- Aug 12, 2013
He said the gaming controller. You're not going to play an RTS game - any RTS game - with a controller. Controllers are good for one thing, keyboard/mouse another, and joysticks/fightpads/whateverelse another.RandV80 said:From the article:
Says who? Now I'll never excuse gimmicky implementations of new controls, but to me this seems like a generational thing. You make Nintendo seem like the outlier for not going along with the 'standard' implementation, but if you actually looked at their console lineup every control has had a significant change from the previous, with the intent of enabling greater gameplay. It's only Sony and Microsoft, who were late comers to the console market, who decided on one primary design and stuck with it, and now have fanbases that start frothing at the mouth if you try and tinker with it.Except that the gaming controller was basically perfected with the Dual Shock.
Read that quote above there. Could I play say... Starcraft 2 with a dualshock controller? Not bloody likely. You could say that's PC gaming and this is console gaming, but at the end of the day it's all just software, what separates them is the control input required. The dual shock is perfect for a specific subset of games, and that's it. It's not the perfect controller period.
Thankfully we have the fine folks at Valve who are showing us what actual creative innovation can do with their new Steam controller. It still may not be perfect for my Starcraft 2 example, but it should likely bring us much closer.
But of things best controlled with a controller, the Dualshock is indeed perfection. Valve hasn't showed us anything, because they keep changing the design of their prototypes BECAUSE that innovation wasn't doing anything useful. Plus, I find Valve's vision of a symmetrical controller troubling to begin with.....