happydolphin said:
All I remember is playing FFIX, and the left analog was a D-Pad alternative. No pressure sensitivity there, and FFIX was quite a blockbuster. Yeah, I'm mostly assuming for Sony's flagships, but I would be hard-pressed to find that a game offered less functionality on the de facto config (D-Pad) by offering sensitivity on the dual-shock. Confirmation on this would be good, but it wouldn't change the fact that it was most likely implemented on a handful of games, the sales total of which, software-wise, wouldn't touch the sales Nintendo achieved with its analog+pressure sensitive gaming offerings. By that standard, Nintendo brought it to the masses. Case closed.
I meant it in terms of purely analog, dual or single was irrelevant for my point, I was referring to the left analog if you wish, the right analog was not part of my point. But given you attach so much importance to it, granted that's Sony's doing and credit to them. Again, though, I doubt it was used, with pressure sensitivity and all, in much of Sony's PS1 offerings. My point stands.
You most certainly did, I don't want to treasure-hunt your posts! You're posts, you should remember. But anyways, for shits: Post 1. Post 2. I understand why you made the point (in counter to using Wii sales for motion), but if you don't stand by it, don't damn use it. Otherwise you play bait and switch and I have 0 patience for that. Having to address this takes up post space. Every post item takes time to read, reflect on, and reply to. Try not to be so sloppy o_O.Q.
Dual analog wasn't required to get the full analog experience I'm referring to. That's a second improvement, after the fact. The first jump in gaming enjoyment was Nintendo's analog stick. The dual analog adds support features which are now fundamental to console FPS', and probably there is still more to improve (who knows). But at the time of the N64 and PS1, the 2nd analogue wasn't a necessity, as can be shown by the games that made use of the right analog. The full experience could hence be found on the N64, at the time. As for sales, I would have to disagree, since ALL N64 games supported analog controls de facto. Only a handful of PS1 games, especially Sony 1st+2nd party games supported the analog controls iirc.
@bold. You shouldn't use that expression. Everything on the forum is opinion and POV based on info and facts. Some are just more reliable than others. Given what I've presented thus far, I consider my POV on this more robust than yours, sorry. However I'll concede we need to do some research on analog-enabled games on PS1 versus total N64 software sales. I'll attempt to compile that and seal this argument once and for all, bind it to the spam bin for it never to emerge again. |
" by offering sensitivity on the dual-shock. Confirmation on this would be good, but it wouldn't change the fact that it was most likely implemented on a handful of games, the sales total of which, software-wise, wouldn't touch the sales Nintendo achieved with its analog+pressure sensitive gaming offerings. By that standard, Nintendo brought it to the masses"
for one we don't know for certain if it was pressure sensitive or not ( i'm leaning to it was )
secondly this point "implemented on a handful of games" is absolute nonsense, most ps1 games supported the analogs..
you know... franchises like resident evil, metal gear solid, spyro etc?
and finally "Nintendo brought it to the masses" they brought it to the masses when they sold a fraction of what the competition sold even after the dual analogs became standard ( ps1 > 100 mil n64 < 40 mil )?
even if i were to cut off the first year of sales for ps1 ( before analogs became standard ) its still obvious that after analogs became standard it still significantly outsold the n64
"Again, though, I doubt it was used, with pressure sensitivity and all, in much of Sony's PS1 offerings. My point stands."
well i'll just have to guess that you never played the ones i mentioned above then in addition to the other series that supported dual analogs on ps1...
"
|
"This defeats your improving on what Nintendo offers and bringing to the masses argument." i never ever made that argument because for me nintendo, sony and microsoft have just been improving on designs that were present previously |
You most certainly did"
post 1 :
"uess i misinterpretated what you said there and besides there were several consoles that used analogs before either of them like the vectrex... but in terms of relevance going by sales the ps1 and ps2 sold more than any of nintendo's home consoles so far
so i'd have to say that they played a bigger part in making analogs relevant ( if sales is what counts in making something relevant )"
i didn't say anything here about improvement at all
post 2 :
"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" i'll just assume you mean this part "yes i would agree that they improved upon it and the controller in general but the same could be said of microsoft and sony" where i actually said nintendo, microsoft and sony improved on analogs and controllers ...one of us really sucks at reading comprehension "Only a handful of PS1 games, especially Sony 1st+2nd party games supported the analog controls" wheres the evidence that only a handful of ps1 games supported it? "I consider my POV on this more robust than yours, sorry" lol the same goes for me
