Post by: OldMan Nintendo on May 11, 2003, 10:12:22 AM
I understand that by changing the way a gaming controller looks and feels, that that controller can be immediately identified with the system it was made for. However, there is some doubt in my mind as to whether or not the industry has to create entirely new controller layouts when former layouts were, in a sense, flawless as they were? When it comes to controllers the quote, "Why fix something when it ain't broke?" really doesn't mean much in the gaming industry.
Once you have the formula down for a controller that fits snugly in your hand and has all the buttons easily accessible why change it??
Post by: ThePerm on May 11, 2003, 11:39:27 AM
Post by: Grey Ninja on May 11, 2003, 03:47:24 PM
I think the GameCube controller is the best controller ever designed as well, but I know that Nintendo can and will do better with the next generation.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 11, 2003, 04:12:26 PM
Post by: Stex on May 11, 2003, 04:41:35 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 11, 2003, 04:51:56 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on May 11, 2003, 05:01:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Stex
No, it's not necessary. Sony has shown this with Dualshock. It worked for PS1, itis working for PS2, and I'd bet that it'll be used and work for PS3. Another thing nice about using the same controller is that older ones work with the new systems. Good stuff.
I hate the Dual Shock. The new one they made for the PS2 is even worse (I HATE the analog face buttons). Try playing SSX sometime with the dual shock, then try it with the GameCube. Tell me which one cramps your hand up.
Post by: Syl on May 11, 2003, 05:51:24 PM
it has so many flaws, and its so uncomfortable..
and those joysticks are horrendous.
I love the gamcube controller, it feels so good in your hands, it kinda feels like it melts in... I don't really like the face buttons much, but it feels so perfect.
Post by: rpglover on May 11, 2003, 06:39:05 PM
the ps2 one is alright- i just dont like the placement of the 2 joysticks-
i like how the gc has the main one on the left near the top on the controller and the c-stick at the lower part
the original xbox controller sucked- too big and cluncky
but the new controller s is great- feels good in your hands and plays well
but i dont think anything will ever beat the snes controller- it was the most well designed ones ever
it had the perfect size, good face button placement, and good triggers
Post by: Gamefreak on May 12, 2003, 12:49:02 AM
Post by: oohhboy on May 12, 2003, 04:12:34 AM
The thing between the PS control and the Xbox control is that with the xbox you atleast had something to hold on to.
The SNES buttons were too soft and when you pressed it you didn't quite know when to stop leading quickly to pain. So I when and brouhgt one that clicked and felt solid.
Post by: K-Man on May 12, 2003, 04:17:55 AM
Post by: EggyToast on May 12, 2003, 06:10:48 AM
Other than that, I love the design and how everything works together. Shoulder buttons are great -- bigger and curved is better! I think it'd be cool if they added some extra buttons on the underside, on the part where the 3 extra fingers on your hand wrap around, so you'd only have to squeeze in order to click them. But it would probably create problems in hand-size differences. Still, it'd be cool if they let you use more fingers for controlling various things.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on May 12, 2003, 08:46:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Stex
No, it's not necessary. Sony has shown this with Dualshock. It worked for PS1, itis working for PS2, and I'd bet that it'll be used and work for PS3. Another thing nice about using the same controller is that older ones work with the new systems. Good stuff.
If Nintendo did this they would be ridiculed. But Sony does it and it's like innovative or something. There is a double standard in the industry. Nintendo could do something and get lambasted for it, then Sony go and do the same exact thing and get acclaim for it.
Post by: Gamefreak on May 12, 2003, 01:25:15 PM
Post by: EggyToast on May 12, 2003, 02:15:48 PM
Post by: GoldShadow1 on May 16, 2003, 03:05:20 PM
Post by: AERO on May 16, 2003, 04:26:38 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 16, 2003, 09:55:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
I hate the Dual Shock. The new one they made for the PS2 is even worse (I HATE the analog face buttons).
What? The PS2 controller has analog face buttons?
Post by: Pale on May 17, 2003, 08:30:15 AM
Granted you couldn't play with both at the same time, but at least they'd be in the prime position when you did want them. Thats why I loved the design of the N64 controller. The two hand placements were the perfect solution, I dont' know why so many people hated this...
Post by: oohhboy on May 17, 2003, 08:44:19 AM
Yeah, the dual shock 2 has analouge face buttons(Not really, like it has hard and softer), but they are pretty worthless to use in game. As there is only like 1-2 mm of space from your thumb to the face and in the heat of the game, you are not going to press the button right.
