The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You think you're so smart with your nice new GameCubes. Happy with them are you? I know you are, you've told us enough times. Especially "Oooh, this controller is fantastic, it's much better than all the other controllers I've used".
Bollards.
Why can't you see it's exactly the same as the DualShock 2 but with less features? Let's run through this:
· D-pad - check
· Two analog sticks - check
· Four main buttons - check
· Shoulder buttons - check
· Rumble - nope
· Full analog on ALL buttons - nope
· 4 shoulder buttons - nope
· Analog sticks as sensitive as the DualShock 2 - nope
· Ability to drop for storeys and still work perfectly - nope
Excuse me if I'm wrong but surely if it's the SAME shape with the SAME layout but with less functions, that makes it worse? Oh no, sorry, I'm missing out the facts that it's purple and made by Nintendo, that automatically makes it far superior, I'm terribly sorry.
I dare any of you to prove to me that the GameCube controller is better than the DualShock 2 - and saying that "it's more comfortable" is a cop-out.
Bollards.
Why can't you see it's exactly the same as the DualShock 2 but with less features? Let's run through this:
· D-pad - check
· Two analog sticks - check
· Four main buttons - check
· Shoulder buttons - check
· Rumble - nope
· Full analog on ALL buttons - nope
· 4 shoulder buttons - nope
· Analog sticks as sensitive as the DualShock 2 - nope
· Ability to drop for storeys and still work perfectly - nope
Excuse me if I'm wrong but surely if it's the SAME shape with the SAME layout but with less functions, that makes it worse? Oh no, sorry, I'm missing out the facts that it's purple and made by Nintendo, that automatically makes it far superior, I'm terribly sorry.
I dare any of you to prove to me that the GameCube controller is better than the DualShock 2 - and saying that "it's more comfortable" is a cop-out.
Page:
Vottanator wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I own 3 games developed by Sony!
>
>
> 3?! Really?! I own a hell of a lot more than that made by Nintendo and
> Sega.
Well, that's because Sony isn't the only decent developer working for the PS2
*runs*
> Turbonutter wrote:
> I own 3 games developed by Sony!
>
>
> 3?! Really?! I own a hell of a lot more than that made by Nintendo and
> Sega.
Well, that's because Sony isn't the only decent developer working for the PS2
*runs*
SMÉAGOL wrote:
> Question is, have you any REAL Sony developed titles?
> You know, In-House developed games!
> Not some studio which was recently bought by Sony.
> Its like saying Retro Studios or Silicon Knights is Nintendo developed
> titles, just because Nintendo owns 100% of the companies.
YES! They are real in-house developers, ones that didn't exist before Sony created them!
> Question is, have you any REAL Sony developed titles?
> You know, In-House developed games!
> Not some studio which was recently bought by Sony.
> Its like saying Retro Studios or Silicon Knights is Nintendo developed
> titles, just because Nintendo owns 100% of the companies.
YES! They are real in-house developers, ones that didn't exist before Sony created them!
Heh heh. Rubbish. Nintendo don't make games. Duh. Any hardcore Sony fan knows that.
Turbonutter wrote:
I own 3 games developed by Sony!
3?! Really?! I own a hell of a lot more than that made by Nintendo and Sega.
I own 3 games developed by Sony!
3?! Really?! I own a hell of a lot more than that made by Nintendo and Sega.
Question is, have you any REAL Sony developed titles?
You know, In-House developed games!
Not some studio which was recently bought by Sony.
Its like saying Retro Studios or Silicon Knights is Nintendo developed titles, just because Nintendo owns 100% of the companies.
You know, In-House developed games!
Not some studio which was recently bought by Sony.
Its like saying Retro Studios or Silicon Knights is Nintendo developed titles, just because Nintendo owns 100% of the companies.
½pint wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> You can read Wookiee's reply, it was pretty much what I was going to
> say.
