Cube Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 You're reaching over face buttons to get to the stick. All the time. I'm curious, what's crazy about it? There is just something wrong about it. I think I've figured out what: From holding your controller, your thumb goes over two buttons (e.g. A and X), and it's really easy to press all four buttons with the bottom of your thumb (i.e. not the tip). Angle it down slightly, and the same movement just doesn't work. It's hard to explain but the angles needed for comfortably pressing multiple buttons just does't work from where the right stick usually is.
Sheikah Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 It's true that the buttons pressed down there might be difficult, but for a stick it's not. That's why I don't get the big deal about the left stick being 'too far down'! Although the D pad doesn't get heavily used, it's effectively useless down there where the xbox and cube had it, while I think the analogue does ok.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 You just won some internets, mister! Everytime me and Sheikah "throwdown" this happens, we just hit repeat at each other, lol... Speaking of which, @Sheikah ... you're the man to ask this, is Dark Souls longer shorter or the same as Demon's Souls? Just so I know if I can fit it into the xmas holidays, as it's too addictive, so I won't be able to focus properly on studying come January... unless I can finish it twice in a week. Heh!
Sheikah Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 You just won some internets, mister! Everytime me and Sheikah "throwdown" this happens, we just hit repeat at each other, lol... Speaking of which, @Sheikah ... you're the man to ask this, is Dark Souls longer shorter or the same as Demon's Souls? Just so I know if I can fit it into the xmas holidays, as it's too addictive, so I won't be able to focus properly on studying come January... unless I can finish it twice in a week. Heh! It depends, I'd say the main game of Dark Souls is longer and harder than Demon's Souls. But in order to platinum the whole thing (if you care to), Dark Souls is quicker because you can do it using mostly stuff you get a set number of times per playthrough (2.5 play throughs total). Although Dark Souls is amazing, so it's worth it!
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 It depends, I'd say the main game of Dark Souls is longer and harder than Demon's Souls. But in order to platinum the whole thing (if you care to), Dark Souls is quicker because you can do it using mostly stuff you get a set number of times per playthrough (2.5 play throughs total). Although Dark Souls is amazing, so it's worth it! Damn it... it'll have to wait, then... When I played Demon's Souls it completely absorbed my life and I couldn't think about anything else for like a month... I guess this one's gonna be the same...
MATtheHAT Posted November 26, 2011 Posted November 26, 2011 Dark Souls is indeed amazing, and my personal GOTY. If your into it, the PvP is much more developed than Demon's Souls. With the covenants bringing some diversity and depth. 130 hours and still not finished with it. Got a couple more trophies to get and gotta keep those Blades of the Darkmoon Covenant in check!
MoogleViper Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Don't you think controllers are designed based on the most played games, including shooters? No, considering the PS3 controller is based on the original PSX controller, well over a decade ago, which had no analogue sticks. When they needed the sticks, they just added them on, rather than designing a new controller. So the PS3 controller was never even designed with analogue sticks in mind.
Cube Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Something I didn't realise at all about Dark Souls was that it's also on 360. I thought it was a Sony franchise (plus I'd only ever seen mentions of the PS3 version).
Shorty Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Demon's Souls, Dark Souls' spiritual predecessor, is only on PS3, perhaps you were thinking of that?
Cube Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Demon's Souls, Dark Souls' spiritual predecessor, is only on PS3, perhaps you were thinking of that? I was thinking of them both. I thought it was a Sony-published title for some reason. Then again, the first Mass Effect was essentially a Microsoft game.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Dark Souls was developed for the PS, then ported to the 360, so you should buy it for the PS3 anyway, it's optimized for it.
Sheikah Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 No, considering the PS3 controller is based on the original PSX controller, well over a decade ago, which had no analogue sticks. When they needed the sticks, they just added them on, rather than designing a new controller. So the PS3 controller was never even designed with analogue sticks in mind. I meant controllers in general. If the PS3 controller wasn't suited to FPS in the slightest I'm sure there would have been some changes (triggers for instance). In the case of minority genres like beat en ups, the main controller isn't changed to accommodate rather entirely new third party controllers are released.
Cube Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 In the case of minority genres like beat en ups, the main controller isn't changed to accommodate rather entirely new third party controllers are released. Which is strange, because (2D) beat 'em ups are in the minority of games that the PS3 controller is suited for.
