angles, but the only sensible way to do it.
 
With straight camera-relative controls you're constantly forced to change your input direction in response to the camera, which leads to inadvertently running in the wrong direction much of the time even once you've memorized all of the cuts.  A situation that never arises in a Resident Evil-style game.  Even the evolutions of the camera-relative control scheme (Haunting Grounds being the first to mind, but their are numerous others) where the character-relative direction persists across camera changes until the stick is returned to neutral break down easily because you'll end up holding the input in a completely different direction than the character is running, relative to the screen.  This requires you to do ridiculous maneuvers like rotating the analog stick to the upper-left diagonal with the character facing toward the camera in order to make a slight course correction toward camera right.  That or coming to a complete stop entirely to "reset" the controls relative to the new camera angle.  Now that is poor game design, though it's hard to blame those who implement it given the incessant whining from the masses who fail not only at video games but at life.
 
And because I'm a bit of a dick, I'd say that the only people who would argue with this obvious fact are simpletons, dexterously incompetent, or (most likely in my estimation) both.  Further evidence of this are the clowns who complain about "Resident Evil 'tank' controls" while applauding the control scheme used in RE4, which if they had the ability to think about it for even a minute they would realize is exactly the same as the original Resident Evil except that it uses an analog stick rather than a dpad and the camera is fixed over-the-shoulder. 
 
As a bit of an on-topic aside, over the years of observing my non-inverting friends (Does anyone else seem to recall a time when PC FPSes referred to the modern day "inverted" as "normal"?) I've come to the theory that those who play "inverted" perceive the camera in-game as operating like their head does in real life, that is a viewing window mounted on a pivot at the base (also see your wrist when holding a handheld video camera), and those who play "normal" perceive it similarly to the mouse cursor on their computer, less like they're pointing their view at something and more like they're laying the crosshair on top of objects on the opposite side of a sheet of glass.  I've still no idea what to do with people like my one buddy who plays inverted with a mouse and non-inverted with a gamepad.  That's just insanity and the dude probably needs to be institutionalized.
#10 Posted by EvilTwin (3324 posts) -
@hpv said:
" @EvilTwin said:
" I think you might be a little confused.  Describing something as having "tank controls" has nothing to do with the camera, only the movement.  It basically means you can only either rotate or move forward but not both at the same time. "

You're absolutely incorrect.  Resident Evil has the quintessential "tank" controls and you most certainly can turn and move forward at the same time.  In fact it'd be impossible to beat the original game in the 3 hours required to unlock the unlimited rocket launcher without doing so.  The name was borrowed from real tanks because they move in relatively the same manner, though obviously their input mechanism is significantly different than a dpad or analog stick."

Sorry, you're right, my description wasn't quite right.  What I meant was that tank controls implies that you can't strafe like a human should be able to.  If you want to move to the left but aim at something that is in the direction you're currently facing, you'd have to turn left move in that direction and then face the appropriate direction again.  Unlike in most first and third-person shooters where you are able to strafe.
#11 Posted by The_A_Drain (3910 posts) -

Tank controls fucking rock. People need to bring them back. Fuck people who hate them not everything needs to be smooth as butter to feel good, in fact a lot of games nowadays feel too loose and free for me, I do not like it.

#12 Posted by scarycrayons (231 posts) -

Before I heard people calling it 'tank controls' on the internet, I used to say "blah, this game controls like a remote control car!", which pretty much sums it up well I think.  Even though 'technically' it is 'first person controls on a third person camera', it still controls like a tank when viewed from that perspective, because it feels like you're steering a slow vehicle around corners. 
 
The biggest problem, of course, is that it's counter-intuitive to mix up the first person and third person controls.  'Holding up to move the character east' isn't intuitive at all, and 'pressing right to face south' is even less so!

#13 Posted by august (3812 posts) -
@hpv said:

As a bit of an on-topic aside, over the years of observing my non-inverting friends (Does anyone else seem to recall a time when PC FPSes referred to the modern day "inverted" as "normal"?)
Nope.
#14 Posted by ApertureSilence (1154 posts) -

I've always thought of tank controls as:

  1. Not being able to move and shoot at the same time
  2. Not being able to strafe
  3. Not being able to move while changing direction
 
It is essentially a control type that cripples you, and has nothing to do with inverted vs. normal controls at all.
#15 Posted by Creamypies (4012 posts) -

Yeah, you've got the wrong idea when it comes to the actual definition of "Tank" controls. Heavy Rain is the closest thing to it outside of games with tanks in them, you move the head with the right stick (like a tank cannon), and move the character with the the left stick (just like tanks in other games).

