Tryzon's Nostalgic Gaming Trips
Rant #4
Console designs
Is it really so difficult to get this right? Do the wonderful people who sculpt otherwise fantastic systems just have no concept of simple convenience and common sense? It?s probably not clear what I?m talking about yet, so I?ll go into detail.
You almost wouldn't notice the fatal flaw...until it's too late
Take the original Xbox. It?s big and heavy, but the disc tray is on the front, and there are no vents to block on top, so in theory it?s the perfect thing to put another, lighter system on top of. Of course, trying this reveals a baffling design choice: the Xbox is in fact ever so slightly slanted on its surface, meaning that the only thing I can put on there is my Nintendo 64, since cartridges have no trouble wobbling a bit, unlike those fussy discs which require ballerina-esque balance to avoid various nasty things happening. And I only managed to make my N64 stay put through a generous application of masking tape.
I cannot think of a single practical reason why the top needs to be round, so why Microsoft made this decision is beyond me. Does it look nicer? No. Does it save room or something? Quite the opposite. Just to make matters worse, the Xbox never had any revised models made, so you?re stuck with it.
Talk about a de-evolution
Despite having several years to learn from Microsoft?s mistake, and having previously made perfectly good-shaped systems, Sony would go on to release their own blunder of ergonomics with the PS3. The slant is much more extreme this time, so you?re even less likely to get anything on top. Then again, the PS3 can do what the Xbox can?t: play properly in a vertical position. This solves much of the problem, and elevates the design overall to being more practical than the Xbox, but since the PS3 is still among the heftiest systems I?ve ever seen, having a flat top would be hugely helpful. Plus think of how much more difficult to make that shape must be, and inefficient to pack. The PS2 (both Fat and Slimline) have more style and practical application in their designs, and so the PS3?s casing still fails. The Slim PS3 is just as bad, since the sloped top remains. Damn you Sony, my old friends!
For someone like me who relies on vertical space to fit their consoles into a convenient area, stuff like these shapes just makes life pointlessly awkward. Cartridge-based systems typically load from the top, and so in that scenario their design is irrelevant. The only flat-topped cart console I can think of would be the original Nintendo, but those had other problems which prevented them from being truly great examples of console craftsmanship.
No, my gripe is with consoles that use discs. The PlayStation, Saturn and Dreamcast all have disc trays on top. These are fine, and only the Saturn is really heavy enough to support having something on top. But both the PS3 and Xbox load from the front, meaning there is exactly no reason not to make the top flat.
This is an acceptable choice: at least the top is being used by the best kind of disc tray in existence
You might argue that a manufacturer of games consoles might not care about convenient shapes, as they want consumers to purchase their system and no others. Plus a pretty console will be more attractive than an arse-faced one. That?s a fair point, but I have a counterargument: I?d imagine that most gamers have at least two systems, most commonly an older one and a newer one. I happen to have several, but most folk don?t. If someone with a small flat and little shelf space was considering getting a new console but after testing a friend?s unit found that the shape wouldn?t work in their set-up, only a truly dedicated person will go to great lengths to rig up some sort of masking-tape suspension device which might let them use multiple consoles. And now you know my pain.
Manufacturers do themselves no favours by needlessly sloping a system?s top end, and it?s sad to think that I, a slow-to-learn type who never paid attention in his Design and Technology lessons, can list a few easy-to-follow rules that would improve console designs phenomenally, thereby improving the product at no extra cost and encouraging sales. Here we go, then:
1) If it?s small and light, make it top-loading and easy to stick on top of something else.
2) If it?s big and heavy, make it front-loading and you?d better ensure that the top is flat.
3) Avoid putting vents on top if at all possible, but at least put them at the far ends if you need some.
And there you are. Those three rules allow for the perfect disc-based console design every time. Take note, Sony. Microsoft righted their wrongs with the 360, but you actually went backwards. Impressive.
This concludes my rant on the annoying console designs which will forever infuriate and confuse me. Doubtless others will come along in the future, but for now I?ve said all that can be.
Inevitably my use of the PS3 as a negative example will draw fire from a few ignorant types, but if they stopped to think for a moment the fact that I?m talking in detail about it means that I actually own one, eh? Seems obvious, I know, but spend any amount of time on the internet and you learn to cover your tracks on topics like this.
A console?s design obviously has no direct effect on the quality of the hardware within, or the games that work on it. For example, even George Foreman?s PS3 can cook up a mean Uncharted, and while the Xbox looks like a horizontal computer tower with a stupid upper surface, it?s well known for being the birthplace of a certain famous franchise of very fun (if not spectacular, I say) shooters. Part of being a fan of anything is admitting its faults. Then again, the PS2 Fat is perfect in every way if you plug in a multitap, so I suppose that every rule has an exception.
