Slashdot Mirror
Controller Comparison - PlayStation 3 vs. Wii
ZiakII writes "Engadet has an article comparing the PS3 Controller to the Wii's Controller. From the article: 'The motion control, however, was another story entirely. Whereas the Wiimote seemed to produce different experiences in different games and scenarios, the only title being shown with motion on the PS3 produced one experience: laggy control.'"
I guess this is why some companies go overboard with the whole patenting thing. Nintendo tries something risky, and somewhat innovative, and its competition tries to copy it as soon as it can. Kinda sad really.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
With all those gesturing Nintendo players are doing with their right arm & the motion sensing controllers. It's going to look kinda suspicious on a gamer if their right arm is much more buff than their left.
Of course, I think what's going to happen are alot of out of shaped gamers will just get tired too easily and will return to the GameCube. We know they had to remove using motion for regular attacks from Zelda because gamers got to tired.
But we also know the PS3 advance graphics will be hard to program for, and their motion sensing isn't as robust as the Wii. So from a development standpoint, developing for the PS2 makes most sense. Everyone has it already, and it's getting dirt cheap. Whoever wins the HD format war, jsut buy a stand alone player.
That's a PS3 controller? Looks just like a PS1 controller to me.
Thanks for the great design, Sony.
The fact that there is only one game that utilizes the motion control and the fact that Warhawk's development team only had a few weeks to put it into the game is very telling that this was a last minute addition to the console. If there's anyone out there that thinks that Sony isn't trying to copy the Wii they are in denial. I just hope that Sony's cheap rip-off doesn't cause people to overlook the Wii because they think it will be bad as well.
Multiple experiences with a controller after reviewing multiple games..... one experience with a controller after reviewing one game...... It's this kind of insightful reporting that keeps me coming back... Considering there is only one game on the PS3 that uses the feature (because Sony only told developers about it 2 or 3 WEEKS AGO), it seems to be a good early preview of the capabilities.
I think the definition of 'ripping off' is up for debate. Innovating: "Hey, what about motion-sensing control? I think Atari may have done something like that a long time ago, but it didn't work that well... what if we built off of that and added spatial sensors as well?" Rip-off: "Our main competitor just dropped their trump card! We need to get a similar feature ASAP to show that we're still in the game!" In my opinion, just because a musical composition uses counterpoint doesn't mean it's ripping off Bach. The argument that Nintendo is ripping off a 20-year-old controller from Atari that had a single similar feature is is like saying that Nintendo ripped off Atari by developing a console... they're both devices that hook up to your TV and play games.
Of course sony didn't rip off Nintendo. Nintendo's controller features true position detection, as well as relative motion. Nintendo's controller is something that has never been done before in a consumer video game system.
Sony threw some components from a generic gyroscopic mouse in an old controller. That's not ripping off nintendo's genuinely innovative design. Comparing the MS, logitech, atari, or sony controllers to the nintendo one is pure idiocy - they have nowhere near the functionality of the Wii.
The real issue, of course, is Sony attempting to steal Nintendo's thunder, not their idea. So far all it's done is make them look like jackasses.
My first disappointment with this controller is lack of a rumble feature, but following swiftly on its heels is disappointment in the fact that they didn't take the opportunity to move the damn analog controllers into a more ergonomically friendly location.
Every PS fanboy states that the dual-shock is the best controller out there, but when it comes to analog stick placement, it's only because it's what they're used to. Crook your thumbs into the shape necessary to work with the dualshock sticks. Then move them around a little. You'll feel a little fatigue (maybe not much, if you've played a lot with the controller). Then move your thumbs up a little, into the place where the gamecube and xbox controllers have the analog sticks. Move them around again. You'll likely feel less fatigue. That's because your thumbs are in a more relaxed place there, not having to exert any effort to hold it.
It's no surprise that 2 different companies placed the sticks higher up than the dualshock after 2 completely separate bouts of ergonomic research. The thumbs in the dualshock position are already flexing to keep that position. Your most natural position to rest your thumb is on your index finger. If you rest your thumbs on your ring finger, you'll feel the muscles pull because they need to to reach that non-natural state. It's the same state they're in when using the dualshock. You have to exert energy just to keep them at a rest state with those sticks.
The worst part of the design is that it's an example of lazy, "that's the way it's supposed to be" design. It's like the classic story (in software development circles) of the woman who always cut the ends off of a roast before cooking it. When her husband asked why, she said, "that's the way my mom did it; that's the way you're supposed to do it." Later, she asked her mom why she cut the ends off, and her mom told her "because my pan was too small to hold the whole roast." That's the same thing with the design of the dualshock. Those sticks aren't there because of exhaustive ergonomic studies. They're there because they're an afterthought. They were added to the original PS1 controller well after the system's original release, and they were put in the only place they fit. No one wanted to change the rest of the controller around (which is, by the way, a fine controller if you don't use the analog sticks). After they caught on, no one wanted to go back and move them around, because controllers are such an iconic part of console branding.
So that's why I'm disappointed. They had a chance to fix a bad design. It was even more important that they do so today, since most games nowadays use the analog sticks instead of the d-pad. But they didn't, and that's just sad. So now the more frequently used controls are in a harder to reach place, but hey, you can hit that d-pad to change weapons or select from a menu just fine. Oh, and now you can tilt the thing, too....
The didn't rip off the design or how it works - but I bet they wouldn't be doing any motion sensing if Nintendo wasn't making a big impression with it. They knew Nintendo were on to a good thing and they've copied it for this generation of consoles. In saying that, is this is really a bad thing? Who gives a toss "who rips off who"? Why should we worry?