Post by: Stex on May 17, 2003, 08:45:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nitsujdark
If Nintendo did this they would be ridiculed. But Sony does it and it's like innovative or something. There is a double standard in the industry. Nintendo could do something and get lambasted for it, then Sony go and do the same exact thing and get acclaim for it.
Um, ok....when did I or anyone else ever say that using the same controller is innovative? I just that it was a good idea. And yes, Nintendo would have gotten lambasted for using that garbage controller for the N64 for the GC also. That's my opinion of course, but I thought the N64 controller sucked nuts.
Anyways, why do people around here get so defensive?
-Stex
Post by: oohhboy on May 18, 2003, 12:19:29 AM
Post by: JoeSmashBro on May 18, 2003, 01:48:01 PM
Quote
I want to see a controller with a flip around stick that has a dpad on the other side. Granted you couldn't play with both at the same time, but at least they'd be in the prime position when you did want them.
good idea.
Yeah, the GC controller is confy and the control stick rules, and i like the button placement on the right, but it still has some flaws:
- it should have another "z" type button on the right so that games that have too many thigns to do won't be so awkward, or at least they won't be any more awkward than they are on PS2 games.
- the directional pad is not good at all. It's awkward to reach for (at least to play a whole game with) and its too small for where it is. I know it's the same size as the GBA one but it doesn't matter as much on the GBA because it's in a much more comfortable place to hit. The d-pad on the Dreamcast is great, they should use one like that. I also like the XBox d-pad
- The c-stick SOMETIMES doesn't work that great for aiming in FPS because it's a little extra stiff and the "c" part where you put your finger MIGHT be a little small. that one's preference though, i think.
the z-button is easy to use once you get used to it, so i like that. I also like the shoulder buttons. the analong stick is easily the best ever. I hate PSX/PS2 analog sticks.
Post by: EggyToast on May 18, 2003, 05:29:44 PM
So fudge that one up to coders not testing enough or bad devtools.
Post by: PIAC on May 18, 2003, 10:10:57 PM
other than that i cant really think of any way to improve the current controller, but then im not working for nintendo R&D, they have some smart cookies over there
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on May 21, 2003, 06:00:32 PM
and i would love to see the NES dpad back in action, as well..
why is the B button always on the left and A button always on the right? does it have to do with Japanese reading right to left? i suppose so.. but oh well ..
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 21, 2003, 06:49:41 PM
To this day, is till don't know which buttons are which on the right side of the PS2 or Xbox controller.
Post by: boggy b on May 24, 2003, 01:30:12 AM
Post by: Sea Dragon on May 29, 2003, 04:28:50 PM
I think the dual shock is pretty good, but I like the Game Cube controller better. I didn't like it at first, but after an hour with it on Metroid Prime, I grew quite comfortable with it. I still don't really like the Z-button or the kidney bean X and Y - they look and feel kind of cheap to me, but overall it's very comfortable (and I have large hands.)
Post by: ThePerm on October 20, 2006, 02:34:53 PM
Post by: wandering on October 20, 2006, 02:49:49 PM
Post by: Shecky on October 20, 2006, 03:35:41 PM
Post by: SixthAngel on October 20, 2006, 05:19:20 PM
Post by: Galford on October 23, 2006, 06:43:08 AM
When I say a post by Grey Ninja I thought he was back.
Really the GC was nice except for the d-pad.
It was too small and placed in an arkward spot.
I can't entirely blame Sony for the DS series of controllers.
If it ain't broke why fix?
Post by: Shin Gallon on October 23, 2006, 09:48:45 AM
The PS2 controller is, overall, really good, with only the mucked-up d-pad and lack of 6 face buttons marring it. 4 face buttons is fine for action games, but if you want to play Street Fighter on that system, you better have an arcade stick or PS2 Saturn pad handy.
I really really love the GC pad, but the analog stick and c-stick having those notches inside their movement hole makes using them a little awkward to me. I love how the grips are shaped, though, it's like a more ergonomic Dual Shock. I just wish they'd put 4 top buttons on it instead of 2 big ones and a little tiny z-trigger. I don't even mind the d-pad (I played all the resident Evil games on GC using the pad, I find running around with the analog stick in those games impossible to steer).
I never play FPS games on consoles, I HAVE to have mouse/keyboard. Trying to aim with an analog stick is like trying to write with my left hand (I'm right handed).
The worst pads I've ever used are the regular Xbox pads (worst button placement ever, you need dislocated thumbs to use the white and black buttons well) and the N64 pad (analog stick would break at the drop of a hat, and the buttons were pretty poor).
