RolStoppable said:
Since we are on the topic of controllers, revolutionary is a new input that catches on. The first analog stick is revolutionary, adding a second one is an evolution of the idea. Especially because the functionality of the second stick was already largely provided by the C-buttons of the Nintendo 64. Shoulder buttons on the SNES controller were revolutionary. The original PS1 controller adding another two shoulder buttons is an evolution. The N64 rumble pak is the revolution, built-in rumble in later controllers is the evolution. HD rumble in the Switch's Joy-Cons is also an evolution. I think you get the point. What usually follows here in comments by other people are mentions of older analog sticks (they weren't thumbsticks like we use them today though) or force feedback in flightsticks, but those things didn't catch on and they aren't really comparable to begin with. |
Hold on a second. The predictable "it's only evolutionary, not revolutionary" downplay aside, your comment makes no sense.
Controllers already had buttons. Now the placement of the buttons is revolutionary? You implied earlier that "more of the same" cannot be revolutionary, so which is it? That's pretty clearly a double standard you've got going there.
Ignoring the debate over more buttons being "more of the same", dual stick controls changed the way we played games. The impact on the controls and structure of video-games was, without a shred of doubt, the start of a revolution in game design, particularly with the rise of FPP. Yes, I know people are going to go down the "evolution vs. revolution" side-track but, honestly, who really cares? Depending on semantics is often an act of desperation. The importance of dual stick controls cannot be down-played.