#16 Posted by schizogony (974 posts) -
@scarycrayons said:
" Before I heard people calling it 'tank controls' on the internet, I used to say "blah, this game controls like a remote control car!", which pretty much sums it up well I think.  Even though 'technically' it is 'first person controls on a third person camera', it still controls like a tank when viewed from that perspective, because it feels like you're steering a slow vehicle around corners.  The biggest problem, of course, is that it's counter-intuitive to mix up the first person and third person controls.  'Holding up to move the character east' isn't intuitive at all, and 'pressing right to face south' is even less so! "
I would like "tank controls" to be changed to "R/C car controls" now. I love this.
#17 Posted by HaroldoNVU (591 posts) -
@The_A_Drain said:
" Tank controls fucking rock. People need to bring them back. Fuck people who hate them not everything needs to be smooth as butter to feel good, in fact a lot of games nowadays feel too loose and free for me, I do not like it. "
#18 Posted by Shasam (468 posts) -
@Vandersveldt: @Vandersveldt said:
" When Deadly Premonition does the thing on stairwells where the camera jumps into the sky, they were calling it tank controls. The controls had not changed, you could still rotate and go forward and backward a the same time.  And about failing at game design, all they failed at was making you bad ass. I'm pretty sure most game with tank controls (Resident Evil, Silent Hill), you weren't supposed to be the super bad-ass you are in most games. What's the point of trying to make a scary game if the player has the skills to kill everything without being worried. Like both of those series after game 4. "
You're right that in those games you're not a bad-ass, in fact you are far from it as you seem to controlling a person without the basic knowledge of movement. 
 
There are better ways to make a game atmospheric and give you a true sense of being at a disadvantage without using bad control schemes. Using a better control scheme and giving the player the ability to move around the environment more easily may or may not make the game easier, but it definitely makes it less frustrating. 
 
The short answer is, "tank controls" suck, are outdated and if you want to create some suspense then try using some other methods rather than restricting the player too much.
#19 Posted by Vandersveldt (80 posts) -
@hpv:  You are either trolling me hard, or my new hero. I'll go with the second one until proven wrong :) 
 
@scarycrayons said:
 The biggest problem, of course, is that it's counter-intuitive to mix up the first person and third person controls.  'Holding up to move the character east' isn't intuitive at all, and 'pressing right to face south' is even less so! "
This is pretty much exactly what I said earlier. Non inverters think of the top of the controller as 'up'. It's not up, it's forward. As in leaning your head forward in first person, or moving forward in third.
 
And about the Silent Hill games, the fourth one started using camera-relevant controls, and the game was terribad. In no way shape or form were any of the monsters a threat to you, you were a man god among monsters. For me at least, it trivialized the whole experience. When a game is that easy, it starts to feel like work to me. As in, if you put the time in, you'll get your reward.
#20 Posted by hpv (177 posts) -
@EvilTwin said:
Sorry, you're right, my description wasn't quite right.  What I meant was that tank controls implies that you can't strafe like a human should be able to.  If you want to move to the left but aim at something that is in the direction you're currently facing, you'd have to turn left move in that direction and then face the appropriate direction again.  Unlike in most first and third-person shooters where you are able to strafe. "
Defining what you should or should not be able to do in a game based on what humans actually do is really another topic, but if you want to bring that to a "tank" control discussion just know that it's a bit of a show stopper for your side.  In reality most people don't strafe at all, ever.  At least not in any traditional video game shooter sense of the word.  I'll hear your argument if you're talking about a sidestep button of some sort but I really don't think it is necessary in a Resident Evil-style game and would needlessly divert buttons that could and should be used elsewhere. Or worse, someone might end up implementing a single button that you hold to change the side-to-side movement from rotation to translation.  Disaster! 
 
@MurderByDeath said:
" I've always thought of tank controls as:
  1. Not being able to move and shoot at the same time
  2. Not being able to strafe
  3. Not being able to move while changing direction
 It is essentially a control type that cripples you, and has nothing to do with inverted vs. normal controls at all. "
The thing that does have to do with inverted vs non-inverted controls is the perception of what "up" on the dpad/analog stick does and how you think about your relation to the character.  Maybe I'll blog out a fun craft project for everyone to do at home to demonstrate the principle but for now think of your head and how you move it when you want to look down.  You tilt your head forward.  To look up you tilt backward.  This is the way an inverter perceives the game controls and why a character-relative control system, in generally, makes more sense to us than it does to non-inverters. 
 
