Didn't realize Sine was a videogame industry analyst

[Zeus]

Pachter makes Sine and Don sound like Ninten-idiots....

http://www.edge-online.com/news/nintend ... -call-duty

[Eric]

Love Pachter. "Hardcore gamers will buy them; hardcore Nintendo fanboys will buy it. They could put out a piece of cardboard and say that it'll play Mario and they'll buy it." So true.

[Zeus]

I'm not so sure hardcore gamers are gonna buy it. Hardcore Nintendo fans, yes, all the way. But all the CoD kids? No way

[Eric]

I think I would fall under the category of hardcore gamer, I don't particularly like the Nintendo Wii but I ended up getting one anyway for a few select games.

[kali o.]

Why does Patcher get attention still? He's wrong more often than not and spends his day name dropping.

[Eric]

Because he infuriates Nintendo fanboys and trolls.

[Zeus]

Because he infuriates Nintendo fanboys and trolls.

Exactly. He gets all his attention by making Sine and Don look like Super Nintendo Fanboys. And also the fact that he's always providing his opinion to the mainstream gaming media and gets published there a lot.

[Eric]

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/gtwc ... ion---rare

He's not a complete fraud, sometimes he has informative stuff to say. :p

[Zeus]

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/gtwc ... ion---rare

He's not a complete fraud, sometimes he has informative stuff to say. :p

Innovative? Yeah, sometimes he's not bad. Usually when it's non-Nintendo related and he actually talks about the topic objectively rather than with a strong bias he's not bad although he's not as cutting-edge as he used to be when he started.

But what he said in that specific video wasn't earth-shattering. That's pretty much the consensus floating around that he's just podcasting to the gamers. I coulda told you stuff like that about Rare 10 years ago when Free Radical was formed (they were the core of the Goldeneye/Perfect Dark team and made Timesplitters). Everyone knows they've done absolutely nothing since Nintendo dumped them and Microshaft took the shell that was left and turned them into an R&D department. And what he said about Activision-Blizzard is what's being talked about everywhere on the interweb. He just laid it out a little more, that's all.

[SineSwiper]

Pachter makes Sine and Don sound like Ninten-idiots....

http://www.edge-online.com/news/nintend ... -call-duty

Eh, why the insults directed at me and Don for no reason? The article is totally believable:

"I don’t get it," he said. "I think that essentially this is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, somebody had an idea - 'let's make the controller a tablet' - and there aren't many games that are going to take advantage of that.

"Activision never said anything to me, but I know that [for] big games like Call Of Duty they said, 'No, we're not putting it on there if you don't give us a conventional controller'. So they gave in."

The whole thing is absolutely true. Nintendo makes it a habit to purposely create something wild and off-the-wall in terms of controllers. Many developers don't like it, including the mainly 360/PS3/PC developers, which pressures Nintendo into creating a more traditional controller. Why is that so bonkers to you? I mean CoD is a frelling FPS. You're not going to make a FPS with controls that work off of a tablet.

Why not just create another console with some tweaks to the controls, instead of trying to radically "change the world" with every console release? Nintendo can have their blue sky failures. And Nintendo is used to be alone with themselves (read: N64), alienating their developers. In this case, they threw a bone to the main developers with this controller, but I don't think it's going to work well enough. Like we've learned from Sega's CDX/32X/etc., if it ain't a part of the main console, it might as well not exist.

[Zeus]

Pachter makes Sine and Don sound like Ninten-idiots....

http://www.edge-online.com/news/nintend ... -call-duty

Eh, why the insults directed at me and Don for no reason?

Simple: much like Pachter, you both constantly slam them with unadultered biasesness here and nothing more than subjectivity to back up your posts while giving Sony and Microshaft blow-jobs; basically, you both keep the system wars thing alive. There's tons of reasons to slam all three manufacturers, try it on the others sometime.

