The Weird and Wonderful Controls of 'David'

David is a weird game. Its controls are uncomfortable, unintuitive, and absolutely perfect.

It's hard to talk about "controls" in games. At its most reductive, the word is meant to be a description of movement and the ease with which you can "control" your character. But describing "controls" is about more than describing movement. It's actually a word that describes a myriad of interacting systems and aesthetics. Controls are affected by art style, animation, sound effects, enemy AI, level design -- things that change our physical movement and our perception of that physical movement.

It's such a vast concept that it's no wonder that we've settled into certain standards. It's easy to say a game has bad or good controls when you're just comparing those controls to a predefined standard. I've played a lot of games that the act of playing them has become second nature, and many of them have become so standardized in their style of play that I can't actually remember the last time that I had to learn how to control a game. I don't just mean learning what button does what or learning the timing of new attack animations, but learning an entirely new scheme of movement.

Until David.

David is an abstract action game in which you fight several unique bosses. You are a pixel, a tiny little square so simple and so plain. Your enemies are monstrous things in comparison, swirling masses of triangles and circles moving as one. You must chip away at these masses, shrinking them until you blast away their last shape.

I hated the keyboard controls at first. They felt awful, but the more that I played, the more that I learned, and the more that I was able to do. Eventually what felt awful felt natural. I was doing impressive gymnastics in the air, considering movement and attack and defense all in a single move. And it felt wonderful.

My initial issue with David was its "floaty" controls and its focus on momentum. If you tap the jump button, you'll hop a little bit, but hold the button down, and you'll jump higher. Hold it down a second time to jump again while still in the air. Do this over and over again to -- essentially -- fly. Now take momentum into account: You move faster at the start of a jump, so several quick hops will get you moving faster but that also makes it harder to change directions.

In a world where Mario and Super Meat Boy represent the pinnacle of control, games that mostly ignore the effects momentum so that players can change directions on a pixel, the slow and floaty controls of David feel objectively bad. I felt so limited in my movement, and while I was distracted fighting gravity, the bosses were kicking my ass, poor controls causing poor combat.

I kept with the game. The art was neat and the bosses were unique, so I figured that I'd force my way through it for an hour and then forget about it. But then I started to get better, and not just through repetition, but through brilliant boss design. Each foe taught me a new lesson about managing speed, offensive tactics, or defensive dodging.

Your main weapon in David is appropriately enough an abstracted slingshot-boomerang. There's a white circle around your heroic pixel at all times (this is your slingshot) and you're constantly followed by several glowing orbs (your boomerang bullets). When you click the mouse button, time slows down and your attack charges. The longer that you charge, the farther your attack flies, but only those orbs hovering within the white circle are shot out. Depending on how fast you're moving or how quickly you're attacking, you might blast like a shotgun or simply dribble a few pebbles.

Oh, and you can stack movements while time is slowed. Jump multiple times while charging to turn yourself into bullet as well.

Combat is thus tied to movement and movement to combat, and both are tied to momentum. The faster that you move, the less you can attack, since you'll outrun your own bullets. The slower that you move, the stronger you can attack, but that puts you at serious risk. It's a weird control scheme, way more complex than it initially lets on, and there's no upfront tutorial to explain these concepts. You learn by doing, trial by fire.

You can play the bosses in any order, but going from left to right feels like a natural progression. The first one, Greed, teaches you how to jump. This mass of triangles mostly stays on the ground, encouraging you to jump high and long. The second boss, Anger, is entirely airborne, encouraging you to learn the air controls as you weave between floating blocks. Soon, Anxt puts you through a maze, forcing you to dodge blocks or shoot them away while navigating to the boss itself. Lies is similar, but you must navigate a maze of your own making, blasting through a tunnel of squares as the pieces break apart around you. The aptly titled Flee boss chases you through an obstacles course, your slingshot waiting at the end in a smaller version of the Anger arena, combining several previous lessons into one.

Each boss is based around a different gimmick, and each gimmick requires you to think about movement and combat in new ways, sometimes focusing on the former and sometimes on the latter. They’re like the bosses of Dark Souls, rewarding your observations and experiments, but without the intuitive controls of a third-person action game, instead using some weird evolutionary offshoot of platformer controls.

So with each fight, I became more and more convinced that the controls are not so bad, that there just might be something smart going on here. I've played so many games and so many similar games that it’s an odd feeling to have to truly learn how to play a game again. Sure, The Witcher 3 and Bloodborne both feel very different as I’m playing them, but the controls are fundamentally the same: dodge, light attack, heavy attack -- each with their own button. David doesn’t have an attack or dodge button, both actions are mapped to the same mouse click. It’s not just a matter of learning how this light attack differs from that light attack, it’s about learning an entirely new way to attack.

And it's frightening how negative I was initially, so willing to write off the game because it didn't conform to a preconceived standard. I'm glad I stuck with David. Its controls are weird, uncomfortable, and absolutely perfect.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.