As far as I'm concerned, and I'm quite concerned with it, moving within a consistent physical space with varying camera perspectives is a heck of a lot easier if I know that pushing one direction on the dpad or stick will move me in a consistent direction, most notably forward.  Perhaps I need to finally get around to making that visual guide to character-relative third person controls that I've been planning on and off for about 5 years.  It seems so damned obvious to me that it's fascinating how many people not only don't think in the same way but can't seem to even understand it.
 
And, as has been stated previously, "tank" controls do not by definition (nor in any practical application that I know of, though I assume they exist and would love an example) limit you from changing heading while moving. 
 
@creamypies said:
" Yeah, you've got the wrong idea when it comes to the actual definition of "Tank" controls. Heavy Rain is the closest thing to it outside of games with tanks in them, you move the head with the right stick (like a tank cannon), and move the character with the the left stick (just like tanks in other games). "
The closest thing to actual tank controls in a video game (that isn't a hardcore tank sim, since most tank games don't control like tanks at all) is Katamari Damacy, a game that almost literally controls just like a tank.  Perhaps it isn't common knowledge (it really should be) but tanks control with a set of levers for the left and right track that allow for adjusting the speed of each track individually, including in reverse.  Turns are achieved by increasing or decreasing the speed on one side and in some cases (such as spinning in a circle) by entirely reversing the direction of one track relative to the other.  As it happens the turret is moved with a crank.  Not really like Heavy Rain at all, though your perception of it as such does say something interesting about your perception of the relationship between game controls and movement.  Or maybe you just play too many video games. ;p
 
@Shasam said:
You're right that in those games you're not a bad-ass, in fact you are far from it as you seem to controlling a person without the basic knowledge of movement.  There are better ways to make a game atmospheric and give you a true sense of being at a disadvantage without using bad control schemes. Using a better control scheme and giving the player the ability to move around the environment more easily may or may not make the game easier, but it definitely makes it less frustrating.  The short answer is, "tank controls" suck, are outdated and if you want to create some suspense then try using some other methods rather than restricting the player too much. "
As it happens "tank" controls give you a higher degree of accuracy in movement for games like Resident Evil where the camera angle is fixed but not in any relative relation to the character's heading.  The controls aren't bad, on the contrary they're nearly perfect.  It's too bad that Resident Evil 0 doesn't have a toggle to turn on "stupid camera-relative controls" so we'd have a good example because the speed at which you can move without stopping to reorientate is significantly higher because of the control scheme.  I use RE0 as the example because the train environment in the opening portion of the game is mostly straight and easily demonstrates the advantage of a consistent input-to-character heading control scheme, though it applies equally across all scenes in any similar game.  
 
They also happen to be a heck of a lot more like actual movement than most shooters.  But someone with a "basic knowledge of movement" would know that.  One could be forgiven for thinking that everyone would have that, but clearly they don't.
 
@Vandersveldt said:
" @hpv:  You are either trolling me hard, or my new hero. I'll go with the second one until proven wrong :) 
Looks like you've got a new hero, baby!  The superiority of "tank" controls is Serious Business(tm).
 
I don't however subscribe to the theory that "tank" controls make a game harder.  I actually think they make a game easier, though I might have to make a tech demo or something myself to demonstrate it since I don't know of any games that provide a toggle between character-relative and camera-relative controls.  As a second- or third-rate programmer (at best), as well as a lazy bastard, I kind of doubt I'll ever get around to it. 
#21 Posted by Shasam (468 posts) -
@hpv said: 
@Shasam said:
You're right that in those games you're not a bad-ass, in fact you are far from it as you seem to controlling a person without the basic knowledge of movement.  There are better ways to make a game atmospheric and give you a true sense of being at a disadvantage without using bad control schemes. Using a better control scheme and giving the player the ability to move around the environment more easily may or may not make the game easier, but it definitely makes it less frustrating.  The short answer is, "tank controls" suck, are outdated and if you want to create some suspense then try using some other methods rather than restricting the player too much. "
As it happens "tank" controls give you a higher degree of accuracy in movement for games like Resident Evil where the camera angle is fixed but not in any relative relation to the character's heading.  The controls aren't bad, on the contrary they're nearly perfect.  It's too bad that Resident Evil 0 doesn't have a toggle to turn on "stupid camera-relative controls" so we'd have a good example because the speed at which you can move without stopping to reorientate is significantly higher because of the control scheme.  I use RE0 as the example because the train environment in the opening portion of the game is mostly straight and easily demonstrates the advantage of a consistent input-to-character heading control scheme, though it applies equally across all scenes in any similar game.  
 
