Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"...give me an example of a game that requires you to push "up" and "down" on the four button setup and, in addition to that, explain why this was good or necessary under the game's control scheme."
Some fighting games require simultaneous pushes of three buttons at once. It's not a widely used option and typically you're not going to make a game like that. I wouldn't even consider it good game design. But the option is there and it would be unnecessarily limiting to remove it for no reason. Plus can you imagine how uncomfortable it would be to use d-pad diagonals to simulate pushing two buttons at once? When I push two buttons at once I rest my thumb over both of them. Pushing a diagonal requires me to push "between" the two buttons. It's a different dynamic and one that would be hard to get used to, particularly for a retro game. Plus d-pads are rough and uncomfortable and pressing diagonals is a lot more imprecise than using buttons. If you asked anyone if they would prefer face buttons or a d-pad they would pick face buttons.
I can't think of ANY advantages to using a d-pad over buttons for non-movement functions and I can think of disadvantages for it. So if there are no advantages and some disadvantages then it makes no sense to replace buttons. The only arguement for using a d-pad for buttons pushes is to defend Nintendo's decision to only have two buttons on the Rev controller. In fact no one would even SUGGEST the idea otherwise. It's nothing but a knee-jerk "Nintendo can do no wrong" reaction.
We're both approaching this from different places Iansane. If I read you correctly, it appears that you're working on the assumption that control schemes accumulate upon what's come before them.
I'm approaching this from a different viewpoint: Why do we need to use one finger to press 2 buttons at all?
Like you said, I don't even consider this good design to force the player to do such a thing as press two buttons in two different places with the same finger. This has arisen because of the increasing need for digital input as controllers and gameplay systems become more complex, and is only possible at all because buttons happen to be small enough and close enough to mash together with your thumb.
But these problems are increasingly being addressed with Nintendo's direction in control methods. The DS' touch screen allows you to throw as many digital functions on the touch screen without forcing the player to acess arcane button combinations. For example, the D-pad, c-stick and several buttons were used in metroid prime to select items, weapons, and modes. In Metroid hunters, these functions that took up so much of the controller is simply handled on the touch screen. This is an example of the benefits of a simplified, streamlined, and less arcane interface that Nintendo is moving towards.
Now consider the Revolution controller in a nun-chuck setup. Everyone assumes that you can look with the revoltuion controller, but why are they restricting it to a 2-dimensional field? The controller can easily take over the functions of moving forward, backwards, and strafing through simple translocation (the controller is held forward = forward movement) or rotation (rotate in the direction to strafe). This frees up the analog stick for a Secret of Mana style ring menu (or I-pod style touch-circle input) that's vastly superior to any button combination you can demand.
And that's just one alternative.
But anyways, what you appear to be saying is this: Nintendo could and should replace the D-Pad on the Rev with a 4-button setup like the C-buttons on the N64.
My opinion is that will work against what Nintendo is trying to accomplish. With Nintendo moving to simplify and streamline interfaces (removing multiple button functions and placing them in a single more accessible interface ala the DS' touch screen), with Miyamoto's past comments on wanting to make a one-button game (or at least a game which is as simple as can be, which explains his lack of use for the GC's D-pad), and with the very real need to keep the controller as casual friendly as possible (There's a very large psychological bonus you get when you use a directional cross as opposed to 4 buttons), this goes in the opposite direction of what Nintendo's trying to achieve.
Now, you can claim that I am defending Nintendo, but really, I am just explaining the disconnects between your proposal and their intentions. I have long given up on caring about whether Nintendo is doing something wrong or something right, I now only truly care about whether they're doing something true to their intentions. I could weather any disappointment as long as Nintendo did what they truly wished to do, and as we can see in the recently surfaced images of several of the revolution controller's previous versions, Nintendo's tried many, many ways (almost certainly including your proposal) to deal with what eventually became a normal D-pad.
I believe that, for the reasons I state above, and the fact that Miyamoto himself has probably tinkered with the 4-button instead of D-pad scheme, we can safely say that Nintendo has maed a very rational choice as to why the D-pad, and not 4 buttons, is at the top of the Rev controller.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com 
Topic: New Revolution Remote Peripherals (Read 7792 times)
