rocketpig said: Mr.Y said: Yeah, but if you look at the Xbox controller the way it is now.. it looks like an alien spaceship. It needs fewer buttons. I mean there are other ways of providing interactivity without having every single finger doing something at once on a friggin' controller I hate to point out something so painfully obvious but the DS3 and 360 controller have the same number of buttons.

 

I guess the DS3 has the same problem. I hope if there's a new DS controller that there'll be fewer buttons on it. I think you could do things with a built-in camera or a little motion sensitivity.

I've seen some prototype camera stuff that some friends are working on that can actually tell the depth of the world around the player, and can track individual finger movements and stuff like that. That's exciting stuff, and I think that's where it all needs to start going towards.

Kantor said: He's entitled to an opinion if he can justify his choice. "I prefer the 360, I like the controller" It sounds like something a nine year old would say! Really, there is nothing wrong with the PS3 controller once you are used to it. The Xbox controller is the second worst controller design possible (other than the wii) with its black and whit buttons. The 360 copied the R1/L1 from the PS2 controller, moved the analog sticks around and claimed it was better than any other controller on the market. What a retard.

 

Ah, so the PS2 was the first to have a controller with shoulder buttons?  You're not serious, are you?

I agree, the 360 controller is simply superior, well, it's superior for FPS, which unfortunately for Sony is now the dominant game genre on consoles.

rocketpig said: MikeB said: @ RocketPig No controller is going to be perfect. For the few games that require symmetrical movement with both analogs, the DS would work better. The thing is, those games are about one in a million. For the vast majority of games, it makes far more sense to put the left analog where your thumb rests naturally. I think you mean the right stick as it's much closer to the thumb's MLPP and thus should allow for more range of movement (moving the stick around in circles). No, I mean the left stick. It sits right where your thumb rests naturally when you place your hands on the controller. That gives a natural feel when idle and the most movement possible in every direction when needed. Try it. Just pick up a controller and see where your thumbs go. On the DS, it's the d-pad/buttons while on the 360, it's the analog/buttons.

Having owned a 360 of course I tried it. I can manage with the controller, but I would greatly have preferred more symmetry.

With regard to what you call natural, the hand position on the PS3 controller is just as natural. But if you talk range of motion, the PS3 config is much better. I am a physical therapist and sometimes I do trigger point massages, using the thumb in circular motion. I can tell you  the distance between thumb and index finger needs to be greater than that with the 360 controller to be comfortable (left stick in the picture). You won't find a therapist who puts his thumb right next to the index finger to perform circular motions of thumb.

I think it's crystal clear and not worth arguing about. Like arguing if the world being oval shaped instead of flat, this being more natural or not. It's just how things are, just due to human anatomy.

 

MikeB said: rocketpig said: MikeB said: @ RocketPig No controller is going to be perfect. For the few games that require symmetrical movement with both analogs, the DS would work better. The thing is, those games are about one in a million. For the vast majority of games, it makes far more sense to put the left analog where your thumb rests naturally. I think you mean the right stick as it's much closer to the thumb's MLPP and thus should allow for more range of movement (moving the stick around in circles). No, I mean the left stick. It sits right where your thumb rests naturally when you place your hands on the controller. That gives a natural feel when idle and the most movement possible in every direction when needed. Try it. Just pick up a controller and see where your thumbs go. On the DS, it's the d-pad/buttons while on the 360, it's the analog/buttons.   Having owned a 360 of course I tried it. I can manage with the controller, but I would greatly have preferred more symmetry. With regard to what you call natural, the hand position on the PS3 controller is just as natural. But if you talk range of motion, the PS3 config is much better. I am a physical therapist and sometimes I do trigger point massages, using the thumb in circular motion. I can tell you  the distance between thumb and index finger needs to be greater than that with the 360 controller to be comfortable (left stick in the picture). You won't find a therapist who puts his thumb right next to the index finger to perform circular motions of thumb. I think it's crystal clear and not worth arguing about. Like arguing if the world being oval shaped instead of flat, this being more natural or not. It's just how things are, just due to human anatomy.

And I think it's crystal clear that you're wrong. Moving your thumb backwards, near its outer limits with the DS, versus putting it in its natural resting place like the 360 controller does not improve its range of motion. Common sense tells you that. All you have to do is move your thumb around to prove it. This isn't rocket science. 

You may like the controller and that's fine. But don't try to tell me that Sony magically got it right by forcing two analogs onto an old d-pad controller while nobody else makes a controller that looks anything like it. On top of that, it has functionality problems (like the analogs slapping together in FPS games). Almost every other controller before and after the DS has the left analog nearer the 360's location... The Dreamcast, Xbox, GameCube, Saturn, etc. Sony is the only one who does it that way. So you're basically trying to tell me that Sony, in a rush attempt to get an analog controller out in 1997, using their old d-pad controller as a template, made the most ergonomic controller to date while MS failed twice, Sega failed twice, and Nintendo failed once, all from scratch. Bullshit. I don't buy it just based on that line of thinking and physical use of all of those controllers back up that idea.

It would be nice if you would open your eyes every once in a while and realize that Sony doesn't get everything right, Mike. In over a year on this forum, I have yet to see you say one negative thing about them or the Playstation.

@ rocketpig

Believe what you want to believe, I think I explained my reasoning well enough from a therapist perspective.



That's not true and there may be patents involved. In any case there are hundreds of million users of Sony Playstation controllers out there.



Well I didn't say goodbye to PC gaming for nothing and bought my first ever Playstation console.

In any case you are incorrect, I criticized Sony a lot for their many PR mistakes and some ridiculous commercials.

I criticized the PS3 for not having USB ports at the back, no model coming with PlayTV internally and I warned people early PS3 games do not come close to tapping any real performance out of the PS3 due to game engines requiring to be overhauled (time & effort).