Now THAT's how you do it!
Rant #4
Console designs
Is it really so difficult to get this right? Do the wonderful people who sculpt otherwise fantastic systems just have no concept of simple convenience and common sense? It?s probably not clear what I?m talking about yet, so I?ll go into detail.
You almost wouldn't notice the fatal flaw...until it's too late
Take the original Xbox. It?s big and heavy, but the disc tray is on the front, and there are no vents to block on top, so in theory it?s the perfect thing to put another, lighter system on top of. Of course, trying this reveals a baffling design choice: the Xbox is in fact ever so slightly slanted on its surface, meaning that the only thing I can put on there is my Nintendo 64, since cartridges have no trouble wobbling a bit, unlike those fussy discs which require ballerina-esque balance to avoid various nasty things happening. And I only managed to make my N64 stay put through a generous application of masking tape.
I cannot think of a single practical reason why the top needs to be round, so why Microsoft made this decision is beyond me. Does it look nicer? No. Does it save room or something? Quite the opposite. Just to make matters worse, the Xbox never had any revised models made, so you?re stuck with it.
Talk about a de-evolution
Despite having several years to learn from Microsoft?s mistake, and having previously made perfectly good-shaped systems, Sony would go on to release their own blunder of ergonomics with the PS3. The slant is much more extreme this time, so you?re even less likely to get anything on top. Then again, the PS3 can do what the Xbox can?t: play properly in a vertical position. This solves much of the problem, and elevates the design overall to being more practical than the Xbox, but since the PS3 is still among the heftiest systems I?ve ever seen, having a flat top would be hugely helpful. Plus think of how much more difficult to make that shape must be, and inefficient to pack. The PS2 (both Fat and Slimline) have more style and practical application in their designs, and so the PS3?s casing still fails. The Slim PS3 is just as bad, since the sloped top remains. Damn you Sony, my old friends!
For someone like me who relies on vertical space to fit their consoles into a convenient area, stuff like these shapes just makes life pointlessly awkward. Cartridge-based systems typically load from the top, and so in that scenario their design is irrelevant. The only flat-topped cart console I can think of would be the original Nintendo, but those had other problems which prevented them from being truly great examples of console craftsmanship.
No, my gripe is with consoles that use discs. The PlayStation, Saturn and Dreamcast all have disc trays on top. These are fine, and only the Saturn is really heavy enough to support having something on top. But both the PS3 and Xbox load from the front, meaning there is exactly no reason not to make the top flat.
This is an acceptable choice: at least the top is being used by the best kind of disc tray in existence
You might argue that a manufacturer of games consoles might not care about convenient shapes, as they want consumers to purchase their system and no others. Plus a pretty console will be more attractive than an arse-faced one. That?s a fair point, but I have a counterargument: I?d imagine that most gamers have at least two systems, most commonly an older one and a newer one. I happen to have several, but most folk don?t. If someone with a small flat and little shelf space was considering getting a new console but after testing a friend?s unit found that the shape wouldn?t work in their set-up, only a truly dedicated person will go to great lengths to rig up some sort of masking-tape suspension device which might let them use multiple consoles. And now you know my pain.
Manufacturers do themselves no favours by needlessly sloping a system?s top end, and it?s sad to think that I, a slow-to-learn type who never paid attention in his Design and Technology lessons, can list a few easy-to-follow rules that would improve console designs phenomenally, thereby improving the product at no extra cost and encouraging sales. Here we go, then:
1) If it?s small and light, make it top-loading and easy to stick on top of something else.
2) If it?s big and heavy, make it front-loading and you?d better ensure that the top is flat.
3) Avoid putting vents on top if at all possible, but at least put them at the far ends if you need some.
And there you are. Those three rules allow for the perfect disc-based console design every time. Take note, Sony. Microsoft righted their wrongs with the 360, but you actually went backwards. Impressive.
This concludes my rant on the annoying console designs which will forever infuriate and confuse me. Doubtless others will come along in the future, but for now I?ve said all that can be.
Inevitably my use of the PS3 as a negative example will draw fire from a few ignorant types, but if they stopped to think for a moment the fact that I?m talking in detail about it means that I actually own one, eh? Seems obvious, I know, but spend any amount of time on the internet and you learn to cover your tracks on topics like this.
A console?s design obviously has no direct effect on the quality of the hardware within, or the games that work on it. For example, even George Foreman?s PS3 can cook up a mean Uncharted, and while the Xbox looks like a horizontal computer tower with a stupid upper surface, it?s well known for being the birthplace of a certain famous franchise of very fun (if not spectacular, I say) shooters. Part of being a fan of anything is admitting its faults. Then again, the PS2 Fat is perfect in every way if you plug in a multitap, so I suppose that every rule has an exception.
Now THAT's how you do it!
