Slashdot Mirror
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)."
I need a wireless controller that uses rechargable batteries. The next generation part is that the controller recharges off sweat. What a waste to continually wipe away all that sweet sweet sweat when the controller can be sucking it up and letting me game as long as my eyes can stay open.
Man. Nice attempt, but it's too bad they're really, really wrong when it comes to their scores.
... because Nintendo has a patent on a 4-way cross controller.
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
A whole lot of opinion, but absolutely no concept of ergonomics.
This site shows a speculated tree of evolution of game controllers.
It is indeed evolutionary, with each generation resembling the previous one, but a bit different.
^_^
Well, in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, there was something called the stone of agony that would make the rumble pak vibrate if you were walking near a secret.
No mention of the powerglove? That was about the only exercise my right arm got until puberty.
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...
http://www.bynarystudio.com
You've never played Rez, have you?
... rather, you've never let your girlfriend/wife play Rez, have you?
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
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.
The fire buttons on the Dual Shock 2 are actually a minor masterpiece of ergonomics.
The circle button is the one next to the circular right edge of the joystick. The square button is the one next to the square center section. The triangle button points up. So all the symbols relate to the physical feel of the joystick in your hands, without looking at it, with the sole exception of "X" which I don't find hard to remember.
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.
I dunno, maybe "X" and "Y" make sense to people who are long time Nintendo zea^H^H^Hfans, but I can't deal with it at all.
At the same time, he misses the really big problem with the Dual Shock 2, which is that the L1 and R1 buttons are impossible to keep fingers on comfortably while using the analog sticks. With my thumbs on the analog controls, my hands raise up and my trigger fingers naturally slide down to L2 and R2.
I did see a third party joystick which had L1 and R1 lower, and L2 and R2 banked slightly behind them, so that the natural grip was to have all four shoulder buttons under fingers, and thumbs on the analog sticks. Unfortunately, my experience of third party joysticks has been pretty negative.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
GC flaws:
DS2 flaws:
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.
We live, as we dream -- alone....