Oxigen_Waste Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 These don't fall into the vast majority/ high popularity games these days. Sure, some are popular, but not as popular as most games that are played. Maybe football, but this usually amounts to one title a year compared to several titles that don't use an overhead view. Football once a year x2 since it's fifa and pes, plus Gran turismo, need for speed, the whole motorstorm bunch... then, you have north america which is like half the world's market, where the NBA, WWE and NFL games sell tons of copies. That's a very significant portion of games, most of them with yearly incursions... Or first person. Which is basically most games. Actually the majority of people (as demonstrated by sales) love games like CoD, battlefield and the like. These games require use of the second stick heavily, so I'd be extremely surprirsed if the majority of gamers weren't familiar with rotating the second stick like your friend. You could be a lawyer, the way you try to manipulate words, you could. The whole discussion started on the premise of "apart from shooters". The point here is, the majority of players (not the majoritiy of gamers, there's a big difference), doesn't really use the right stick all that much when it comes to games other than shooters. Now that doesn't make any sense. Surely if you're using the camera more than you are pressing say square to perform the odd melee or reload, it makes sense to put it in a more prominent position? I don't care what's secondary or primary, just what I use the most. You use the face buttons the most. How that is even up for debate I do not understand... Every single game out for the damn console uses the face buttons, the menus use the face buttons. The right stick is only given functions in like 75% (completely random number, out of the top of my head) of games. The face buttons are given functions in like 99% of games... plust, you couldn't even put the face buttons where the right stick is, because not only would they be in a very inaccessible position, they would simply not even fit there whilst maintaining the proper distance between each other. Reason for me debating this - I'm just pointing out that while the 360 pad is being heralded for having the analogue stick in a 'better' place, it actually has one stick used incredibly often in a place that is apparently 'awkward' - so awkward, no one bats an eyelid about stretching the thumb an extra millimieter to reach it! I'm not saying it's awkward... it's just not as comfortable as if it were reversed. The primary positioning is the position in which the hand naturally rests, that's all there is to it, really. But it would make no sense to have the right stick reversed with the face buttons! However, it also makes no sense for the Dpad to be where it is on the PS3 controller. I like that it is where it is, because it automatically means that any game that is supposed to be played with a Dpad is a game I'll automatically have a good controller to play with on the PS3 (let's face it, the thing just work well with 2D!), it's just that, considering all the games out for it, it makes very little sense to keep this 2D days aesthetic, but at this point, it's become a symbol so it'll never change, probably... Again, this isn't nitpicking, the placement isn't even something I personally feel is off, as I'm a guitarist and can't even feel any sort of strain whatsoever on my hands... my gripes with the DS3 are the sticks themselves, which are a bit too loose for my liking and the R2/L2 issue. As for the controller being heralded for stick placement, that's not it... at all... it's pretty much heralded because the sticks are much more precise, in contrast to the DS3's looseness and huge dead zone... and because of the triggers. There's no denying the triggers are better, there's no denying the sticks are more responsive, that's just how it is (there's also no denying that the 360's Dpad is torture)... Now, wether the sticks being more responsive is a good thing or a bad thing, is highly subjective, as some people preffer the DS3 feel, as it flows better, in contrast to the 360's constant need for little nudges. Most preffer the nudges, though, as they're just more precise. As far as stick placement goes, I don't really think it makes that much of a difference, but people in general seem to prefer the 360 way, myself included. Except for Katamari... Enough of this!!! My only point is, if Sony would work on their controller a bit, and make it more like the 360's, the PS3 would be my main console... I know I represent a very tiny portion of market, but their losing a bit of business by not changing the thing.
Sheikah Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Football once a year x2 since it's fifa and pes, plus Gran turismo, need for speed, the whole motorstorm bunch... then, you have north america which is like half the world's market, where the NBA, WWE and NFL games sell tons of copies. That's a very significant portion of games, most of them with yearly incursions... You could be a lawyer, the way you try to manipulate words, you could. The whole discussion started on the premise of "apart from shooters". The point here is, the majority of players (not the majoritiy of gamers, there's a big difference), doesn't really use the right stick all that much when it comes to games other than shooters. Don't you think controllers are designed based on the most played games, including shooters? Even though you listed all them games, there's at least 3-4 games for every one of those that people get where it's a 3D camera controllable game. You use the face buttons the most. How that is even up for debate I do not understand... Every single game out for the damn console uses the face buttons, the menus use the face buttons. The right stick is only given functions in like 75% (completely random number, out of the top of my head) of games. The face buttons are given functions in like 99% of games... plust, you couldn't even put the face buttons where the right stick is, because not only would they be in a very inaccessible position, they would simply not even fit there whilst maintaining the proper distance between each other. Now who's the word twisting lawyer? :p Since when does number of functions ascribed to the buttons relate to their frequency of use? Relative to turning the camera so that you can move, you rarely open the menu or what have you. Enough of this!!! My only point is, if Sony would work on their controller a bit, and make it more like the 360's, the PS3 would be my main console... I know I represent a very tiny portion of market, but their losing a bit of business by not changing the thing. I think the controller is fine, my whole point about the second stick is that it gets more use than buttons on a total input basis, yet no one thinks it's difficult to reach or the like. So there's really no fuss to be made about the left stick being further down.
Cube Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 It would just be crazy to reach over a stick to the face buttons. Whereas a D-pad is rarely used these days.
Sheikah 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?
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.
Recommended Posts