The article is totally believable:

"I don’t get it," he said. "I think that essentially this is a solution in search of a problem. I mean, somebody had an idea - 'let's make the controller a tablet' - and there aren't many games that are going to take advantage of that.

"Activision never said anything to me, but I know that [for] big games like Call Of Duty they said, 'No, we're not putting it on there if you don't give us a conventional controller'. So they gave in."

The whole thing is absolutely true. Nintendo makes it a habit to purposely create something wild and off-the-wall in terms of controllers. Many developers don't like it, including the mainly 360/PS3/PC developers, which pressures Nintendo into creating a more traditional controller. Why is that so bonkers to you? I mean CoD is a frelling FPS. You're not going to make a FPS with controls that work off of a tablet.

Why not just create another console with some tweaks to the controls, instead of trying to radically "change the world" with every console release? Nintendo can have their blue sky failures. And Nintendo is used to be alone with themselves (read: N64), alienating their developers. In this case, they threw a bone to the main developers with this controller, but I don't think it's going to work well enough. Like we've learned from Sega's CDX/32X/etc., if it ain't a part of the main console, it might as well not exist.

I've tried explaining this a few times in the past: Nintendo's entire competitive advantage is their ability to change things up. The only single genre they do better than anyone else (which not even the two of you can deny) is 2D platformers (well, I guess you can argue 3D platformers too). They're the kings, period. Other than that, they have to try to invent new types of games in order to maintain their position as the top publisher in the world. And that's what they are at their: a publishing company. They manufacture hardware only to facilitate their publishing interests because no one else is doing what they do in terms of hardware (and they can ensure the hardware exactly meets their visions for their games). There was an article written in 2005 which best explains this:

http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/09/ninte ... ategy.html

They can easily support a system almost on their own as they've proven. And the only developers they seem to be alienating are those who don't wanna try anything new, just keep making games the traditional way. Their systems ain't built for that, they're built for innovation.

And I played with the Gamepad at Comic Con for a couple of hours (Nintendo had an E3-like booth setup at the connected hotel). Unlike the WiiMote, there's really no reason to think it won't be just as useful for "traditional" games for the following reasons:

- it has the same freakin' buttons as the PS3/360 controllers to be used by the same hands (ie. 2 triggers, 4 buttons, and a stick on the right; stick, two triggers, and D-pad on the left); the SOLE difference is your hands are now 6.2 inches further apart with the screen in the middle
- the controller weighs as much as either of the current controllers; anyone who uses weight as a negative thing is doin' nothin' but bashing
- ergonomically, there's basically no difference in how that controller feels in your hands than a "traditional" controller, your hands are just separated a bit; it fits in your hands very well, no issues in terms of long-term playing other than what your eyes are telling you

Really, there's no reason in any way to use the controller as a "the system is no good for [insert genre here] games like the PS3 or Xbox 360" because it has the exact same functionality as the other systems' controllers just with a screen in the middle (ie. additional functionality without loss of original functionality; essentially better in every way). The SOLE excuse to dislike the controller is actually a software design issue and not a hardware one. If the developers are FORCING you to use it in a gimmicky way it's an issue. Zombie U can be seen as that since it forces you to hold up the Gamepad to aim a sniper and to scan the area for loot. Even though it played relatively well, that would be a perfect example of the software design being a legitimate detriment to some people. No arguments from me there other than "oh, you just don't like anything different"...

But that's the beauty of it: they don't have to use it. For an FPS - and I'm sure you'll see this for Call of Duty to ensure the 95% of the brainless morons who play that game don't have an aneurysm - you only have to put a map there......and you can still make it so a button press puts the map on the main screen. What's the issue there? Nothing at all....unless you're ridiculously biased. Aliens: Colonial Marines decided to put the motion sensor there instead of on the HUD. What's the issue there? If anything, it actually adds to the game since you have to look down - the way Hicks did in the movie - to look at your sensor. OH NO, NOT AN ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT IN GAMEPLAY!!!