They also happen to be a heck of a lot more like actual movement than most shooters.  But someone with a "basic knowledge of movement" would know that.  One could be forgiven for thinking that everyone would have that, but clearly they don't.  
I can understand these controls for a game like Heavy Rain, which focuses on QTE's for it's action sequences, but I can't say that tank controls have ever given me a feeling of being safe and able to react fast enough in a Resident evil game. For me, games like God of War and Devil May Cry, whilst having different styles of game play, have sequences with fixed camera angles where there control schemes still allow the player to move about the environment easily, whilst not being pressured if an enemies around. For Resident Evil, these kinds of controls were good back in the day, but I probably wouldn't want to play a similarly controlling and paced game now. 
 
Also, maybe the basic knowledge of movement thing was a bit harsh. I definitely move more like that than I do, say, any FPS character. But oh well, the things that come out wrong when typing online.
#22 Posted by ApertureSilence (1154 posts) -
@hpv said:
The thing that does have to do with inverted vs non-inverted controls is the perception of what "up" on the dpad/analog stick does and how you think about your relation to the character.  Maybe I'll blog out a fun craft project for everyone to do at home to demonstrate the principle but for now think of your head and how you move it when you want to look down.  You tilt your head forward.  To look up you tilt backward.  This is the way an inverter perceives the game controls and why a character-relative control system, in generally, makes more sense to us than it does to non-inverters.   
This is all well and good, and of course absolutely correct. However, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, which is TANK CONTROLS. The original poster was simply confused, thinking that "tank controls" means "inverted controls" when clearly it doesn't.
#23 Posted by habster3 (3595 posts) -

You don't know what tank controls are, dude.

#24 Posted by Rockanomics (1150 posts) -

Tank controls use only 1 stick/d-pad, normal controls use 2.

#25 Posted by hpv (177 posts) -
@Shasam said:
I can understand these controls for a game like Heavy Rain, which focuses on QTE's for it's action sequences, but I can't say that tank controls have ever given me a feeling of being safe and able to react fast enough in a Resident evil game. For me, games like God of War and Devil May Cry, whilst having different styles of game play, have sequences with fixed camera angles where there control schemes still allow the player to move about the environment easily, whilst not being pressured if an enemies around. For Resident Evil, these kinds of controls were good back in the day, but I probably wouldn't want to play a similarly controlling and paced game now.  Also, maybe the basic knowledge of movement thing was a bit harsh. I definitely move more like that than I do, say, any FPS character. But oh well, the things that come out wrong when typing online. "
I believe "easily" is the operative concept here.  Character action games like God of War, Devil May Cry, etc. are a lot more forgiving in regards to accuracy when attacking and they generally have you taking on enemies that are weaker than you in areas much larger than those in Resident Evil.  Not that I'm implying that those games are easier than a Resident Evil or anything.  They just aren't that similar even though you can list some features that are superficially the same. 
 
I'm not sure if you intended to but it sounds like you're coming pretty close to saying that you don't like this kind of game because it's not the kind of game you like, but this other kind of game you do like so why are their games that aren't the way that you do like them.  It's a bit like saying that you don't like RTS games so why are there games where you select units and move them around the map when it's better for games to be first person shooters.  I'm really not trying to say that's what you were doing, but that is an extremely common argument that you hear from the anti-tank control crowd when you really get down to the basics of what they are saying. 
 
Have you played any of the camera-relative games that are similar in structure to Resident Evil?  You know, your general horror games like Fatal Frame, some of the Silent Hills (I think), Haunting Grounds, etc?  I really find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer that to the tank controls but it would seem that a lot of people do.  Out of scientific curiosity, if you are one of those people do you play first/third person shooters with inverted or non-inverted controls?
 
@MurderByDeath said:
" @hpv said:
The thing that does have to do with inverted vs non-inverted controls is the perception of what "up" on the dpad/analog stick does and how you think about your relation to the character.  Maybe I'll blog out a fun craft project for everyone to do at home to demonstrate the principle but for now think of your head and how you move it when you want to look down.  You tilt your head forward.  To look up you tilt backward.  This is the way an inverter perceives the game controls and why a character-relative control system, in generally, makes more sense to us than it does to non-inverters.   
This is all well and good, and of course absolutely correct. However, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, which is TANK CONTROLS. The original poster was simply confused, thinking that "tank controls" means "inverted controls" when clearly it doesn't. "
The original poster was suggesting the theory that people who "invert" have an easier time with "tank" controls because they are already predisposed to thinking of "up" on the directional input is synonymous with "forward."  Additionally he was asking (rhetorically perhaps? that part isn't really clear) why they are called tank controls when the controls are more or less the same as you see in games where the camera is character-centric. 
 
