we keep talking about Graphics tech development but

[zurich]

The Xbox's I'm not sure about. I can see them going to a 6-button main face control, perhaps (making lots of Street Fighters happy ), or perhaps moving away from two large triggers to fit four shoulder buttons in somehow. I'd certainly like to see the other guys offer the break-away fronts the Xbox controllers have; that's just handy and clever.

Nah uh, triggers all the way man. I can't even begin to explain how much they enhance a racing game or FPS..

 

[StefanS]

Nintendo's controller I look forward to in general now. The N64's was unique and interesting, and the GameCube's is very solid and easy to get lots in control. (I usually only break out of my reverie if I have to hit the Z-button.)

Why does everyone make such a big deal about the Z button?

When I started playing TimeSplitters 2, I just got into the habit of having my index finger on Z and middle finger on R, and now I always hold GC pads that way, for any games. No discomfort of any kind. I think people's problem with Z stems from keeping index on R, and lifting the finger over the front ridge of the R trigger is kinda awkward... but the way I hold it (and have been holding it for over a year, IIRC), that is completely avoided.

There's only one issue for me concerning the Z button: the trigger is located on the outer edge oft the pad; just turn that button around and nobody, even guys with large index fingers, has any issues with it anymore.
But I got used to it nowadays.

A screen on the controller itself would also be handy. The Dreamcast got a bit of it with the VMU memory cards but didn't make much of it, but there are certainly a lot of handy things one could get from small screen capabilites on the controller itself, especially for multi-player games to avoid screen clutter or windowing.

*cough*NINTENDO*cough*

Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles is definitely down that alley.

 

[cthellis42]

The way the GC and Xbox controllers are set up now, you'd have to hold them at perverse angles to operate both sticks well

What the hell are you talking about? When I play TimeSplitters 2 or Turok: Evolution I hold my pad the same way I always do, just with my right thumb lower.

You still shift your hands outside the normal positions on two controllers designed around grip and hand shape, have your thumbs unparallel, and if you shift your hand down at all for comfort you also put the trigger buttons at different lenghts from your index finger. If you're fine with that, then you've just invalidated your complaints about the PS2's left-analog placement. If a controller is designed to put certain controls in the optimal position for comfort, then any shifting to a different control becomes less optimal and more uncomfortable. For Playstation that would be the analogs, and for Xbox/GC that would be the D-pad and right-analog. Myself, I'd prefer a balanced controller with NO specific controls put in primary position, but rather splitting the distance between.

at which point you'd have damn few controls at your disposal unless you moved your thumbs off their stick.

The reason PS2 has more controls available is because it has more shoulder buttons, not because of where the sticks are.

Yes, it has more buttons, hence can cover more complex controls and commands easily (all the analog-clicks are sub-optimal right now anyway, and are best avoided as necessary controls. They do fine with random superfluous ones). Hence on the Xbox and Gamecube you either limit the available controls, or are forced to move your thumb to the normal buttons. I'm not sure what your comment was supposed to be saying, because what you said was the REASON I made mine. It is a drawback. They were not connected concepts, it was following up the thought process as to why the Playstation controller provides better dual-analog control.

The main thing they could do to make the PS2's analog use more comfortable would be to set them down a bit more and perhaps push them slightly outward so one doesn't have to stretch one's thumb as much.

Set them DOWN more? So you don't have to stretch your thumb as much? Good lord!

Yes. We're talking tiny changes here, no matter WHAT we're talking about, and for most people it doesn't bother at all, but why not MAKE changes--even tiny ones--that serve better purpose?

The thumb is more at comfort the less it is stretched. As you move it out from the D-pad to the left analog, it stretches outward some. The top of the analog stick, however, is about 1cm higher than the D-pad, and so you stretch your thumb outward more. Lower the housing and you counteract that without messing with the analog stick length (rotational control) and keep

They could still keep both the left analog and D-pad use equally comfortable.

PS2 D-pad != comfortable... not because of location, but because of design.

I already mentioned the design needs improvement, but it IS in the most comfortable position. The GameCube's is worse in design and placement by orders of magnatude, and the Xbox's is in the same location you complain about the Playstation's left-analog being--hence more uncomfortable. (At least in that respect.)

And, as you mention further down in regards to the GameCube's Z-button, I don't really know why people "make a big deal" of the D-pad's design. Unless they're pressing down on it AMAZINGLY hard you can't really feel/rub against the case plastic underneath, and the button edges won't really be uncomfortable. (And in the meanwhile it's easier specifically press in one direction as they have more definition.)

Why does everyone make such a big deal about the Z button?