The Pro Controller was created for one reason only: to shut the biased morons up. It is completely unnecessary in every way. Not only does it add absolutely zero functionality to the system in any way since the exact same buttons are already on the Gamepad in the exact same location, it actually detracts from the built-in functionality that comes out of the box.

If use the announcement of the Pro Controller as a "see, even Nintendo admits they suck" argument, you are only proving two things: 1) you are so damned biased against them your arguments are basically moot and 2) you only want what you know and don't like changes in any way, even if they are better. Just don't forget: the sole reason you have things like the D-Pad, analog stick, shoulder buttons, Start/Select buttons, more than one button on the right side, etc., is because Nintendo decided to change things up and put them there.

[SineSwiper]

Simple: much like Pachter, you both constantly slam them with unadultered biasesness here and nothing more than subjectivity to back up your posts while giving Sony and Microshaft blow-jobs; basically, you both keep the system wars thing alive. There's tons of reasons to slam all three manufacturers, try it on the others sometime.

"Unadultered biasesness"? "Blow-jobs"? Heh, that's a biased response if I ever saw one.

I slam Nintendo because they need slamming. I've bought a Wii twice and I've sold both of them. I make no claims from them that weren't backed up by my own experiences. Yes, I enjoyed some games, but they usually ended up being the games that worked off the standard "8-bit" controls.

I don't have much love for the PS3, either. They fucked up the console war by making Bluray such a large part of their console that they lost the bidding war and much of their exclusives, made the PS3 very hard to develop for, and were constantly the most expensive thing on the market.

Nor do I like any of the companies, certainly not Microsoft. But, they did the right things for the 360, for the most part. They were right enough that it ends up being an enjoyable console, even 5+ years later.

I've tried explaining this a few times in the past: Nintendo's entire competitive advantage is their ability to change things up. The only single genre they do better than anyone else (which not even the two of you can deny) is 2D platformers (well, I guess you can argue 3D platformers too). They're the kings, period.

Many small time developers seem to disagree with you. I'm having a ton of fun with games like Fez, Bastion, Braid, Limbo, Shadow Complex, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Cave Story, N+, BC:Rearmed, etc., etc., etc. Nintendo used to be able to create neat 2D platformers, but nowadays, all they seem to be able to do is create the same tired Mario thingy over and over and over again.

Other than that, they have to try to invent new types of games in order to maintain their position as the top publisher in the world. And that's what they are at their: a publishing company. They manufacture hardware only to facilitate their publishing interests because no one else is doing what they do in terms of hardware (and they can ensure the hardware exactly meets their visions for their games). There was an article written in 2005 which best explains this:

http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/09/ninte ... ategy.html

They can easily support a system almost on their own as they've proven. And the only developers they seem to be alienating are those who don't wanna try anything new, just keep making games the traditional way. Their systems ain't built for that, they're built for innovation.

There's a sharp difference between "making games the traditional way" and "making games that fit the hardware". The hardware should help support the game, not the other way around. I understand the need to innovate, but they do it to such an extreme degree that typically Nintendo ends up being the only ones shaking their fist at the world, while everybody else makes great games on other consoles/PC.

Sure, they have more developers with the Wii than the N64, but that's only because they lucked out on all of that sellout cash with casual gamers. (So much so that Sony/MS wanted to jump on the "free money train" as well.) The fad is starting to wane already, so they are shifting towards a new console generation. I'm sure it will contain plenty of rehashed Mario and Zelda games.

- it has the same freakin' buttons as the PS3/360 controllers to be used by the same hands (ie. 2 triggers, 4 buttons, and a stick on the right; stick, two triggers, and D-pad on the left); the SOLE difference is your hands are now 6.2 inches further apart with the screen in the middle

While only time with tell, some of the design decisions may come back to haunt them. Ergonomics is king when it comes to controllers. Nobody liked Dreamcast's clunky controller, with a much smaller screen than what it has now. Hell, millions balked at XBox's first controller because it was too big. Now, you can tell Nintendo is given in with the alternate controller looking almost exactly like the 360/PS3 controllers (except with differences that may make it worse), but again, it's more or less out of the picture, anyway.