There is no confusion in his post between "tank" controls and "inverted" controls, though perhaps the way he stated it might confuse someone who doesn't already understand why forward makes you look down and backward makes you look up.  I guarantee you such people exist in large quantities and that is the reasoning behind my proposed "Try This At Home" craft project. 
 
Again, he could have stated his case more clearly but I also don't understand how you have managed to get so confused about what he was talking about.  Hopefully that's all cleared up now. 
 
@Rockanomics said:
" Tank controls use only 1 stick/d-pad, normal controls use 2. "
I'm not going to derail this thread to explain why that's wrong so I'll just refer you to play Fatal Frame II, since it's excellent and demonstrates the alternative to "tank" controls in the sort of environment where such schemes are most often applied.
#26 Posted by Shasam (468 posts) -
@hpv said:
" @Shasam said:
I can understand these controls for a game like Heavy Rain, which focuses on QTE's for it's action sequences, but I can't say that tank controls have ever given me a feeling of being safe and able to react fast enough in a Resident evil game. For me, games like God of War and Devil May Cry, whilst having different styles of game play, have sequences with fixed camera angles where there control schemes still allow the player to move about the environment easily, whilst not being pressured if an enemies around. For Resident Evil, these kinds of controls were good back in the day, but I probably wouldn't want to play a similarly controlling and paced game now.  Also, maybe the basic knowledge of movement thing was a bit harsh. I definitely move more like that than I do, say, any FPS character. But oh well, the things that come out wrong when typing online. "
I believe "easily" is the operative concept here.  Character action games like God of War, Devil May Cry, etc. are a lot more forgiving in regards to accuracy when attacking and they generally have you taking on enemies that are weaker than you in areas much larger than those in Resident Evil.  Not that I'm implying that those games are easier than a Resident Evil or anything.  They just aren't that similar even though you can list some features that are superficially the same. 
 
I'm not sure if you intended to but it sounds like you're coming pretty close to saying that you don't like this kind of game because it's not the kind of game you like, but this other kind of game you do like so why are their games that aren't the way that you do like them.  It's a bit like saying that you don't like RTS games so why are there games where you select units and move them around the map when it's better for games to be first person shooters.  I'm really not trying to say that's what you were doing, but that is an extremely common argument that you hear from the anti-tank control crowd when you really get down to the basics of what they are saying. 
 
Have you played any of the camera-relative games that are similar in structure to Resident Evil?  You know, your general horror games like Fatal Frame, some of the Silent Hills (I think), Haunting Grounds, etc?  I really find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer that to the tank controls but it would seem that a lot of people do.  Out of scientific curiosity, if you are one of those people do you play first/third person shooters with inverted or non-inverted controls?      
I understand that GoW/DMC enemies could be deemed weaker, and that your attacks usually do cover a wide area rather than being precise, but that's not really an issue where I'm coming from. I'm not saying that Resident Evil should have played exactly the same but with different controls. I'm saying that they should have gone with a "better" control scheme and built a game around the abilities of the character. What it always seemed like to me was that they built the game and then had to build a control scheme which worked, but didn't overpower the player. This may be the way that some games are made, but to me it seems wrong. Anyway, overhauling the controls leads to overhauling the entire game, something which may have made it a better game. Of course, it's 2010...and hindsight is 20-20, so things could have gone a completely different way. Overall, I don't particularly care in the game was made differently. Games like that work and do stand-out as unique games, I am mainly just saying that I wouldn't want to use that control scheme now. 
 
Also, to be clear on your second point. I SUUUUuuuuck at Devil May Cry and have played all of 4 hours of God of War 3 (my entire experience with the series). I am not particularly a fan of them, even though I see their merits, but I was just using them as a point of reference. With Resident Evil on the other hand (which is, as far as I know, my sole experience with "tank controls") I have played every game in the main series from beginning to end, and I absolutely adore them. To me, they are masterpieces. A fantastic mix of action, mystery and horror that keeps you on your toes and away from other games. The one thing which I actually dislike, the one thing that doesn't make the original Resident Evil my favourite game ever, is the controls. Now I touched on this before, but changing the controls means changing everything else, meaning that the game could have been much worse with different controls. We will never know, but I would have taken the chance. 
 
Oh...and I would never invert. That's crazy talk. Up is up, down is down. I get how people can think of it in different ways and prefer inversion, but that's something that I can't work with and would never go for. You know what's even crazier though...inverting the horizontal axis. What's with that!?!