>
> I will say this though: Sony do make games! What makes you think
> they
> don't? SCEA and SCEE together own a lot of games outfits, SCEA
> worked
> closely with the R&D of Jak and Daxter, some of the
> PlayStation's
> best and most exciting games are made by Sony, or their subsidiaries
> -
> GT3, Dropship, F1 {year}, WipeOut Fusion, The Getaway...
>
>
> Sony don't have in house developers, like Nintendo. They don't have a
> figurehead, they haven't got any mascot and they don't own any 1st
> party leading brands. Jak and Daxter was made by Travellers Tales
Er, Naughty Dog, Travellers Tales may have had a hand in it though.
> (correct me if I'm wrong), not SCEA or SCEE. Granted, SCEI may own
> some of the development companies or have shares in them, but that
> would then make them second party, not first. The only actual
> straight input into games that Sony have is in production.
What about Sony Studios Liverpool, SoHo, Camden and the-other-one-I-can-never-remember?
Konami
> produce many games, but they're not necessarily the ones who make them
> all, and what you're saying is like saying these games published by
> konami are also made by them. Sony don't develop games, they either
> own smaller development companies or publish the games.
Sure, Sony publish a hell of a lot of games (nice chaps), but they do also develop them. I own 3 games developed by Sony!
> Turbonutter wrote:
> You can read Wookiee's reply, it was pretty much what I was going to
> say.
>
> I will say this though: Sony do make games! What makes you think
> they
> don't? SCEA and SCEE together own a lot of games outfits, SCEA
> worked
> closely with the R&D of Jak and Daxter, some of the
> PlayStation's
> best and most exciting games are made by Sony, or their subsidiaries
> -
> GT3, Dropship, F1 {year}, WipeOut Fusion, The Getaway...
>
>
> Sony don't have in house developers, like Nintendo. They don't have a
> figurehead, they haven't got any mascot and they don't own any 1st
> party leading brands. Jak and Daxter was made by Travellers Tales
Er, Naughty Dog, Travellers Tales may have had a hand in it though.
> (correct me if I'm wrong), not SCEA or SCEE. Granted, SCEI may own
> some of the development companies or have shares in them, but that
> would then make them second party, not first. The only actual
> straight input into games that Sony have is in production.
What about Sony Studios Liverpool, SoHo, Camden and the-other-one-I-can-never-remember?
Konami
> produce many games, but they're not necessarily the ones who make them
> all, and what you're saying is like saying these games published by
> konami are also made by them. Sony don't develop games, they either
> own smaller development companies or publish the games.
Sure, Sony publish a hell of a lot of games (nice chaps), but they do also develop them. I own 3 games developed by Sony!
Turbonutter wrote:
> You can read Wookiee's reply, it was pretty much what I was going to
> say.
>
> I will say this though: Sony do make games! What makes you think they
> don't? SCEA and SCEE together own a lot of games outfits, SCEA worked
> closely with the R&D of Jak and Daxter, some of the PlayStation's
> best and most exciting games are made by Sony, or their subsidiaries -
> GT3, Dropship, F1 {year}, WipeOut Fusion, The Getaway...
Sony don't have in house developers, like Nintendo. They don't have a figurehead, they haven't got any mascot and they don't own any 1st party leading brands. Jak and Daxter was made by Travellers Tales (correct me if I'm wrong), not SCEA or SCEE. Granted, SCEI may own some of the development companies or have shares in them, but that would then make them second party, not first. The only actual straight input into games that Sony have is in production. Konami produce many games, but they're not necessarily the ones who make them all, and what you're saying is like saying these games published by konami are also made by them. Sony don't develop games, they either own smaller development companies or publish the games.
> You can read Wookiee's reply, it was pretty much what I was going to
> say.
>
> I will say this though: Sony do make games! What makes you think they
> don't? SCEA and SCEE together own a lot of games outfits, SCEA worked
> closely with the R&D of Jak and Daxter, some of the PlayStation's
> best and most exciting games are made by Sony, or their subsidiaries -
> GT3, Dropship, F1 {year}, WipeOut Fusion, The Getaway...