- ergonomically, there's basically no difference in how that controller feels in your hands than a "traditional" controller, your hands are just separated a bit; it fits in your hands very well, no issues in terms of long-term playing other than what your eyes are telling you

Hopefully that's true. It doesn't look like it based on the pictures.

Really, there's no reason in any way to use the controller as a "the system is no good for [insert genre here] games like the PS3 or Xbox 360" because it has the exact same functionality as the other systems' controllers just with a screen in the middle (ie. additional functionality without loss of original functionality; essentially better in every way). The SOLE excuse to dislike the controller is actually a software design issue and not a hardware one. If the developers are FORCING you to use it in a gimmicky way it's an issue. Zombie U can be seen as that since it forces you to hold up the Gamepad to aim a sniper and to scan the area for loot. Even though it played relatively well, that would be a perfect example of the software design being a legitimate detriment to some people. No arguments from me there other than "oh, you just don't like anything different"...

Which is exactly why developers hate this sort of thing, and gamers hate the results. This sort of stuff forces developers to constantly figure out "what works" in terms of gameplay with said hardware. Thanks to Nintendo, they will be spending millions of dollars in failed R&D in the form of flawed games, to try to figure out what actually makes sense when using the hardware. And gamers will have to suffer through the pain and Nintendo's evangelism. Of course, Nintendo will likely come out on top with their own console because they were the ones who designed it, already know what works, and will probably not bother to share secrets to any of their developers, until after the games come out or are showcased.

Hell, do you realize how long it took to remove the stigma of console controllers from FPSs? Nintendo changes their technology so fast that any research the developers get isn't worth the cost. Hence, they prefer the more stable environments of the other consoles. Or they acknowledge that Nintendo is the "beta console" and will wait for the other folks to introduce the more baked 2.0 versions.

But that's the beauty of it: they don't have to use it. For an FPS - and I'm sure you'll see this for Call of Duty to ensure the 95% of the brainless morons who play that game don't have an aneurysm - you only have to put a map there......and you can still make it so a button press puts the map on the main screen. What's the issue there? Nothing at all....unless you're ridiculously biased. Aliens: Colonial Marines decided to put the motion sensor there instead of on the HUD. What's the issue there? If anything, it actually adds to the game since you have to look down - the way Hicks did in the movie - to look at your sensor. OH NO, NOT AN ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT IN GAMEPLAY!!!

Careful, your fanboy is showing...

Your version of "ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT IN GAMEPLAY!!!" may end up being everybody else's "tired gimmicky crap that makes the interface harder to use". Motion sensors are annoying most of the time. They force you to keep your controller in a stable position, when all you want to do is relax on the couch and push buttons.

The Pro Controller was created for one reason only: to shut the biased morons up. It is completely unnecessary in every way. Not only does it add absolutely zero functionality to the system in any way since the exact same buttons are already on the Gamepad in the exact same location, it actually detracts from the built-in functionality that comes out of the box.

Heh, the system hasn't even come out and you're already claiming that the tablet controller is a sound success, and that this Pro controller is completely unnecessary. Why don't you wait until the games actually come out first?

Just don't forget: the sole reason you have things like the D-Pad, analog stick, shoulder buttons, Start/Select buttons, more than one button on the right side, etc., is because Nintendo decided to change things up and put them there.

Yes, and never forget what the first-generation of those looked like:

1. The shitty cross D-pad of the NES, which Sega made 1000x better.
2. The horribly designed half-stick of the N64, which Sony made a 1000x better and Microsoft moved to the forefront of the left side.
3. The boring shoulder buttons of the SNES, which Sega turned into analog triggers, and Sony doubled.
4. The space-wasting rumble pack, which was an add-on that ate through batteries, was put into the controller itself by Sony.

Also, more than one button on the right side isn't even innovation. It's just logical.

