Gnac said:
Can you verify this? It seems that it at least had the precision expected of today's analogue inputs, and that should not be disregarded. The main reason I responded to this post was regarding the issue of the form factor of the controllers, which highlights their purpose. I haven't commented on the form factor of the Move (in this thread or others), because I believe that only so much can be done with regards to ergonomics when trying to achieve a certain purpose. The other reason I even bother to comment in threads like this is because people are so pedantic. The slightest tweak allegedly makes the world of difference, but in the greater scheme of things, it does not. There are so many factors to consider, that we cannot isolate one as a barometer of success. EDITed to address the awful attitude of the poster I replied to |
Don't exactly see how I had such a bad attitude, but ok, lol. BTW here's your proof: http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=3&cId=3143627
@ Nick
You can twist words all you want, but in the end the N64's controller was still not analog. Though, it's design did allow for greater control compared to a normal D-pad. It just wasn't as accurate as the potentiometer based analog sticks used in Sony's Dual Analog Flight Stick (April '96), Dual Analog (April '97) and DualShock (May '98). This is probably why Nintendo switched their tech for the stick on the Gamecube controller, as well as adding a second stick ala the DualShock.
Of course, we could all just shut up about who copied who and give the credit to the Atari 5200 and the Vectrex (both Nov. '82), as they were the first consoles to feature an analog stick. And even though analog was mostly abandoned after those consoles were discontinued until '95 when Sony started development of their Flight Stick, they were still the very first.