Sheikah Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) Say that to the people who buy the arcade sticks. :p It's completely understandable, relatively few play beat em ups compared to the most mainstream titles and the classic arcade sticks are better to use for the games, but clearly not for just about anything else. Edited December 1, 2011 by Sheikah
jayseven Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 You slipped. "If the PS3 controller wasn't suited to FPS in the slightest..." the argument is not "the ps3 makes fps games unplayable" rather "the ps3 controller is 2nd rate" - something which melds well with your latest amendmant
Sheikah Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) No slipping, the argument has since moved on from there. The PS3 controller has already been adapted to accommodate FPS games with the triggers, improved from the PS2 dualshock. The current point being contested by Moogle was that the PS3 controller wasn't shaped to meet the demands of the most popular games. Although I meant contollers in general (not just PS3), but even so the PS3 contoller had been changed anyway to accommodate FPS games like I said. The 'in the slightest' comment was misinterpreted by you I think. I was relating to the hypothetical situation whereby if the PS3 controller made FPS games impossible to play, it would have been changed since these are probably the most in demand games on HD systems. Everything I was saying basically was coming back to the fact cotrollers are usually based on the games most people want to play. Edited December 1, 2011 by Sheikah
Cube Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 No slipping, the argument has since moved on from there. The PS3 controller has already been adapted to accommodate FPS games with the triggers, improved from the PS2 dualshock. The current point being contested was that controllers weren't shaped to meet the demands of the most popular games, of course madness. If the triggers were for FPS games, why do they all use the buttons and not the triggers?
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 No slipping, the argument has since moved on from there. The PS3 controller has already been adapted to accommodate FPS games with the triggers, improved from the PS2 dualshock. The current point being contested was that controllers weren't shaped to meet the demands of the most popular games, of course madness. Wait, what... The DS2's sticks are much better for shooters than the DS3's!!! Plus, the "triggers" that they added do absolutely nothing, it's quite definitely worse than the DS2 for shooters...
Sheikah Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Bollocks. That was the whole point of them. They're actually triggers now and not buttons, they have depth. If the triggers were for FPS games, why do they all use the buttons and not the triggers? They don't.
Cube Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 They don't. OK, admittedly I've only played two on the PS3. Uncharted only uses the buttons, and Killzone 3 defaults to the buttons.
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Bollocks. That was the whole point of them. They're actually triggers now and not buttons, they have depth. They don't. Wha? They set out to make an improvement, over the traditional R2 and L2 in order to make them more in tune with this generation. They failed so miserably that the developers whose games actually use these supposedly superior buttons circumvent them and use the triggers for auxiliary functions, which mostly have absolutely no gain in being placed in a button with various levels of depth. So what you have here is a textbook failure to deliver. So much so that both the developers and the community preffer to not use these "improvements", and use the old style L1 and R1 buttons, thus proving my point that the DS2's shoulder buttons were, by default, better suited for these purposes. As for the sticks, pick up a DS2 and just play around with it a bit. You'll notice the huge difference in the tightness of the analogs right away, I'll expect. They're precise and responsive, no dead zone issues or loose feel. Which most people seem to preffer, as well as most developers, judging by numbers. So, out of the 3 biggest complaints that people keep making about the DS3, 2 of them were supposed to be "improvements" over the old DS2. And yet the triggers are worse than the SNES triggers and such an impedement that games are designed around the notion of avoiding the use of these buttons for the tasks they were supposed to be used for AND the analogs went from perky and responsive, which everybody was fine with, to loose, which clearly most people do not favour to the previous setup. What is there to "wha" about? It's a fact that mostly everybody hates the new triggers and that the majority of the gaming community preffers the 360's more tight analogs to the DS3's loosey-gooseys. And both these issues weren't present on the DS2... how the hell is that anything but an absolute failure. Again, I love my PS3, and if I could only have one console this generation, the PS3 would definitely be it... but when it comes to the DS3, I just think that Sony failed miserably.
Sheikah Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 The whole point about the triggers thing, whether you like them or not, is that they were clearly introduced as a response to the popularity of shooters (they're triggers, it's what they're obviously meant for). Whether or not you think they achieve that, it's a sure sign of making controllers to suit play for the most popular games.
Recommended Posts