[Zeus]

WAAAAY too long to quote, so I'll just put responses in individual paragraphs:

- once, just once, I wanna see you say something like "what the fuck, Sony/Microshaft?!?" (Microsoft might have done certain things right with the 360 but there's LOTS to be pissed off about; Fez update is a great example). You do that and I'll stop comparing you to Pachter

- different doesn't equal best and one game doesn't make you a 'genre king' (read that article to find out what that means). No one really disputes they rule the platformers other than you

- that's exactly what they do, make their hardware to support the game. You do realize that it was because of Mario 64 the stick was added to the N64 controller, yes? Miyamoto said "the SNES controller copy you guys are making won't work, I need something else". That's how the third arm got onto the N64 controller to begin with (not to mention the C buttons that were eventually mapped onto the second stick that's standard now).

- again, the alternate controller has NOTHING the Gamepad doesn't. It's the EXACT same thing with the screen in the middle removed to shut the biased idiots up. It feels perfectly fine as an FPS controller, it's just your hands are a little further apart. When you get a chance to play it you'll see. The only thing that'll stop you from playing FPSs with the Gamepad the way you are now with either the PS3 or 360 controller is your mind

- don't blame Nintendo if the developers don't use the screen properly. Remember, they can do ANYTHING they want with it, even leave it blank, put a picture there, whatever. This isn't the WiiMote, they don't HAVE to use it. You can port an FPS over with the EXACT same controls and nothing but a silly little map there and it'll play EXACTLY the same. They now simply have the OPTION and tools to do what they want with that screen.

- for some of us, we preferred the console controls for FPSs immediately over the PC ones. And consoles, by their nature, are stable environments, especially when compared to PCs. That was just a silly remark.

- it's not fanboy, man. Think about it: you can either look to the bottom of your screen to see your motion detector or actually have to look down on your controller to see it. Which one becomes more immersive, makes you feel more like you're "in" the game? You're doing that while relaxing on your couch (you don't have the hold the controller towards the screen, you can be lying on your back; it's no different than lookin' down to find the Back button on the 360 controller). That one particular use ~is~ better as far as I'm concerned. Zombie U? Maybe not so much, the jury is out on that one and whether or not it'll be fun or annoying for a full game. Project P-100? It felt a bit awkward and forced. But those were the only two that I tried that made it seem "worse". The others were about as good (Batman: AC and Ninja Gaiden 3) or better (New Super Mario Bros Wii 2, Scribblenauts) or had new/different controls (Pikmin 3, Game & Wario, 4 NintendoLand games).

- no, I'm not claiming it's a success. Too many variables for that. I'm simply saying from a functionality point of view, it's as good or better than what we have now unless the game design forces it to be worse. The Pro Controller is a complete waste of time and only there to shut the biased idiots up. It basically has no reason to exist as far as I'm concerned

- and now for the list:
1) Sega D-Pad? Which one? They were HORRIBLE until they decided to pony up the fee to pay Nintendo for the cross-design (from the Master System up to the second release of the Genesis controller; and I can promise you I played those two systems far more than you did). The cross-pad COMPLETELY revolutionized console gaming, man. Before that, it was the Atari stick that copies the arcades. It was so revolutionary that a) it's still standard on every controller for every system today, including handhelds and b) the best design of that stick is still the original (you'd better not tell me that the stupid buttons on the PS3 controller or the weird design of the original 360 one were better.....)