When I started playing TimeSplitters 2, I just got into the habit of having my index finger on Z and middle finger on R, and now I always hold GC pads that way, for any games. No discomfort of any kind. I think people's problem with Z stems from keeping index on R, and lifting the finger over the front ridge of the R trigger is kinda awkward... but the way I hold it (and have been holding it for over a year, IIRC), that is completely avoided.

I haven't made a big deal about ANYTHING. We're talking improvements that can be made all around, and obviously it's a valid target. It could certainly use being bigger and and further-away from the trigger so you don't rub it while trying to press Z. It could certainly be joined by a companion on the left side because it seems foolish not to, and they should both be analog. While I certainly empathize with your unorthodox holding methods (which is why the Playstation's is my controller of choice, as I am bound to hold it many different ways for many differet games, and it is by far the easiest to manipulate personally without costing in comfort) I'm sure you'll agree that the extreme majority are NOT going to hold their GC controllers like you.

My friend and I have a running gag going about how complicated button combinations are starting to get for games, where whenever someone asks if *** non-existant or impossible move can be done, we answer with some ridiculous answer involving tossing the pad in the air, doing backflips, etc...

Hey, I know it gets rediculous, but it'd still be cool to have. I'm sure that at least Capcom would make a Street Fighter variant simply to embrace all the silly tech. Hehe...

*cough*NINTENDO*cough*

The "GBA-link" was indeed in part what I was thinking of when I mentioned the screen, but it needs to be on the main controller to compensate for the link downsides (such having the screen split off to the side, and requiring gamer to move their hands off the gamepad to fiddle with the GBA, as well as requiring an ~$80 investment to take advantage of this. It needs to be intrinsic to the console to get the best use. (And don't get me started on the asinine and wholly marketing decision to force FF:CC's multi-player to be ONLY available through the GBA-link.) I like the prospects, but want it in proper form. It's doubtful that even if displays were added to the primary controllers they would be large enough to accomidate ALL the abilities games could use it for, so console/portable linking will still always have its place.

Nah uh, triggers all the way man. I can't even begin to explain how much they enhance a racing game or FPS..

I haven't seen a single game bother to use the full pull of a trigger to any real benefit. Racing games I can see it helping some, but then playing racing games on gamepads is a bit of a letdown anyway. Hehe... And HOW on earth does it help an FPS? Because it feels like a gun trigger? Feh... It also lowers the response time. And since most people still by far prefer keyboard/mouse for hard FPSing, obviously they're not missing a full trigger. Meanwhile, dual-analog control helps console FPSes compensate, so I figure a controller better-suited to that would make much more difference.

Full triggers are large, slow, and their strength rarely unused. Meanwhile, you can still get the same effects from different levels of pressure on analog buttons anyway. Few games utilize THAT either, and the everyone's buttons would have to be higher-quality and somewhat better design to offer it competently for all gamers (I can get fairly exacting myself, but certainly not everyone will). But triggers overall I find much more "shtick" than useful, and in the meanwhile the space they require takes up room that could be used more efficiently.

-------------

Overall, I find people mainly find "most comfortable" the controller which matches their favorite console. (Stands to reason, as they'll play more games on it, use the controller more, get used to one particular design, and find using the others takes more adaptation time.) Tends to get people very defensive of one controller and sometimes offensive at others. Console bias in general almost IMMEDIATELY translates to controller bias, because the two are irrevocably linked. Personal preferences are the primary filter, but biases tend to adjust it in many ways.

I break things down into analysis of minutiae because I find that's the way one HAS to be to actually talk about these things without dragging up one bias or another (and many times turning conversations to flamebait). I make sure people know my general preferences, but otherwise examine every point specifically and look at all the differences involved, and can make comparisons and contemplate design shifts that would be generally helpful. (And I wouldn't suggest toward my own personal preference, as that would be retarded.) None of us are going to have the same preferences, but I'll make sure people know why I say what I do.

In the long run, I could care less. I've used all controllers just fine, and don't feel my overall gaming hindered by any of them. Specific controllers will hurt me for some games, but even when annoyed I'll just shrug and work around. (Example: for fighting games I play using my index and middle fingers on the face buttons, arcade-style. On the Dreamcast this was just fine for Soul Calibur, but for Capcom games I had to hit the right trigger with my pinky, which while workable is certainly not optimal.) Some games would force my hand (I can't picture playing Beatmania on any controller but the Playstation's. Guitar Freaks would be managable, but Beatmania is my Bemani game of preference, so...) even IF it's not an option.