Sony don't have in house developers, like Nintendo. They don't have a figurehead, they haven't got any mascot and they don't own any 1st party leading brands. Jak and Daxter was made by Travellers Tales (correct me if I'm wrong), not SCEA or SCEE. Granted, SCEI may own some of the development companies or have shares in them, but that would then make them second party, not first. The only actual straight input into games that Sony have is in production. Konami produce many games, but they're not necessarily the ones who make them all, and what you're saying is like saying these games published by konami are also made by them. Sony don't develop games, they either own smaller development companies or publish the games.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Surely designing an excellent generic controller and leaving it up to
> the developers to make intuitive use of it is exactly what you want
> for a games console?
The GameCube controller is also suited to everything, but rather than just designing the controller, Nintendo made it suited to the games they make. That doesn't mean its a Nintendo-only controller, because like what you say about the Dualshock, its suited to everything. But at least we have the satisfaction that Nintendo know their hardware and can create a game around it, rather than just for it.
> Designing an intuitive controller for one or just a few games is ideal
> for something like an arcade machine, where the software never
> changes. But for a console, where the user changes the type of
> software probably every month, surely it's terribly short-sighted?
Its not short sighted to design a controller with specific goals in mind. I could imagine that Nintendo had two goals - to make a great controller and to make one suited for Nintendo's types of games. There are many games which don't need to use all the buttons, which is why there is a great big A button in the middle. Its good having a proper main button because then all the most used functions can be set to it. Like in a Mario game, the A button will be jump etc.
> You don't design a keyboard or mouse to suit one type of software
> better than any other. Specialised controllers generally have limited
> appeal and a limited audience, which is why 99% of PC's don't come
> with joysticks and steering wheels.
I wouldn't say that the GC controller is specialised, merely well suited to the types of games on the GC.
> If people don't like a controller, there are plenty of third party
> versions available, which makes this entire 'argument' largely
> irrelevant. Having said that, I doubt you'd find even 1% of
> PlayStation owners who have ever felt the need to use something other
> than the standard controllers.
I agree. There are plenty of other types of controllers available, and you can get those little switch boxes which allow you to use different controllers on different platforms. This whole argument is because of TBN's self obsessiveness with his PS2, and his non-acceptance that there are different (and sometimes better) things out there.
I also doubt that you'd find even 1% of GameCube owners who have ever felt the need to use something other than the standard controllers. All controllers for all platforms are great, and when it comes to the crunch there is only so much you can do to make one better than another. Saying Nintendo copied Sony is laughable, since its only because of Nintendo that Sony entered the games console market in the first place.
> Surely designing an excellent generic controller and leaving it up to
> the developers to make intuitive use of it is exactly what you want
> for a games console?
The GameCube controller is also suited to everything, but rather than just designing the controller, Nintendo made it suited to the games they make. That doesn't mean its a Nintendo-only controller, because like what you say about the Dualshock, its suited to everything. But at least we have the satisfaction that Nintendo know their hardware and can create a game around it, rather than just for it.
> Designing an intuitive controller for one or just a few games is ideal
> for something like an arcade machine, where the software never
> changes. But for a console, where the user changes the type of
> software probably every month, surely it's terribly short-sighted?
Its not short sighted to design a controller with specific goals in mind. I could imagine that Nintendo had two goals - to make a great controller and to make one suited for Nintendo's types of games. There are many games which don't need to use all the buttons, which is why there is a great big A button in the middle. Its good having a proper main button because then all the most used functions can be set to it. Like in a Mario game, the A button will be jump etc.
> You don't design a keyboard or mouse to suit one type of software
> better than any other. Specialised controllers generally have limited
> appeal and a limited audience, which is why 99% of PC's don't come
> with joysticks and steering wheels.
I wouldn't say that the GC controller is specialised, merely well suited to the types of games on the GC.
> If people don't like a controller, there are plenty of third party
> versions available, which makes this entire 'argument' largely
> irrelevant. Having said that, I doubt you'd find even 1% of
> PlayStation owners who have ever felt the need to use something other
> than the standard controllers.