2) the N64 stick is still the best IMO. Most sensitive (I could make Mario run at 5 or 6 different speeds; try that nowadays) and I could pay for half a day and not feel it. It just wasn't durable enough and since no real games use the sensitivity, it's not necessary to build such a sensitive one. The current iterations (any of them) are passable. But that's just my opinion. I have never, ever liked the feel the the Sony sticks, they've always been the worst ones IMO. And it wasn't Microshaft that moved the stick to the left, it was Sega with the Saturn 3D controller and then the Dreamcast controller. Really, the Xbox controller is nothing but a slightly revamped version of the Dreamcast controller, ESPECIALLY the Controller S which is the father of the 360 controller

3) you're the only person in history to complain about the SNES shoulder pads.....and I gotta look back, but I believe it was the Virtual Boy which first changed the buttons to triggers (or the Saturn 3D controller for Nights). Sony's original controller just had 2 shoulder buttons instead of 1. In fact, the sole difference between the original PS1 controller and the SNES ones were the arms (another Virtual Boy invention) and the extra shoulder on each side....that's it. Look back, Sony has basically invented nothing when it comes to gaming (adding a DVD/Blu Ray drive ain't inventin' nothin'). It's even tough to find them improving anything, they simply copy. Even with their online set-up, it's very much a copy of Microsoft's in a lot of ways

4) rumble pak was an after-thought that Sony copied when they were forced, about 2 years in, to change their controller (twice in a 6-month span) to include the revolutionary analog stick (again, dick-extending second one that wasn't used well until the PS2 days) that they over-looked as a requirement when designing a 3D system. At least Nintendo could add it without making you buy whole new controllers.....

- guess what's the common link between all 4 of those points? Nintendo invented something the others copied (sometimes better, sometimes just exactly, sometimes just different). And that's what it's always been, Nintendo invents, others copy (hardware-wise; they're fucking idiots when it comes to online). Why do you think you have the Move (exact copy) and the Kinect (different)? It had something to do with motion controls I would imagine.....

We'll see when the PS4/Xbox 720 controllers are announced what they jib from the Gamepad. Don't be too surprised if you see touchscreens on all of them just used differently. I'd almost wager that they'll be a bit smaller, too. Just to shut the idiots up and to give them more fuel as to why Nintendo's is "worse"

[SineSwiper]

- once, just once, I wanna see you say something like "what the fuck, Sony/Microshaft?!?" (Microsoft might have done certain things right with the 360 but there's LOTS to be pissed off about; Fez update is a great example). You do that and I'll stop comparing you to Pachter

One, I generally don't start the topics like that; usually somebody else (like you) beats me to it. Two, I've stopped being surprised at what monolithic corporations do to get their money. Admittedly, I hate Sony and Microsoft as a company more than Nintendo, but I think Nintendo has "accidentally" started to become like them. Though, Nintendo seems to follow a model closer to Apple, and I hate Apple as a company as well.

If more companies acted more like Google, I would stand up and take notice. As it is right now, I hate all three of them. Fuck them all. Oh, and fuck Sega, too. Assholes can't make a fucking console without "blast processing", poor developer support, and shitty Sonic games.

- different doesn't equal best and one game doesn't make you a 'genre king' (read that article to find out what that means). No one really disputes they rule the platformers other than you

I'm talking collectively. Yes, most of these developers end up with their 15 minutes of fame with a one-hit wonder, but the games that make are really, really good. Better than Nintendo has been putting out here lately. I would play Scott Pilgram or Braid over any Wii Mario rehash any day of the week. The one standout I did like, though, was Paper Mario, but that didn't get near as much fanfare as their other titles.

- that's exactly what they do, make their hardware to support the game. You do realize that it was because of Mario 64 the stick was added to the N64 controller, yes? Miyamoto said "the SNES controller copy you guys are making won't work, I need something else". That's how the third arm got onto the N64 controller to begin with (not to mention the C buttons that were eventually mapped onto the second stick that's standard now).

Ugh, that explains a lot, actually. Afterthought half-stick was tacked on to their controller? See, if you design it slower and better, you end up with what the PS2 came out with: the properly designed analog thumbsticks we know and love today. I'm sure any one of them could have figured out the design from day 1, so don't give me that "Sony needed the N64 analog stick to come up with that one" crap. All they did was shorten the stick and flatten the base, because that's what naturally feels right!