Post by: Shin Gallon on October 23, 2006, 09:53:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
Yeah, the dual shock 2 has analouge face buttons(Not really, like it has hard and softer), but they are pretty worthless to use in game. As there is only like 1-2 mm of space from your thumb to the face and in the heat of the game, you are not going to press the button right.
Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 made excellent use of the pressure sensitive buttons. Quickly releasing the square button fired a shot, rapidly tapping it shot rapid-fire, and slowly letting off the button made Snake put his gun down without shooting. The shoulder buttons would move the camera further depending on how hard you were pressing them, as well.
To be honest, though, outside of those and racing games, most games on the PS2 don't even bother with the pressure sensitivity thing in the buttons.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 23, 2006, 10:14:32 AM
Anyway, I think the answer to the question posed in this thread was "yes", because well, where else do you go once the graphics reach their limit?
Post by: Smoke39 on October 23, 2006, 10:24:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Anyway, I think the answer to the question posed in this thread was "yes", because well, where else do you go once the graphics reach their limit?
There's much more to games than just graphics and a method of input.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 23, 2006, 10:47:12 AM
And the "grips" causing cramps.
Quickly releasing the square button fired a shot, rapidly tapping it shot rapid-fire, and slowly letting off the button made Snake put his gun down without shooting.
I recall the fun I had with the pressure sensitive buttons in Star Ocean: Till The End Of Time where I was never sure how I should press it in order to register as fast or slow pressing. Using an analog input to represent multiple digital values is stupid.
Post by: Rhoq on October 23, 2006, 11:06:33 AM
I also like Microsoft's XBox controller. It's set-up is just as comfortable as the GameCube.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 23, 2006, 12:33:49 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 23, 2006, 01:03:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Anyway, I think the answer to the question posed in this thread was "yes", because well, where else do you go once the graphics reach their limit?
There's much more to games than just graphics and a method of input.
No, there isn't.
Hee hee hee hee, okay, yeah, there is, but in terms of new creating a new piece of hardware, these are the main things we see. Nintendo has put a lot of thought into Wii and has come out with a smaller, more efficient system than the competitors. That's really cool, and it may contribute to Wii's popularity, but in terms of what you're selling your console on, nowdays you've got power or input, I think the other selling points are secondary. (WiiConnect and Wii Channels may prove that the OS is a third way to sell the system, but for now I also suspect they're secondary).
Now, games from the software perspective, sure there's lots of room for change there. In fact, Ian loves to argue that Nintendo could do way more with software innovation and is being lazy by inventing new controllers instead. He's right that there's still room for innovation in software, but changing the method of input not only speeds software innovation along, it encourages everyone to do it. If Nintendo made a pledge to create only innovative games from now on but otherwise made Wii exactly like the competition, it would be a big uphill battle because third parties would still be putting the same crap-o ports on it.
Post by: Galford on October 23, 2006, 04:12:02 PM
hammer/brick/blunt object.
I hate that game...
Post by: Smoke39 on October 23, 2006, 06:02:05 PM
I bring this all up primarily for the sake of completeness, though. You can do some cute stuff with fancy physics, but so far I haven't seen it used in any really critical gameplay mecahnics. And AI can be faked pretty well. So, from a hardware perspective, I agree with you that mixing things up on the input side is a good way to encourage experimentation with game design.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 23, 2006, 06:30:46 PM
And I don't have a definative answer...here are few random thoughts.
1)Controllers are an extention of ourselves playing the game. It is a device that basically allows us to interact with a virtual world. In that sense controls need to constantly evolve until we can interact within the gaming world naturally and with the most intuitive form possible. This doesn't mean Matrix-estic mind manipulation of the game world...it just means that we can effectively communicate and manipulate the game characters flawlessly with the desired mechanics by the game designers.
2)A standard should be formed. This idea is simple. The people that like computer games will play computer games period. It is a market that will grow and fall, but basically is made up of the same general people. In this logic, game controllers need to just evolve to a point where a happy standard could be met that the gaming public enjoys. In this concept, the controller is like a canvas for a painter, and the artist crafts his thoughts and ideas into the canvas, then the gaming audience appreciates the canvas for its art and plays the game. The standard for gaming may or may not have been perfectly formed yet. But one thing to appreciate by this idea is that control has a limitation. Much great art is achieved when you must work within your limitations to create something grand. If you had perfect thought and brain controls, then the game may not truly be a game anymore but a simple thought excercise...so taking the limit out destories gaming completely.
3)I believe the answer is truthfully somewhere between these concepts, and actually probably closer to thought 2 instead of 1. Computer gaming should always have some sort of control or limitation, and that limitation will be set by the control methods of the games, not the graphics or sounds. Evolve the control too much and you create a completely new entity...that is not gaming as we know it today. Some might think this is good...and it could very well be, but it is also comparing apples to oranges. Consider this: Arena Football. Basically, in an attempt to evolve the game of Football a new sport was formed. Some like it more...while others hate the concept completely. But, the rules are changed of the game (or the controls of the game) and you don't have football now, but you have Arena football a different game that shares similarities to its brother. If Football was completely replaced with the new sport it would be a very sad day.
I think that is what I love most about Nintendo and the Wii. We a futuristic control mechanism for games combined and married with modern gaming and classic gaming. It is like a trinity of gaming to use a religious metaphor which I probably shouldn't.
Post by: Rhoq on October 24, 2006, 03:45:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
I hope you mean their 360 controller because otherwise I'm going to have to hit you in the gob. Even then, the 360 controller isn't as smooth and sexy as the GC's.
I was actually talking about the "S" controller for the original XBox, however the 360 controller isn't much different. I like the XBox controller almost as much as the GameCube's.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 24, 2006, 04:44:11 AM
Best to Worst:
Super Nintendo-Gamecube-Xbox 360-Nintendo 64-Genesis-Dreamcast-PS2-NES-Xbox (either)-original PS-Jaguar-Atari
So I think the simpliest and easiest to use was the Super Nintendo. Gamecube, and Xbox 360 are close. NES is low on the list because with just two buttons not alot could be done with the controller. Dreamcast was great, but Bulky, and had some placement issues of analog stick and D-Pad. The Xbox pads had horrible buttons, and a D-Pad that was uncomfortable to play with...also buttons on the analog sticks are a complete NO NO!!!
Post by: KDR_11k on October 24, 2006, 07:58:26 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 24, 2006, 08:49:28 AM
The Cube control still wins point for comfort though. It melted in your hand and for Nintendo games it was awesome. It just sucked for stuff like Capcom vs. SNK 2.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 24, 2006, 09:47:47 AM
Post by: wandering on October 24, 2006, 10:01:24 AM
Anyway, my favorite controllers, for 3d games, are as follows: GameCube -> Xbox 360 -> N64 -> Dual Shock -> Xbox type-s -> Xbox hugeotron -> Dreamcast.
The cube controller works very well for me. But then, I'm as tunnel-visioned as Nintendo. Capcom vs. SNK? What's that?
Quote
Dreamcast was great
Have you used one recently? I had fond memories of the thing, but then I played with it recently and dear god does it suck.
Post by: Galford on October 24, 2006, 10:24:13 AM
Even playing KI Gold on the N64 was easier on the hands then the Cube's version of CVS 2.
One reason I think the Dual Shock design hasn't changed much is it's based on the SNES controller, one
of the best controllers of all time. I just don't like the evenly placed analog sticks, the GC does analog a lot
better.
Post by: IceCold on October 24, 2006, 04:45:53 PM
The Dual Shock, on the other hand, is horrible. Just absolutely, positively, horrible.. From the awkward design to how uncomfortable it felt, to those damn too-smooth, too-loose umbrella analogue sticks in the non dominant position with them also being used as buttons, to the awful shoulder button layout to the split D-Pad to those bloody shapes on the face buttons! Ugh..
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 24, 2006, 04:52:01 PM
The wost part has to be the D-Pad. Jesus that thing kills my thumb.
Post by: Shin Gallon on October 25, 2006, 07:32:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The Cube control still wins point for comfort though. It melted in your hand and for Nintendo games it was awesome. It just sucked for stuff like Capcom vs. SNK 2.
I agree completely.
Though really, for Capcom fighting games, anything but a Saturn pad or an arcade stick sucks.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 25, 2006, 09:00:17 AM
Post by: Hocotate on October 26, 2006, 01:02:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
The Dual Shock, on the other hand, is horrible. Just absolutely, positively, horrible.. From the awkward design to how uncomfortable it felt, to those damn too-smooth, too-loose umbrella analogue sticks in the non dominant position with them also being used as buttons, to the awful shoulder button layout to the split D-Pad to those bloody shapes on the face buttons! Ugh..
I agree completely. Dual Shock is the worst controller I have ever used. I had to buy a Saturn controller for my PS2 just to tolerate the system. My order of best to worst controllers:
N64, Saturn, SNES, GCN, DC, NES, Atari, 360, XBX, PSX/2
Wii will probably replace the 64 as #1, but I'll wait till I actually play it lol.
Post by: Galford on October 26, 2006, 05:07:49 AM