Name any part and I'll rank them and supply commentary, but my like of the Playstation controller mainly comes because I prize versatility more than grip--which seems to be the focal point of people's love for the other controllers and big complaint about the PS's. Grip != comfort for me in any way, and I don't understand why people really care. I'll want grip if I'm swinging a sword all day, perhaps. But since these controllers weigh nothing, the primary effect is to make my hands sweaty and reduce the amount I can really flip around a controller to fit my own style. The more formed towards one particular hand type something is, the less comfortable it will be for people outside of that range, or shifting the way it was designed to be held. Most people on here likely play on and utilize a mouse a lot more than a game controller, yet somehow we don't attribute grip to that. (A few might, but the vast bulk won't. And you can get "a few" people doing just about ANYthing... ) The sole advantage I can think for it is with vibration, as you'll feel it along more skin and nerve endings, but I certainly don't want to trade that for the other disadantages. Rather like the left-analog position; I recognize we're much more a LA/face-button primary control scheme at this point, but I'd rather keep even positioning for the analog sticks for dual-use, so would rather just see them make it more comfortable in general rather than flipping the position.

<shrugs> This all is never going to be anything BUT personal opinion, but at least it can still offer some stuff to chew on.

 

[Tagrineth]

You still shift your hands outside the normal positions on two controllers designed around grip and hand shape, have your thumbs unparallel, and if you shift your hand down at all for comfort you also put the trigger buttons at different lenghts from your index finger. If you're fine with that, then you've just invalidated your complaints about the PS2's left-analog placement. If a controller is designed to put certain controls in the optimal position for comfort, then any shifting to a different control becomes less optimal and more uncomfortable. For Playstation that would be the analogs, and for Xbox/GC that would be the D-pad and right-analog. Myself, I'd prefer a balanced controller with NO specific controls put in primary position, but rather splitting the distance between.

I don't shift my hands, don't particularly need to. The GC's pad is a bit different wrt holding it in general than PS2's, though - the fins are more rounded and larger, which makes it much more comfortable for me to hold in any circumstances. And I agree, GC and Xbox's crosspads are awkward too.

Yes, it has more buttons, hence can cover more complex controls and commands easily (all the analog-clicks are sub-optimal right now anyway, and are best avoided as necessary controls. They do fine with random superfluous ones). Hence on the Xbox and Gamecube you either limit the available controls, or are forced to move your thumb to the normal buttons. I'm not sure what your comment was supposed to be saying, because what you said was the REASON I made mine. It is a drawback. They were not connected concepts, it was following up the thought process as to why the Playstation controller provides better dual-analog control.

GCN only realistically loses one button compared to PS2. Sorry about my comment, I thought you were tying them together.

Yes. We're talking tiny changes here, no matter WHAT we're talking about, and for most people it doesn't bother at all, but why not MAKE changes--even tiny ones--that serve better purpose?

The thumb is more at comfort the less it is stretched. As you move it out from the D-pad to the left analog, it stretches outward some. The top of the analog stick, however, is about 1cm higher than the D-pad, and so you stretch your thumb outward more. Lower the housing and you counteract that without messing with the analog stick length (rotational control) and keep

OK, I misunderstood here too. By 'lower' I thought you meant lower as in the Y axis, not Z.

I already mentioned the design needs improvement, but it IS in the most comfortable position. The GameCube's is worse in design and placement by orders of magnatude, and the Xbox's is in the same location you complain about the Playstation's left-analog being--hence more uncomfortable. (At least in that respect.)

Agreed, GCN's crosspad is awkward, but it has the best stick of the lot so that makes up for it. =)

And, as you mention further down in regards to the GameCube's Z-button, I don't really know why people "make a big deal" of the D-pad's design. Unless they're pressing down on it AMAZINGLY hard you can't really feel/rub against the case plastic underneath, and the button edges won't really be uncomfortable. (And in the meanwhile it's easier specifically press in one direction as they have more definition.)

GCN's d-pad is awkward, it's too small and stiff.

I haven't made a big deal about ANYTHING. We're talking improvements that can be made all around, and obviously it's a valid target. It could certainly use being bigger and and further-away from the trigger so you don't rub it while trying to press Z. It could certainly be joined by a companion on the left side because it seems foolish not to, and they should both be analog. While I certainly empathize with your unorthodox holding methods (which is why the Playstation's is my controller of choice, as I am bound to hold it many different ways for many differet games, and it is by far the easiest to manipulate personally without costing in comfort) I'm sure you'll agree that the extreme majority are NOT going to hold their GC controllers like you.

True, it is a valid target, there should've been a copy and the primary triggers should've been lower relative to them. But why do you empathise? That's how I *always* hold GCN pads now. It's comfortable and works fine.

Hey, I know it gets rediculous, but it'd still be cool to have. I'm sure that at least Capcom would make a Street Fighter variant simply to embrace all the silly tech. Hehe...

^_^

Most people on here likely play on and utilize a mouse a lot more than a game controller, yet somehow we don't attribute grip to that. (A few might, but the vast bulk won't. And you can get "a few" people doing just about ANYthing... )

Hahaha, I'm one of those, I don't like the feel of most mice.