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
Sony's Movement-Sensing Controller Patent. Stolen from Nintendo, or making use of the patent at an opportune time?
The Wii's control scheme has a significant advantage over that of its rivals' with regard to ergonomics. Holding the Wii-mote and the nunchaku device in the opposing hand (doesn't seem to make a difference if you're a righty or a lefty, either) at an adequate distance can reduce the strain on the wrists, elbows, and shoulders of the player's arms, allowing for a much more relaxed, more natural positioning of limbs. The human hands weren't meant to be held so close together for extended periods of time, which is why gaming with a keyboard and mouse has always been more comfortable (though not completely) than gaming with just the keyboard or with a controller.
And I'm guessing many of the functions with the Wii-mote and the nunchaku won't have to be motion-centric per se, at least not on the level of play that is shown in demonstrations--I think this is more of a basic human reaction amidst adaptation to the control scheme. i.e. The brain thinks, "Hey, I'm moving!" and the body gradually reacts more naturally to the movement on the screen and its interface through the controller. For many veterans (and some newcomers), I'm sure great sweeping movements in repetition won't be necessary, which would further reinforce its ergonomic benefits.
[End of Line]
All I can say is that it's sad that the Katamari series is dead (for now at least). That's probably the one game where I can really see using the PS3's tilt-controller. Well, that and Monkey Ball.
This guy's the limit!
I would sincerely doubt that Nintendo was thinking about some obscure antique made by Atari when the designed the Wii controller.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sony was thinking about the Wii controller when they hacked motion sensors into the PS3's controller, though.
Definitely a rip-off there.
I'm not sure exactly how it works, but Gyration, Inc. (which Nintendo has a majority stake in) has had an "air mouse" out for a while now.
The PS2 already beat them to it - look up the "trance vibrator" for use with the game Rez.
Well, I tried both Wii and PS3/Warhawk at E3, and while I was predisposed to like the Wii and skeptical of Sony's 'last minute' addition, I was disappointed with the Wii and impressed with the PS3 controller.
First off, I really like the PS2/Dual-Analog style controller, so that wasn't going to be a problem for me. I don't like the non-symmetrical layout of the Gamecube and I hated the first-party XBox controllers. The 360 controller is perhaps the best, with the 'bumpers' instead of the white/black buttons that are in different places on different controllers, and the triggers that actually allow for varying degrees of input (which is hard to get with Sony's buttons).
My friends and I were all excited to swordfight with the Wii controller. Problem was, it didn't actually let you control the sword in 3D space, it only let you determine when to swing. Not to say that the controller couldn't do it right, but it hasn't yet. Also, I really didn't like using the Wii controller for the FPS sections of the game, although I was told that Metroid worked much better.
The Wii controller was very sensitive and responsive, but the games just weren't using it to its potential yet. I'm hoping that if they're just afraid 'real' 3D control is too complicated, they'll have some 'advanced'/'arcade' options in there like you often see on console flight simulators. The best game I played in Nintendo's booth was the driving game, which could have been done just as well on PS3, and would have looked better. (Note that they said that 'something came up' and kicked everyone out of the booth before I got to try Zelda, Mario, or Metroid -- probably Paris Hilton showed up or something...)
Meanwhile, after seeing what appeared to be a laggy demo at the press conference, I was pleasantly surprised by how well Warhawk worked. I'm sorry, but anyone who says it's laggy was probably wearing their Nintendo-colored glasses. I found it very easy and natural to pilot my Warhawk, which is very promising given that they had apparently only added this control mode a few weeks before E3! Meanwhile, Nintendo's betting the whole farm on this gimmick, and they still don't have it down.
As a side note, we put in the original Warhawk when we got back, and we were amazed at how craptacular it looked. It must have been displaying like 100 polygons on screen! And at the time we thought it was awesome -- though even then we weren't fooled by the fmv...
Well, Wii will reportedly come with Opera, the web browser that pioneered mouse gestures.
So not all that much hacking left to do...
The PS3 controller has 6 degrees of freedom.
That is to say, it can sense translation in the x/y/z dimensions (3 translational axes) and it can sense rotation as roll/pitch/yaw (3 rotational axes).
Using purely accelerometers, it would be impossible to accurately detect the rotational axes. The gravity vector would be necessary to determine the rotation of the device. You can break any algorithm relying on an accelerometer to detect the gravity vector by subjecting the controller to translational accelerations - these would interfere with extracting the gravity vector from sensor data, even if you use multiple accelerometers.
Imagine that the sensor knows gravity points downward at 9.81 m/s^2. Now start moving it to the left. You have one vector pointing down, and one vector pointing left. You can assume that the one pointing down is gravity, but what if the controller is tilted? How far is it tilted? You'd have to know which way gravity is pointing in order to subtract the gravity vector.
With a gyroscope, however, you can calibrate the controller when it is obviously only under the influence of gravity. Then, you can use the gyro to decouple the effect of gravity from other accelerations; the gyro lets you know which way gravity is pointing, and some simple vector subtraction leaves you with the translational data.
:(){
The PS3 is only TILT sensitive. All of the 'movement' that makes the Wii attractive to the people who like it (the tennis game, for example), is NOT POSSIBLE with the PS3. It's NOT motion sensitive, and I wish the media would quit misreporting it. Engadget should be highlighting this difference and they aren't. They way they present the article, it seems they don't even understand the difference themselves.