Hardware is Gimmicks

[Aardvaarkman]

It's the FPS argument again. Controllers will NEVER be as good as a mouse at quickly and precisely pointing at and clicking things.

That's a rather extraordinary claim.

So, the mouse is the perfect method of input, and can never be improved on? What if somebody develops a controller based on a neural interface, where you don't even have to move a physical object like a mouse? Surely, one's brain activity directly connected to the computing device will be a lot faster (if properly implemented) than something as crude as a mouse?

I don't think it's a matter of if this is going to happen, but more a question of whether it will happen in 5 years or 10 years.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

Hardware is Gimmicks

The PS4 has a big thing in the middle of the controller that has the function of a track pad but which you can press in like a button. The Xbox One has a packed-in Kinect. It's the specter of hardware gimmicks in new consoles again.

Read Full Article

I agree that the uses of the touchpad will require some creative thinking, but there are some advantages of a touchpad. Multi-finger gestures. Pinching, twisting, and whatever the opposite of pinching is called. I can easily see a game using it, for example to have a player crack a combination safe, or rotate items in the inventory.

Can it be done with clockwork turns of the sticks, or at the ready presses of the shoulder buttons? Yes, but now there are more options.

 

[Vegosiux]

I agree, also im mad because they didnt added more shoulder buttons, or backside buttons. Why buy a next-gen controller if my Razer Sabertooth is much more useful and Valve is already doing something better?

I've got a humble Deathadder and it takes care of all my gaming needs. It's all a matter of approach...

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

I don't know about everybody else, but I've never had a problem controlling an RTS game with a controller. I use Xpadder with an Xbox360 controller on everything that's possible, including several RTSes like Warcraft, Starcraft, Black and White, (whole series I'm talking about) and few others I can't really think of right now and never had any real issues.

It's the FPS argument again. Controllers will NEVER be as good as a mouse at quickly and precisely pointing at and clicking things. And RTS games are about a whole lot of pointing at very small things and clicking on them, dragging boxes, and targeting enemy things. The only way to "improve" a controller is to change the game itself such that you don't need to do those things that a mouse does best.

I would argue against that. I don't see what the problem is with using controllers in FPS either even as they are. In fact, I find controllers to work better most of the time because mice tend to be too sensitive to aim effectively even with the mouse sensitivity turned way down. All it takes is a slight twitch to throw off one's aim when using a mouse while a control stick won't. It's also simply more comfortable overall to use a controller over a keyboard and mouse anyway.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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.

I don't know about everybody else, but I've never had a problem controlling an RTS game with a controller. I use Xpadder with an Xbox360 controller on everything that's possible, including several RTSes like Warcraft, Starcraft, Black and White, (whole series I'm talking about) and few others I can't really think of right now and never had any real issues.

It's the FPS argument again. Controllers will NEVER be as good as a mouse at quickly and precisely pointing at and clicking things. And RTS games are about a whole lot of pointing at very small things and clicking on them, dragging boxes, and targeting enemy things. The only way to "improve" a controller is to change the game itself such that you don't need to do those things that a mouse does best.

I would argue against that. I don't see what the problem is with using controllers in FPS either even as they are. In fact, I find controllers to work better most of the time because mice tend to be too sensitive to aim effectively even with the mouse sensitivity turned way down. All it takes is a slight twitch to throw off one's aim when using a mouse while a control stick won't. It's also simply more comfortable overall to use a controller over a keyboard and mouse anyway.

See, you can say "I have no problem controlling an RTS or FPS game with a controller" but that claim immediately falls apart when you play against someone who's using a keyboard/mouse and you get destroyed, as this is exactly what happens with FPS games every time the audiences meet (no one has tried with RTS games, but results would be identical).

You are not playing the best you possibly could be with crippled controls. Also, do you know why a slight twitch doesn't throw off your aim when using a controller? Auto aim features built into the game. You know why they're in there? Because aiming with an analog is horribly imprecise and would be extremely difficult - that's why they put them in there in the first place.

That's the trap with controllers - you don't even know how bad you have it because the game lies to you. On PCs, auto aim is considered hacking and cheating. On consoles - it's a feature!

It's the FPS argument again. Controllers will NEVER be as good as a mouse at quickly and precisely pointing at and clicking things.

That's a rather extraordinary claim.

So, the mouse is the perfect method of input, and can never be improved on? What if somebody develops a controller based on a neural interface, where you don't even have to move a physical object like a mouse? Surely, one's brain activity directly connected to the computing device will be a lot faster (if properly implemented) than something as crude as a mouse?

I don't think it's a matter of if this is going to happen, but more a question of whether it will happen in 5 years or 10 years.

It's a claim backed up by evidence from the past. A controller based on a neural interface would probably indeed be superior, but they didn't improve upon a console controller/gamepad to get there - it's a fundamentally different input device. In this case, moving your hand is more accurate at pointing at something than pressing a button (dpad) or moving an analog stick to move a cursor to point at something. A quasi-trackpad (somewhere between pushing a button, moving your hand, and moving an analog stick) will still not beat this.

Pointing with your mind would indeed be faster than moving your hand. Maybe one day we'll get there. Until then, mouse is the best we have.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

So, umm....serious question - does Yahtzee even like video games?

Not joking here, but every article of his that I've read is a complaint. I've pretty much never seen him praise something. Is it just his job to not like stuff and provide us with "insightful commentary"?

Cause I'm not sure if I have the tolerance for so much negativity.

Look at it this way: anything he doesn't criticise, he likes. I do the same, and that comes from my art background, where we're supposed to point out where things could be improved in our opinion while implying everything else is fine.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So, umm....serious question - does Yahtzee even like video games?

Not joking here, but every article of his that I've read is a complaint. I've pretty much never seen him praise something. Is it just his job to not like stuff and provide us with "insightful commentary"?

Cause I'm not sure if I have the tolerance for so much negativity.

Look at it this way: anything he doesn't criticise, he likes. I do the same, and that comes from my art background, where we're supposed to point out where things could be improved in our opinion while implying everything else is fine.

I've always found that to be a very poor and lazy method of criticism, since evidence and reason is what gives criticism value, not implication.

Far more likely, Yahtzee prefers writing subjects he can complain about because it's easier to both generate content about and makes for better clickbait.

Which doesn't invalidate his opinion (his complaints) or negate the entertainment value of his publications, mind you, but it does weaken his authority on the subject; especially when he (or anyone) claims he does this because he likes the gaming medium/industry.

There just comes a point where hating on everything ceases to convey legitimate interest and causes one to question how much interest they actually have in the subject vs how much they should have. Yahtzee has bills to pay, and he pays them with his content so his interest in the subject is somewhat forced.

But most regular readers like me aren't in that position of forced interest; we're just looking for something of interest (enlightenment or entertainment). So forgive me if I question how serious/genuine his message is the same way I question how genuine the cashier is when I know they're paid to conclude every transaction with "Have a nice day!"