The sole advantage I can think for it is with vibration, as you'll feel it along more skin and nerve endings, but I certainly don't want to trade that for the other disadantages. Rather like the left-analog position; I recognize we're much more a LA/face-button primary control scheme at this point, but I'd rather keep even positioning for the analog sticks for dual-use, so would rather just see them make it more comfortable in general rather than flipping the position.

You know, another thing about dual-analogue is that the shoulders aren't ever used equally either. If their use was totally even and well distributed, it would make more sense to have both sticks level so shoulder access was more balanced... but most FPS's have 'Fire' and 'Jump' on the shoulders, or 'Fire' and 'Grenade' or something, and I can tell you right now, one of those is going to be used a LOT more than the other in general play.

 

[Dural]

The Xbox's I'm not sure about. I can see them going to a 6-button main face control, perhaps (making lots of Street Fighters happy ), or perhaps moving away from two large triggers to fit four shoulder buttons in somehow. I'd certainly like to see the other guys offer the break-away fronts the Xbox controllers have; that's just handy and clever.

There are already third party controllers that have the white and black buttons positioned just above the triggers, I'm sure MS will do something like this for the next controller.

What I'd like to see are analog sticks similar to the analog stick on Saturn's 3D controller, just a little stiffer.

 

[cthellis42]

GCN only realistically loses one button compared to PS2. Sorry about my comment, I thought you were tying them together.

One button, but also more combinations that are easier to hit (L's, R's, 1's, 2's together...) which is why I'm a fan of more buttons up there and a more uniform style. That's 8 commands easy, never having to touch the analog-stick-presses. Some games CAN indeed use that much and more. <grins> (Armored Core comes to mind. I certainly WISH they'd offer a dual-stick, cockpit-view game.) I'd be happier with full-size triggers if they had better usability, but I'd rather have similar front buttons to the PS controller, with better quality analog pressure range. They're easy two-way's right now, but hopefully games will push for more in the future.

Agreed, GCN's crosspad is awkward, but it has the best stick of the lot so that makes up for it. =)

You can say that again. That stick makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. <grins> Only thing I'd like them to do offhand is work on a better design for the top/grip. Hard ridges aren't really necessary...

True, it is a valid target, there should've been a copy and the primary triggers should've been lower relative to them. But why do you empathise? That's how I *always* hold GCN pads now. It's comfortable and works fine.

I empathize with weird-controller holding. Since I haven't played any games on GC needing the Z-button a lot, I--and basically everyone I know--use index fingers for the triggers, and hit Z with it as well when needed. (Main reason it could stand to be bigger and a bit further from the trigger, as basically everyone holds it that way.) But personal taste and game-specific needs tend to make all of us work out different methods. Hehe...

Hahaha, I'm one of those, I don't like the feel of most mice.

I go so far as to have one of the early Microsoft optical mice that were VERY big and right-predjudiced, though even that doesn't really offer me "grip" either. If I wanted that I'd have to move to a trackball, I think. I get more hand on my mouse than conventional ones, but it doesn't make a whole heckuva lot of difference. I use most interchangably.

You know, another thing about dual-analogue is that the shoulders aren't ever used equally either. If their use was totally even and well distributed, it would make more sense to have both sticks level so shoulder access was more balanced... but most FPS's have 'Fire' and 'Jump' on the shoulders, or 'Fire' and 'Grenade' or something, and I can tell you right now, one of those is going to be used a LOT more than the other in general play.

Hence the need for more buttons and full user-programmability. Hehe... (A few set button configurations just pisses me off. WHY doesn't every game let the player map their OWN FRICKIN' BUTTONS?! They can't make enough presets for all situations, and I can't see there being some huge technical issue to overcome. Just seems like laziness to me. ('s my biggers gripe about Guitar Freaks, as I want to strum with my left hand and chord with my right, but am forced to do it the opposite so matter what. <sigh> )

Haven't played too many FPSes on consoles (I'm pretty much all-PC for that. Hehe...) but I can't offhand imagine LIKING to play one dual-analog on any controler but the PS's. (At least not if they have any amount of complexity to them and are paced enough for me to want fast response time--as most are.)

There are already third party controllers that have the white and black buttons positioned just above the triggers, I'm sure MS will do something like this for the next controller.

Sure, happens for all. ^_^ (Ok, well maybe not Nintendo's controllers of late--they're very unique and with games specifically taking advantage of them, so shifting them too much can be detrimental.) But the core controllers are still the ones you'll find everyone with. No use thinking about the variants... there will always be plenty out there. ^_^

 

[Dural]

MS has also already had a survey for what should and shouldn't change on the Xbox controller, presumably for the Xbox 2 version.