RolStoppable said:
Four buttons are good enough for movement, hence why it's still standard on the PC. The reason why Sony's controller got a second stick is most likely that there wasn't enough space for C-buttons on their PS controller and the stick could serve the same functionality on top of maintaining a symmetric shape. Nintendo's design for the GC controller was deliberately going for fewer buttons to have a more accessible look (also the reason for the emphasis on the A button), so it made sense to replace four buttons with a stick. It is here where I have to make a better argument against myself than you are capable of: The C-stick of the GC controller is unsurprisingly superior to the C-buttons for camera controls. Small tidbit since it's appropriate: The C-buttons were named that way because they were made for Camera controls in Super Mario 64, hence the weird naming of C-Up, C-Right, C-Down and C-Left. But none of this should distract from the original point of contention. A second stick is not revolutionary, it is merely evolutionary. First person games could already be played fine on the Nintendo 64, and the N64's first person games being more memorable and higher regarded than the PS1's counterparts prove this. Like I said in the post you skipped over, you have yet to explain how a second stick was revolutionary. Your first attempt was to point at games in FPP, but that fell flat on its face because the Nintendo 64 already did those games. |
I'm guessing you're just pulling those excuses out of thin air--unless you have sources?
Here is a simple fact: Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all use dual analog, not c-buttons. Simple as that. You can down-play that with all the invented speculation you want but it's still true. The c-button design failed to catch on and became a footnote. It's not even like it matters, of course, since it's a different technology. That you differentiate button placement but do not credit the difference between buttons and analog sticks shows your true intentions here.
If c-buttons were as good, Nintendo would still be using them instead of switching to dual analog.
As for the point of contention, my original reply to you was to call you out for your hypocrisy and double standard where you claimed "more of the same" cannot be revolutionary while citing "more of the same" as revolutionary.
Let's be perfectly honest what this is about. You want to down-play anything from Sony while painting anything from Nintendo as important--even when history and your own words ("more of the same") sound hypocritical. Reverse these features and I have zero doubt that your position would flip flop.
Now, I'm sure you're going to go back to the pedantic well with "evolutionary vs. revolutionary" because it's your last bastion but, really, most people don't care. All that matters is the overall impact on gaming. That you keep trying to pretend dual analog isn't important to modern gaming only makes you seem bitter.
