The Ergonomics of Controllers

Rahul Choudhury writes "Over the years, the controller device we use as our extra limb into the world of gaming has evolved from joystick to d-pad, analogue control, and touchscreen. Gamingredients investigated the pros and cons of a variety of controllers from Colecovision to Xbox (and expressed their scores in flavours of coffee)."

Comments

Too bad they're wrong

[barawn]

Man. Nice attempt, but it's too bad they're really, really wrong when it comes to their scores.

Take a look at the Genesis controller versus the SNES Controller. The Genesis controller had a better D-pad? What? The whole problem with semi-8 way D-pads is that they aren't actually as precise as the pure 4-way ones. In some games this is okay, but in others you prefer actually knowing which direction you're pushing. Sega didn't use it as an improvement. It was because Nintendo had a patent on a 4-way cross D-pad.

And deriding the SNES controller for its buttons? What? The Genesis 3-button and 6-button controllers had identical buttons. You had no idea which ones you were pushing without looking down (or knowing from position). The three-button design was bad, not good - you can locate two buttons, because whatever button your thumb is on, the second button is the other one. With three, that's not the case. The SNES controller, on the other hand, had two concave and two convex buttons. You could tell which button you were pressing by touch, and you could locate at least 2 of the other 3 buttons purely by touch, and because they were lined up in the way they were, you could locate the last one as well. Much, much smarter, and the touch-location is sorely missing from most modern controllers.

My favorite is this comment, regarding the GameCube controller:

This encouraged simple, single-button play without sacrificing versatility. It also made multi-console games a lot harder to play and made ports from other consoles worse.

I see. So Nintendo makes the most intelligent controller of all of them, and they lose points because it's harder to play games that were poorly ported and designed for worse controllers. Good call.

And, also...

And, in a cruelly ironic twist, everything else changed but the d-pad is still split ... because Nintendo has a patent on a 4-way cross controller.

A whole lot of opinion, but absolutely no concept of ergonomics.

Re:Too bad they're wrong

[PhotoBoy]

I agree, it usually takes me 30 seconds using a game to decide if the developers have chosen a "sane" control scheme or not. Any GameCube port that has problems because of the missing button has just been lazily converted. My favourite cock up is MGS: The Twin Snakes, where you have to press A and Start to go into the codec screen despite there being nothing mapped to the Start button when not pressing A!

They also ignored the fact that the GC innovated wireless controllers that *actually work*.

They were overly harsh with the N64 controller as well, despite Sony bunging a second analogue stick on the Dual Shock the analogue sticks weren't in the same league as the N64 ones. The N64 sticks were much more accurate, sensitive and had a better range of movement.

The only review I agreed with was the Dreamcast pad which is massively underrated. I'd have liked to have seen a review of the Saturn's analogue pad too.

Re:Too bad they're wrong

[david.given]

Man. Nice attempt, but it's too bad they're really, really wrong when it comes to their scores.

Yeah; I was amazed that they rubbished the N64 controller, which is amazingly simple, comfortable and ergonomic. They seemed to primarily deride it on the fact that you get the choice of using either the D-pad or the analogue stick, but not both --- which is missing the point entirely: since the N64's controller was the first controller with an analogue stick, there weren't any games that required you to use both at once. They're criticising it for not being something it wasn't required to be.

(I have a Game Cube now, and I still think the N64 controller is far more comfortable. The only thing I think is wrong with it is that the analogue stick didn't quite have enough traction on top; my thumb would keep slipping off playing high-stress games, as my hands got sweaty.)

Just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't agree with much that, that guy said at all. Maybe it's because I'm a left handed coleco owner I dunno, but I have always thought that the gamecube controller is superior to the PS2 controller in many ways with the exception of one. The surface on the analog part on the PS2 is much better then the gamecube. If they could just take that sticky rubbery stuff and put it on a GC controller, and move the Z button it would be perfect.

What I found really funny about the article was the fact that he commented on the ergonomics of the PS3 and XB360. How the hell can he do that? Has he actually played games with those controllers? He's basing it on what they look like.

If I did that, I'd say that the N64 controller was incredibly clunky. But when you actually hold it, it's feels right. The dreamcast controller looks slick, but when you hold it, the angles don't feel right.

Re:oringal xbox controller

[bynary]

i think this guy is just some over-caffeinated sony-fan-boy.

I couldn't agree more. The Dual Shock is perhaps the most uncomfortable controller I have ever used. By far, the most comfortable, intuitive controller is the Gamecube's. Second is the Xbox S controller. If you'll notice the sidebar on the Dual Shock, you'll see that they contradict themselves on their rating of said Sony controller. Go figure...

TFA has some notable problems and oversights.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Dual Shock 2 segment:

"This is the current gold standard."

Wait. Hang on a second. The author says the SNES controller was crap (even though it introduced shoulder buttons). They also say the N64 controller was practically an abomination (even though it introduced analog thumbstick and rumble).

Now, stay with me here.