- don't blame Nintendo if the developers don't use the screen properly. Remember, they can do ANYTHING they want with it, even leave it blank, put a picture there, whatever. This isn't the WiiMote, they don't HAVE to use it. You can port an FPS over with the EXACT same controls and nothing but a silly little map there and it'll play EXACTLY the same. They now simply have the OPTION and tools to do what they want with that screen.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to ignore. The screen is huge. You can't just put a blank screen there. Granted, there are easy options (like a map) that you could fill the space with, but I can't see any developer putting absolutely nothing there.

- for some of us, we preferred the console controls for FPSs immediately over the PC ones. And consoles, by their nature, are stable environments, especially when compared to PCs. That was just a silly remark.

Yeah... AFTER Halo. It took a long time for developers to even consider an analog FPS (3D aiming) on a console, and Halo's twinstick controls were what put console FPSs on the map.

1) Sega D-Pad? Which one? They were HORRIBLE until they decided to pony up the fee to pay Nintendo for the cross-design (from the Master System up to the second release of the Genesis controller; and I can promise you I played those two systems far more than you did). The cross-pad COMPLETELY revolutionized console gaming, man. Before that, it was the Atari stick that copies the arcades. It was so revolutionary that a) it's still standard on every controller for every system today, including handhelds and b) the best design of that stick is still the original (you'd better not tell me that the stupid buttons on the PS3 controller or the weird design of the original 360 one were better.....)

Really? Because I'm looking at a 360 controller right now, and it mimics the Sega Master/Genesis/Saturn circle pad, not that "good luck with diagonals" NES cross pad.

Also, the PS1/2 D-Pad was the worse D-Pad in recorded history. It's like they took the design of the original NES and went BACKWARDS by removing the center pivot.

2) the N64 stick is still the best IMO. Most sensitive (I could make Mario run at 5 or 6 different speeds; try that nowadays) and I could pay for half a day and not feel it. It just wasn't durable enough and since no real games use the sensitivity, it's not necessary to build such a sensitive one. The current iterations (any of them) are passable. But that's just my opinion.

It's probably a minority opinion at that, especially considering what they turn out with the GameCube controller. (Which, IMO, was mostly a great controller of its time.) And every other controller. I don't think anybody wants to consider reviving that halfstick. I can still remember my first experiences with it. Painful memories.

Also, I can run at 5-6 different speeds. Modern analog sticks have something like 256 degrees of forward motion. I mean, it's literally two 8-bit signed ints for X,Y positions in the underlying programming.

And it wasn't Microshaft that moved the stick to the left, it was Sega with the Saturn 3D controller and then the Dreamcast controller. Really, the Xbox controller is nothing but a slightly revamped version of the Dreamcast controller, ESPECIALLY the Controller S which is the father of the 360 controller

Forgot about that one, but it was a pretty crappy and bulky controller. Both of them.

3) you're the only person in history to complain about the SNES shoulder pads.....

Well, I'm not really complaining, but I'm just saying that others made them better.

- guess what's the common link between all 4 of those points? Nintendo invented something the others copied (sometimes better, sometimes just exactly, sometimes just different). And that's what it's always been, Nintendo invents, others copy (hardware-wise; they're fucking idiots when it comes to online).

Yep. Good for them. You know what? As a gamer, I prefer the copies better, because Nintendo's "innovations" lately have been half-baked ideas. The next generation comes out, and Bam, it's a lot better and doesn't feel like a "beta idea".

Why do you think you have the Move (exact copy) and the Kinect (different)? It had something to do with motion controls I would imagine.....

It has more to do with the huge piles of money they've made from the casual gamers. Me, and most of the hundreds of thousands of more mature gamers, could give two shits about any of the motion control bullshit. Kinect? Don't own one and probably never will.

We'll see when the PS4/Xbox 720 controllers are announced what they jib from the Gamepad. Don't be too surprised if you see touchscreens on all of them just used differently. I'd almost wager that they'll be a bit smaller, too. Just to shut the idiots up and to give them more fuel as to why Nintendo's is "worse"

What you call "idiots" are just people that want to play a fucking game without it turning into a big huge social experiment. In fact, I doubt we'll even see touchscreens on ANY of them. Sony didn't copy Nintendo's dual screen idea, so I doubt either of the other two would copy the touchscreen. At all.

