happydolphin said:
Yeah, that sounds about right. And Nintendo copied the vectrex, that's how they got Mario 64's awesome controls, they followed the revolutionary lead of whoever made that wonder of a console.
Vectrex controller background information: please read. @o_O.Q: Do you realize the vecrex controller wasn't a thumbstick? It was held with 3 fingers, and wasn't near like Nintendo's design, which also featured the Z trigger. The N64 controller was made to be held with your thumb, while your index held the trigger button. That's a main part of the innovation. It also had grip for your thumb, a concept that wasn't even relevant for vectrex controller since it isn't a thumbstick. The vectrex controller was more akin to a mini arcade joystick. Let me show you why this is not nearly as revolutionary as the N64 analog stick.
The real innovation of the vectrex at the time was the analog input that came for the 360 degrees direction of the stick, but I would be hard pressed to believe it had pressure sensitivity like the 64 controller did (i.e. not just capting, but even interpreting the magnitude of the vector of the position of the joystick relative to center), whereby you could get mario to tiptoe. If it can, I stand corrected. But you need to provide the proof. The article says it was designed after arcade sticks, meaning it has full analog along the directions, but didn't consider the size of the vector (sensitivity). If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow ;) For now, from the video below, this is what the vectrex controls look like, I don't see pressure sensitivity. And the ships were advancing by the press of a button, not with the analog pushed forward like you would imagine. So the space game for example is only considering the direction, not the magnitude of the vector in that direction. Compare that to Mario's pressure sensitive controls in the Z axis. There's no match there. :)
@PS1 sales: That is 100% irrelevant. It isn't the sales of the console per se that matter, it's the quality of controls for a game like Mario 64 that matter, and the enjoyment it gave to so many people. Since you're asking us, we make the rules, and that's the benchmark. :P In that regard, the N64 destroyed the PS1. Realize the PS1 barely made use of the dual analog, it wasn't designed with that in mind. The N64 was. Prove me the opposite (that a large portion of games made extensive use of the dual analog) with a nice fancy list. Thanks. |
to your first part i'm not really sure what all the text is suppposed to prove i never argued about which was more ergonomic, had better design etc all i stated is that analog thumbsticks is not something that nintendo brought to gaming
yes i would agree that they improved upon it and the controller in general but the same could be said of microsoft and sony, my main gripe is that i see many nintendo fans praising nintendo for their work with analog sticks when really for me they have only been implementing their own take on them like microsoft and sony after implementation by other gaming companies that aren't mentioned in this regard at all
to your second part about relevance
"Realize the PS1 barely made use of the dual analog, it wasn't designed with that in mind. The N64 was."
i didn't realise that the n64 had dual analogs...
but anyway if your point is that the ps1 used them poorly well thats your opinion i can think of many games that imo used them well like ape escape, spyro, resident evil, metal gear solid etc
secondly i made the point i made because many nintendo fans say that nintendo made motion gaming relevant through the sales of the wii ( even though it has existed before now in other forms ) but then when it comes to analog sticks even though the playstation sold more than the n64 that argument changes