The Playstation Dual Shock controller is very simply an SNES controller with handles, analog thumbsticks, and rumble. How is it that this sets the "gold standard" when all of its components are from such "inferior" products? The beloved Dual Shock is a conglomeration of Nintendo ideas, layouts, and engineering that is almost 15 years old now. Also, it bears mentioning that Sony intentionally violated standing patents and copyrights and included the rumble feature without paying the license fees like Nintendo and Microsoft did. The Dual Shock 2 is a hack and a ripoff, the thumbsticks are poorly actuated, and the d-pad is harsh and uncomfortable. Will someone please tell me how that qualifies it as "the gold standard"? Is it because everyone uses it? Is that what makes it the best?

Now, a couple other things to think about. Here are a list of things that Nintendo invented:

D-Pad
4 Face Button Layout
Analog Thumbstick
Rumble Feature
Viable Wireless

They invented EVERYTHING that every other company uses. Please explain to me why that makes their controllers the worst available pieces of hardware? See I would have thought that would make their controllers cutting edge, the best available technology at any given time, and the guiding light destined to be copied and copied poorly by whichever other companies are occupying the video game market at the time.

One other thing to consider. I have a friend who used to have a bit of a temper when gaming. We played lots and lots of PS2 and gamecube. PS2 controllers will shatter under relatively little force - one strike against a refrigerator and they are just toast! However, my friend through my wavebird all the way across the livingroom THROUGH one of our kitchen cupboards, and it only has a slight scratch on the Z-button.

I just think that says something quality of the Nintendo products.

Re:oringal xbox controller

[bynary]

Its different sized buttons threw me off, the shoulder buttons depressed too far, and the d-pad is awkward to use for any extended period of time.

That's because you're used to the counter-intuitive Dual Shock controller.

The difference in the button sizes is very logical: the A button is larger because it's the most used. They are also different sizes so that you can instantly tell via tactile feedback which button you're pressing. The shoulder buttons can be depressed that far because they're analog meaning they have various levels of sensitivity. This is in stark contrast to the Dual Shock's "we need x number of buttons. Where the hell are we gonna put 'em" layout scheme. And who in their right mind uses shapes as a naming convention?

All told, the Gamecube controller design is very logical and intuitive. I can't say the same for the Dual Shock.

Re:He's wrong about the Dual Shock 2

[macshit]

On the other hand, the GameCube controller does what he suggests, and labels each button with a letter. And as a result, every time a game tells me to push "X" or "Y" I have to pause, look down at the controller, and hunt for the symbols.

This is confused (have you ever played a game on the gamecube?) -- the gamecube buttons are dramatically different shapes, sizes, and colors, and games inevitably refer to them by showing little pictures of the button in context; you can locate them by feel. As far as I can tell the letters are never used except in online walk-throughs and the like (and for this particular purpose, using letters for each is a fantastic idea).

Morever, the gamecube has an extremely standard set of uses for the buttons (the "main/fire/activate/confirm" button is always big central button, the "back" button is always the little circular button next to it, etc).

The playstation buttons, being identically sized and symmetrical, are actually rather easy to get confused -- and games make this worse by being inconsistent about button assignments (if it were always "circle means confirm etc." that would kind of nice, but it's not).

What's pretty clear is that nintendo puts quite a bit of effort into the ergonomics of their controllers and does a lot of user testing (their most famous developer, miyamoto, is famously obsessed with the subject). Based on the often glaringly obvious problems with Sony controllers (the PSP analogue nub being a great example), it doesn't seem that Sony does much testing at all, and more or less treats controllers as simply another element of the unit's aeshetics.

The main problem with Nintendo's controllers, as far as I can see, is that they seem to do the bulk of testing with their own game designs, so that the results are sometimes awkward for games ported from other consoles and perhaps certain game genres with well-established controller conventions (e.g. fighting games where everybody is crying out for 17 face buttons...).

Re:I agree for the most part

[macshit]

Let's put it this way: both the dualshock (2) and the gamecube controller have various flaws which are fairly well agreed upon:

GC flaws:

• Overly small d-pad (a flaw only for "d-pad oriented" games; many games actually use this simply for item selection etc., which doesn't depend on the size).
• Non-symmetrical sticks/too-small C-stick (for games which need two sticks)
• Small and hard to press z-button

DS2 flaws:

• Painful and hard to use d-pad (a flaw for d-pad oriented games -- but it's pretty strange that such a bad d-pad is still in the prime location on the controller)
• Badly placed analogue sticks (well... a pretty basic problem)
• Inconsistent button usage

The GC controller flaws seem to result from a certain over-emphasis on a particular style of controller usage -- certain controls are emphasized at the expense of others -- but it's pretty clear that Nintendo thought through their preferred control scheme and made the controller work well for that case.

The DS2 flaws, on the other hand, are harder to characterize, and seem to stem from a lack of attention to detail -- both the d-pad and analogue sticks are annoying to use for different reasons. It has a much more generic feel, which is good in some ways (more flexible) and bad in others (less optimized).

So based on your particular style of gaming, there are reaons to prefer one or the other -- but if an article like this makes any pretense at an evenhanded analysis, a conclusion that the DS2 is great and the GC controller sucks is simply bizarre.