Of course, I could be wrong, in which case, I would agree with you in that it would be smaller than the "tablet as a centerpiece" controller the Wii U has. It's called market risk. Nintendo likes to buy the farm with market risk. And like Apple, they end up with wild swings in their profitability every generation. Other companies prefer stability.

(And, Wii U 2, Nintendo. I'll ROFL if that is their next next generation console moniker. Stupid console names...)

EDIT: Also, if it wasn't for Nintendo tripping over their feet to innovate every generation, the other console guys would be forced to pony up more R&D to think of new ways to improve. However, with the current balance (or lack of balance), Sony/MS doesn't even need to spend as much R&D. "New ideas for the console controller? Meh, Nintendo will probably go overboard with some reasonable idea. We can just steal it, tone it down until it actually works with our target audience, and slowly improve upon it with future generations. Let Nintendo handle the crazy ideas dept."

So, Nintendo innovates, but at the cost of themselves, in many cases. The other companies don't innovate because they don't NEED to. Nintendo does the work for them. If all three companies acted the same way, they would all three try to best themselves with smaller changes.

[Zeus]

I'll respond fully later. But in the meantime, read that article I linked, it'll give you a better idea of why Nintendo attempts innovation more often than many people change underwear

[Zeus]

OK, here we go:

- I certainly see why you would pissed or disappointed at Nintendo, they rarely realize their own potential. But hate? They have never nickel and dimed you or completely fucked you over (they gave you 10x what Sony did when the mistake they made was misreading the market as opposed to compromising your personal credit info).

- Apple has never invented anything, it just repackaged and marketed other people's ideas to their sheep-like audience. They're much different companies. Apple and Sony are actually very similar companies driven by their marketing departments

- a genre king is one that consistently makes great games of a genre. You will always have amazing one-offs - like Beyond Good and Evil - but that company aint the top of that genre. And the one thing Nintendo very rarely does is the Capcom Mega Man thing. Their games often have tons of change from prequels. If they do, you get brilliance like Galaxy 2

- "better" is subjective, I'm gonna stay away from that one. But without Nintendo, Sony would have stuck with their SNES clone and never had sticks. Either way, Nintendo invents, Sony copies in this market

- I agree, I can't imagine it ever being blank. But the option is there so there's ZERO reason to use that as a reason to say "Nintendo's version can't be as good because the screen is there"

- no, I preferred the console controls with Goldeneye

- you don't have one of the newer 360 controllers with the adjustable D-pad, do you? It's not by accident that, aside from Sony, every other hardware manufacturer in console history copied it. And you're the only person I've ever known who couldn't do diagonals with it

- the Sega ones might not be as good as the current Xbox controller, but its undeniable they were the basis

- you would hope that other manufacturers at the very least have the ability to analyze and attempt to improve on Nintendo ideas if they can't seem to invent anything themselves. Otherwise it would be really sad. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. But almost always it starts with Nintendo

- when I say "idiots" I'm talking about the people that bitch without merit. It's not exactly like they're used to so they can't use it. In this case with the Gamepad, the functionality is exactly the same, this isn't the Wiimote we're talking about. Really, if you "just can't use" the Gamepad, it's all in your head

- read that article. They don't like to buy the farms with risks, they need to

- the fact the others now don't innovate and just copy should be seen as a detriment, not a bonus. The fact the Sony controller hasn't change in 14 years is a bad thing. Games have grown, the input method needs to reflect that

-and I was discussing this with a buddy last night. There is one benefit to having the Pro Controller available as an option: buying a second controller. Imagine you had to spend $100+ on a second Gamepad just to play local multi like Madden and how much people would bitch about that. And whether you wanna believe it or not, local multi is still very important to a large portion of the market