You can keep repeating that all you want... the shell is still clearly based on the X360 controller. (ultimately all these controllers root back to SNES/PS1/DC in terms of ergonomics, but the immediate predecessor to the UPro is obviously the X360 controller.

Yes the buttons and sticks are still of Nintendo origin, but you can't argue the shape of the controller shell is a combination of GC, CC and Upad, because if you merged those 3 shapes you would get an unholy mess.

I kind of explain it here (mostly in the 3rd paragraph): http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4604627

Basically what it boils down to is that for controllers of this general shape the place your thumbs rest comfortably is about where the control sticks are on the UPro. And for ultimate control in a 3D enviroinment the dual analogue set-up has been proved to work best without getting too complicated (ie technology still isn't quite ready for the Virtual Boy 2) The UPro and Upad are the first controllers to put two control sticks in the thumbs default positions.

The practice of having buttons and a d-pad in the prime position dates back to the NES... that control scheme is designed around 2D gaming that didn't have analogue input. The N64 and the 2nd PS1 controllers (aka the Dual Analog) were attempts to tack on 3D control options onto a controller designed for 2D. Due to the oddity that the N64 controller is, the Dreamcast controller helped prove the control stick should be in the prime thumb position... and XB and GC took that and added it to the need for dual analogue.
Meanwhile the PS controller remains a 2D controller with added sticks... probably mostly because the PS1 sold so well Sony was hesitant to change anything.

As I also mentioned in the linked post... when your thumb is out of the prime position (bending it down towards where the sticks are on a PS controller) it is an easier action to press a button than it is to control a stick... kind of in the same way that it is easier to jump up and down on one foot than it is to balance on it.

The shell looks exactly likely the Wii's Classic Controler Pro exact the bottom grips are bent backward and the analogs are placed above the buttons. Only 360 fanboys see a copy of the 360 controller because that is what they are the most familiar with.

+=

+=

This is what I've seen since the first time I saw the controller. The 360 never crossed my mined till Xbox fanboys started insisting it.

I don't think I have even spent 5 minutes touching an X360 controller so you definately can't call me an Xbox fanboy.

Let's see:

 - GC and CCPro handles are thinner and are a seperate form from the faceplate aesthetically, wheras the UPro face and handles all form one curve like the X360.

 - The CCPro 2nd shoulder triggers are wide and flat, and probably took some inspiration from the Dual Shock versions (Nintendo's previous extra shoulder triggers being displayed right there in the GCs z button and the original CC) The UPro 2nd triggers are shaped like triggers, like the X360.

 - The continuous curve on the top and bottom of the UPro roughly matches the X360 controller curves, the CCPro is only mildly concave top and bottom, and the GC and UPad central sections are clearly nothing like that.

 - The inset for the control sticks is circular instead of octaganol like the X360 (although ultimately that comes from the PS controller)... This is really my only major gripe with the UPro though, I prefer the octaganol housing.

------

Don't get me wrong, the buttons and control sticks are of course mostly the culmination of years of Nintendo designs (apart from circular stick insets and 2nd triggers),  which I am glad of as I don't like non-Ninty d-pads, and much prefer the digital feel of the buttons.... but the controller shell is very much like the X360, as proved by the numerous comparisons I can already find if I do an image search for the Wii U Pro controller.

I like this post. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I actually don't like the dualshock's position of the left analog. But since the right analog is a secondary analog stick (unlike the left one which is a primary input), and since buttons are primarily used on the left hand side, the swapping will be a downside on that front.

BUT, as you said, it seems easier to access buttons on the lower segment than it is to access an analog stick. However, that depends on the analog stick! Is it concave, is it a nub, ... something more recessed but still clickable may have been the ultimate option, but time will tell if hitting the buttons at that location is easy or not. To remember point 1, buttons are the primary input on the RHS in many cases, but as I said in my first post, in other cases the right analog is, so it's still a tough call.

Maybe we should start a new poll to see how many threads in the next 6 months we think people will argue about which controller has the best layout or who copied who. That might be fun.

The controller looks decent although not a fan of the top side. The shoulder buttons seem to be more inline with the DS3 then the flimsy shoulder buttons and triggers on the 360 pad. The sticks also appear to be raised higher then the 360 ones but possibly not as high as the PS3, this should make aiming faster and more accurate then the 360 pad.

Glad they went with a convex style for the sticks aswell, but they lack the rough surface of the DS3 which removes the chance of finger slippage. Overall it appears to be better then the 360 pad, it ill be interesting to see if they have the small deadzone of the DS3 or the larger one on the 360pad.

Played it with Rayman Legends at the E3. Worked well. Was comfortable.

Played it with Rayman Legends at the E3. Worked well. Was comfortable.

Lucky :$