I agree. There are plenty of other types of controllers available, and you can get those little switch boxes which allow you to use different controllers on different platforms. This whole argument is because of TBN's self obsessiveness with his PS2, and his non-acceptance that there are different (and sometimes better) things out there.
I also doubt that you'd find even 1% of GameCube owners who have ever felt the need to use something other than the standard controllers. All controllers for all platforms are great, and when it comes to the crunch there is only so much you can do to make one better than another. Saying Nintendo copied Sony is laughable, since its only because of Nintendo that Sony entered the games console market in the first place.
You can read Wookiee's reply, it was pretty much what I was going to say.
I will say this though: Sony do make games! What makes you think they don't? SCEA and SCEE together own a lot of games outfits, SCEA worked closely with the R&D of Jak and Daxter, some of the PlayStation's best and most exciting games are made by Sony, or their subsidiaries - GT3, Dropship, F1 {year}, WipeOut Fusion, The Getaway...
I will say this though: Sony do make games! What makes you think they don't? SCEA and SCEE together own a lot of games outfits, SCEA worked closely with the R&D of Jak and Daxter, some of the PlayStation's best and most exciting games are made by Sony, or their subsidiaries - GT3, Dropship, F1 {year}, WipeOut Fusion, The Getaway...
½pint wrote:
> The whole argument is that Nintendo design their controllers and games
> together, so that they are comfortable to work with, whereas Sony just
> design the controller and leave it up to the developer to make it
> intuitive to use.
Surely designing an excellent generic controller and leaving it up to the developers to make intuitive use of it is exactly what you want for a games console?
Designing an intuitive controller for one or just a few games is ideal for something like an arcade machine, where the software never changes. But for a console, where the user changes the type of software probably every month, surely it's terribly short-sighted?
You don't design a keyboard or mouse to suit one type of software better than any other. Specialised controllers generally have limited appeal and a limited audience, which is why 99% of PC's don't come with joysticks and steering wheels.
> That said, of course all controllers are designed with games in mind,
> but with the dualshock you can get the feeling that it wasn't
> playtested with actual games very much.
Well, you might, but I don't. I find it an intuitive controller which is suited to any style of game, and is equally comfortable whichever genre you play.
Sony spent a fortune in developing the DualShock and making sure it was comfortable for as many people as possible. Something which has paid of and no doubt assisted in the global acceptance of the PlayStation machines.
If people don't like a controller, there are plenty of third party versions available, which makes this entire 'argument' largely irrelevant. Having said that, I doubt you'd find even 1% of PlayStation owners who have ever felt the need to use something other than the standard controllers.
> The whole argument is that Nintendo design their controllers and games
> together, so that they are comfortable to work with, whereas Sony just
> design the controller and leave it up to the developer to make it
> intuitive to use.
Surely designing an excellent generic controller and leaving it up to the developers to make intuitive use of it is exactly what you want for a games console?
Designing an intuitive controller for one or just a few games is ideal for something like an arcade machine, where the software never changes. But for a console, where the user changes the type of software probably every month, surely it's terribly short-sighted?
You don't design a keyboard or mouse to suit one type of software better than any other. Specialised controllers generally have limited appeal and a limited audience, which is why 99% of PC's don't come with joysticks and steering wheels.
> That said, of course all controllers are designed with games in mind,
> but with the dualshock you can get the feeling that it wasn't
> playtested with actual games very much.
Well, you might, but I don't. I find it an intuitive controller which is suited to any style of game, and is equally comfortable whichever genre you play.
Sony spent a fortune in developing the DualShock and making sure it was comfortable for as many people as possible. Something which has paid of and no doubt assisted in the global acceptance of the PlayStation machines.
If people don't like a controller, there are plenty of third party versions available, which makes this entire 'argument' largely irrelevant. Having said that, I doubt you'd find even 1% of PlayStation owners who have ever felt the need to use something other than the standard controllers.
Page: