Review and Essay: the Gamecube Controller

[windfish]

Yes, it's a little bit of an odd topic, and a bit of a throwback, but the old Gamecube Controller is still relevant. (I shall most likely ramble a bit.)

First, let us consider controllers as a whole. From the Atari to the XBox360, (disregarding the Wii Remote for now), it is acknowledged that to decently control most games, you need a directional control and at least one other button, for actions. As games increased in complexity, more buttons became necessary. The NES probably [citation needed] started the trend of thumb-controllers as we know them, with the left thumb controlling directional input, and the right thumb controlling other actions. Canonically, in a platformer, A to jump, and B to attack. As games became more complex, more buttons were added, with the SNES laying down the standard D-pad, 2 shoulder buttons, start, select, and 4 main action buttons. Finally, as gaming entered the 3rd dimension, more controls were needed, notably the re-introduction of the analogue stick (and later, two of them) for precise movement and aiming.

Now, finally, the Gamecube controller. With all these controls, how to possibly keep them straight? How to accommodate them all on a single chassis? How to make it possible to access them in one convenient grip? Nintendo learned from their N64 controller that while ergonomics were important, all the buttons must serve a purpose, and be accessible. (Microsoft addressed this problem by not addressing this problem, and simply made their original controller enormous.) Sony learned from this too - the Playstation 2 controller featured, within (mostly) easy reach, 4 main buttons, a D-pad, 2 analogue sticks, and 4 shoulder buttons. This controller is a fine design that has clearly stood the test of time. However, I argue that the Gamecube controller surpasses this with one key observation:

Not all buttons are equally important.

In most games, one button will be hit more often than any other. The Gamecube's massive A-button, while appearing toy-like, serves the purpose of centering the thumb on its main task. It is most often hit with the side of the right thumb. The second most hit button, the B-button, is positioned perfectly to be hit with a quick, easy, yet decisive motion with the TIP of the right thumb. This decisive position is necessary, because B is almost always the ATTACK button. Also, its secondary position to the left of the A button makes it easily identifiable as the "cancel" or "back" button in menu screens. Simply rotating the thumb to the sides gives access to the X and Y buttons, which have a definitively secondary shape and nature, and represent the wild cards. Special moves, dedicated jump commands, weapon switches, etc... They feel like an alternate action, yet require no shift of position or actual movement of the thumb to access. Thus, the canonical 4 main buttons are easily accessed by simply rotating or tilting the thumb, and are easily identifiable based on importance. This serves to make controls in most Gamecube titles extremely INTUITIVE and easy to learn, severely shortening their learning-curve.

Contrast this, if you will, to the main buttons on a PS2, XBox(360), or SNES controller. From the get-go, one is uncertain of the position their thumb must be in, what button it should by default rest on, and it is even possible for a novice to get "lost" on their own controller in the heat of things!

Now consider the Shoulder and Trigger button. The XBox managed to keep a trigger-like design, yet Nintendo lost this with the form-factor shift from that of the N64. Thus, the Z-button is shifted to rest next to the R-button. This is a double-edged sword, as now it is hit with the right finger, a more common trigger finger, but it doesn't feel as trigger-like. With the multiple shoulder buttons of the PS2 being more often than not confusing, redundant, and unnecessary, the Gamecube has only an L and an R button, with the option of squeeze-sensitivity, with a definitive "click" at the end of the squeeze. These 3 buttons certainly get the job done, but some may miss the old trigger design of the Z .

Nearly all games require only one main directional input, so it is unnecessary that the D-pad and the main analogue stick be simultaneously available. (The PS2 acknowledged this as well). The C-Stick is a bit of an odd color and design, but it serves the purpose of optional camera control, aiming-stick, and n00b-stick (Smash Bros. lingo). Its position, as on the PS2, necessitates a physical move of the right thumb off of the main buttons, so most games use it in secondary capacity. This is where the logic of the PS2's multiple shoulder buttons may prove superior - in games which demand dual-analogue control, the player is offered one more button. (While the Gamecube players have L, R, and Z at their immediate controls, PS2 players have L1, L2, R1, and R2).

As far as the size is concerned, my hands are perfectly suited to the Gamecube, and I have about average hands for a man (an easy 10th interval on a standard piano keyboard, 11th if I reach.) I can play Gamecube for hours on end without discomfort, but I have heard complaints from one of my larger-handed friends, who prefers the PS2 controller for this reason. The shift to the wireless Wavebird takes a few minutes to get used to, but doesn't affect the experience.

All in all and overall, I consider the Gamecube controller to be the best traditional controller to date, particularly for its realization and design philosophy that not all buttons are created equal. No other conventional controller is as intuitive and natural, and intelligent in its design. While it does have its flaws, it has and will stand the test of time, as everyone knows that many Wii games still play best with the ol' Wavebird.

 

[The Wooster]

A very observant and well written review. Unfortunately you're wrong in the absolute worst way but it was still a joy to read.

 

[Maet]

Interesting how you think a button's physical design and position dictate it's usefulness. I remember the main button for FFVII being circle, or the "east button". Then FFVIII, and seemingly every PS1 game thereafter, put the emphasis on the x or "south button". It felt awkward and took a while to get use to. Interesting to think that had the buttons on the PS1 controller been unique in shape and size (and to a lesser extent, responsiveness) control assignments would be more intuitive.

I enjoyed my time with the game cube controller, and do prefer to use it with the Wii when applicable. I appreciate how Nintendo tries something different with every new controller. I use to criticize Sony for having the same inputs for over a decade, but then you have to ask yourself if it's worth trying to fix what isn't broken.

 

[Rabid Toilet]

Nice review, and well written.

The GameCube controller has always been one of my favorites, and it's nice to see it getting the recognition it deserves.

 

[TRR]

Nicely written essay, however, I can't agree with you because I never really enjoyed playing with the the GC controller, with it being so oddly shaped and all. The only time that I found it better than other controllers was when playing Soul Caliber 2. I found that it is the only controller that one can even attempt the moves that require you to press 2 buttons in a quick succession. This is because you only need to move your thumb slightly; as described above. I could probably give the GC controller a lot more credit besides that, but I haven't used it recently enough to recall.

 

[Signa]

Way too wordy of a review for its own good, but I do fully agree. There was a lot of thought put into the GC controller, and the only argument *I* need for its button placement is the number of 2-button combos you can hit at once. There is only one blind-spot: X and B. On the PS controllers, square + circle and triangle + Cross are hard to hit simultaneously. Same goes for the relative buttons on the Xbox controllers. The ONLY complaint I have with the controller is the lack of functional dual shoulder buttons. Z does not count. It was far too hard to hit in almost any situation.

 

[windfish]

Thank you everyone for your comments. This was my first "review", and second "essay."

A very observant and well written review. Unfortunately you're wrong in the absolute worst way but it was still a joy to read.

Could you be more specific? I admit my conclusion is rather bold.

...the only argument *I* need for its button placement is the number of 2-button combos you can hit at once. There is only one blind-spot: X and B. On the PS controllers, square + circle and triangle + Cross are hard to hit simultaneously. Same goes for the relative buttons on the Xbox controllers. The ONLY complaint I have with the controller is the lack of functional dual shoulder buttons. Z does not count. It was far too hard to hit in almost any situation.

Good points, both. I completely forgot to address the ability to hit main-button combinations, but you did the job for me. As I said in the review, the placement of Z was a double-edged sword. I found no trouble hitting it, but everyone's hands are different.

Oh, and TRR - Welcome to Escapist Forums!

 

[The Wooster]

I don't think your conclusion that most games favour one button over all others is correct. This may be true of Nintendo games, which generally use a more streamlined control system for (arguably) simpler games, but most action video games require (in my opinion) usually two or more actions that must be used an equal amount. This is why I found the gamecube controller good for Nintendo games but lacking when it came to outsourced games, particularly Soul Calibur 2.
In Soul calibur the player is called to attack and defend in generally equal amounts so a control pad which makes say, attacking easier at the cost of defense, is not the best bit of equipment for the job.

Each controller has it's own little stomping ground and while the gamecube controller rocked when it came to platformers it fell short with fighting games and first person shooters.

 

[Littaly]

Very good review. Only thing i found strange uis that you mention the R button as the trigger button, almost all games i have played use A as trigger button and R for aim.

Another nice thing about the controller is that it is easier to tilt the control stick since you can lean it on the edges, which is harder on the PS controller.

 

[The Wooster]

Another nice thing about the controller is that it is easier to tilt the control stick since you can lean it on the edges, which is harder on the PS controller.

That is a nice feature but it bumfucks any game where smooth rotations are required. Look at Nights for the Wii.

 

[windfish]

I don't think your conclusion that most games favour one button over all others is correct. This may be true of Nintendo games, which generally use a more streamlined control system for (arguably) simpler games, but most action video games require (in my opinion) usually two or more actions that must be used an equal amount. This is why I found the gamecube controller good for Nintendo games but lacking when it came to outsourced games, particularly Soul Calibur 2.
In Soul calibur the player is called to attack and defend in generally equal amounts so a control pad which makes say, attacking easier at the cost of defense, is not the best bit of equipment for the job.

Each controller has it's own little stomping ground and while the gamecube controller rocked when it came to platformers it fell short with fighting games and first person shooters.

It is indeed correct that not all games favor one button over all others, but that's not the entire point. Even in action and fighting games, the actions are different, and well-mapped commands to the differently shaped and mapped buttons reflect this. I suppose you're not counting Smash Bros. as a fighting game?

Metroid Prime was a fine FPS with excellent controls. As is the case with the Wii today, however, third parties do not always use controllers responsibly, especially with cross-platform games, and with this you do have quite a point. With the Wii, third parties are finally beginning to realize that they need to design for the system from the ground up, not to create an entire game and then try to shoe-horn the controls in at the last second.

 

[windfish]

Very good review. Only thing i found strange uis that you mention the R button as the trigger button, almost all games i have played use A as trigger button and R for aim.

Hmm...re-reads...I believe that was the Z button. I identified the R as a shoulder button only. The Z button is where some legitimate criticism of the controller can be levied, as though it was once a Trigger (on the N64), its new awkward position beside the huge R button caused it to be largely ignored as a trigger, or designated to secondary or ternary tasks. However, on the GC, this could also feed into my larger point, which is that the more the fingers had to move to hit a button, the more remote its overall task was.

(Please pardon my double-post.)

 

[The Wooster]

It is indeed correct that not all games favor one button over all others, but that's not the entire point. Even in action and fighting games, the actions are different, and well-mapped commands to the differently shaped and mapped buttons reflect this. I suppose you're not counting Smash Bros. as a fighting game?

Metroid Prime was a fine FPS with excellent controls. As is the case with the Wii today, however, third parties do not always use controllers responsibly, especially with cross-platform games, and with this you do have quite a point. With the Wii, third parties are finally beginning to realize that they need to design for the system from the ground up, not to create an entire game and then try to shoe-horn the controls in at the last second.

Metroid prime was not really a shooter at heart though was it? Combat was generally slower and more in tune with an adventure game than something like, say, Half life 2.

As for SSMM, funny you should mention it. I said a little something about that in another topic.

The gamecube version of the game traded entirely on it's bonus character Link despite the fact players were forced to play the game with the by most accounts 'dodgy' gamecube control pad. I for one quite liked the old purple box's pad but I'm the first to admit it wasn't designed with fighting games in mind, it worked fine with games like Super Smash Bros Melee sure, but Melee was a game that had every special move mapped to one button. I dread to think what playing SCII on the game cube was like. It'd be like trying to play happy birthday on a keyboard imagined by Salvidor Dali.

 

[windfish]

Well, rest assured that it wasn't that bad. I've never been much of a fan of the core (read: not SSB) fighting games for all the usual reasons, but I do believe that Soul Caliber is about as good as the genre gets as far as accessibility and fun goes. I did play SCII on the Gamecube, and I thought it controlled perfectly fine. It is very, very easy to press A+B on the GC controller, which I largely spammed because Link's primary grab was a pretty-much guaranteed ring-out, especially against casual players (my buddies who owned the game - I didn't). The X- and Y-buttons mapped well to their tasks, as well. However, do remember that I never played SC terribly deeply, either, so I acknowledge that I'm probably not completely equipped to argue this point any further.

I'm also not much of an console FPSer, so you also have me there - I plan on trying out Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii, because Hunters on the DS was the only FPS I've ever played whose controls actually matched those of WASD+Mouse, and I hear that Metroid Prime 3 actually surpasses it.

EDIT: Check me on this, but I believe the GC version of SCII outsold its competitors, most likely entirely because of Link's inclusion.

 

[The Wooster]

Well, rest assured that it wasn't that bad. I've never been much of a fan of the core (read: not SSB) fighting games for all the usual reasons, but I do believe that Soul Caliber is about as good as the genre gets as far as accessibility and fun goes. I did play SCII on the Gamecube, and I thought it controlled perfectly fine. It is very, very easy to press A+B on the GC controller, which I largely spammed because Link's primary grab was a pretty-much guaranteed ring-out, especially against casual players (my buddies who owned the game - I didn't). The X- and Y-buttons mapped well to their tasks, as well. However, do remember that I never played SC terribly deeply, either, so I acknowledge that I'm probably not completely equipped to argue this point any further.

I'm also not much of an console FPSer, so you also have me there - I plan on trying out Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii, because Hunters on the DS was the only FPS I've ever played whose controls actually matched those of WASD+Mouse, and I hear that Metroid Prime 3 actually surpasses it.

EDIT: Check me on this, but I believe the GC version of SCII outsold its competitors, most likely entirely because of Link's inclusion.

Yeah I mentioned that in my review of SCIV. I recall hearing somewhere it outsold them both combined which is amazing all things considered.

 

[thahat]

Well, rest assured that it wasn't that bad. I've never been much of a fan of the core (read: not SSB) fighting games for all the usual reasons, but I do believe that Soul Caliber is about as good as the genre gets as far as accessibility and fun goes. I did play SCII on the Gamecube, and I thought it controlled perfectly fine. It is very, very easy to press A+B on the GC controller, which I largely spammed because Link's primary grab was a pretty-much guaranteed ring-out, especially against casual players (my buddies who owned the game - I didn't). The X- and Y-buttons mapped well to their tasks, as well. However, do remember that I never played SC terribly deeply, either, so I acknowledge that I'm probably not completely equipped to argue this point any further.

I'm also not much of an console FPSer, so you also have me there - I plan on trying out Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii, because Hunters on the DS was the only FPS I've ever played whose controls actually matched those of WASD+Mouse, and I hear that Metroid Prime 3 actually surpasses it.

EDIT: Check me on this, but I believe the GC version of SCII outsold its competitors, most likely entirely because of Link's inclusion.

i personaly dont kow what the GC cotnroller bashin with sc2 is about, i own sc2 on the GC, and the controller fits it perfectly, but other fighting games BESIDES SC, no, not in a milion years. other fighting games dont have horizontal/vertical atacks they have kick punch combo's so those would be crap on the GC in my opinion.

 

[windfish]

It's interesting to me how major of a point this Soul Caliber II game is to my essay, and it seems that several of the commentators have actually taken opposite sides. I maintain that while it is true that not all games one all platforms make one button pressed more frequently than the others, the larger point is that differently shaped and positioned buttons reflect the uniqueness of their respective tasks. It is easy to hit most of the buttons on the GC with equal frequency - the centrality of the "A" button gives a reference point, with the added OPTION of making it the most important button. If nothing else, "A" always means "select."

 

[windfish]

Hmm... a very well written review, but I don't think I could disagree with you more if I tried.

While I never owned a Gamecube, a number of my friends did, so I had many a multiplayer session playing on the labyrinth controller, as I liked to call it. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the most unintuitive controllers I've ever used, as it ignores some of the most basic rules of controller design.

You argue that 'Nintendo realised not all buttons are equal'. Shome mishtake shurely? All buttons on a controller are, and should be equal. The reason is simply because you, as a console developer, don't know what your developers are going to require for their games input wise. Making decisions for them on which buttons are important and which are not is foolish. For all you know, they could be developing a fantastic epic game where each button has its own important purpose. Indeed, the best console games are usually those where each part of the controller has been assigned its own task, so that controlling your character/vehicle/avatar feels completely natural to the player. Making such decisions on behalf of the developers making your games is just foolishness. It's like deciding that your child is going to do Music, Drama and Art at GCSE, when they actually want to do French, Geography and History.

Also, you have to consider how the controller affects the player. As I've already mentioned, for me (and plenty of others) the controller felt unintuitive. When we're playing games, we're already having to solve problems presented to us on screen. For us to successfully overcome them (be it by shooting, slashing or accelerating), our method of input has to be simple and well laid out, so that we can perform selected actions without thinking. Unfortunately, the GC controller fails at this. When playing Nightfire, I am already faced with one problem when my opponent is filling me full of lead. If I have to look down and fumble around to find the jump button, that's another problem I've got to solve on top of the original 'getting killed in the most humiliating way' one, and I get dragged out of the moment.

I'm not saying that I could never get good on a GC controller. With time and practise, perhaps I could. But getting good on a GC gamepad is a skill, when it should be an effortless task. Let me compare with my pick for best controller- the S controller for the Xbox. Sure, the original Xbox controller was pretty dire, but the S made up for it by the mountainload. The four main face buttons are all the same size, and no single one dominates the controller face. Hitting X is almost exactly the same as hitting Y. In the corner you've got two little buttons, one white, one black, for extra input options. The analogue sticks, rather than simply being placed next to each other, are positioned in a way that feels much more natural when the controller sits in your hands. Also, moving your right thumb from the analogue stick to the face buttons requires minimal effort, meaning you can alternate between the two at the drop of a hat. Then you have the two trigger buttons, contoured to allow your fingers to get a good grip, and with enough depth to make pulling them feel satisfying. It's a superb controller, and this is why: everything is well laid out and easy to follow, and the design is versatile enough to allow for all sorts of game types with different input methods. Not a single button gets more dominance than the others. There isn't a garish green A button screaming to be pushed even though the button you want is the tucked away X button that Nintendo don't seem to love.


If the above loose collection of thoughts was too long, I'll simplify- Ninja Gaiden was an absolute joy to play on the Xbox, as the controller allowed for the fast, free-form button combos that the game demanded. The same game would be far worse on the GC pad, as some actions get far more prominence than others. How am I supposed to string attacks together when one of the buttons I need is cowering behind that horrible green thug of an A button?

Once again, I'm afraid my wording may have been misleading. I do, of course, stand by my conjecture that not all buttons should be equal, but in fact the differences is size and position dictate a difference in task, not necessarily importance. None of the buttons are "cowering" behind the "A" button - they're all in easy reach. As I said in the review, the GC controller gives developers an opportunity to intelligently map their controls. Two commands may be of equal importance, but they are never identical. (Pidgeonhole Principle). Thus, the difference in the task they perform is reflected in a different button.

This said, I've said above that not all games used the controller responsibly, most notably the quick-ports and cross-platformers. Ninja Gaiden was not released on the GC, probably because Team Ninja didn't want their game played on a system that looked like a lunchbox. If it was, I'm sure Team Ninja map their controls well.

The A button serves the purpose of homerow on a qwerty keyboard. In many games with other controllers, you'll find your thumb resting over certain buttons, and using the others in an auxiliary fashion, even if they are of equal importance. "A" is home, and tapping all the other buttons, I find, is much faster on a GC, since they're all right there. Even if A is not the most important button, it serves as a nice hub.

Also, I'm afraid that I may have erred in my gross generalization of the word "intuitive." I, personally, adapted to the Gamecube controller in about 15 minutes, fresh from an N64. An Xbox controller is a little easier to adapt to from someone used to a PS1,2,or 3 controller, since it's a very similar design and button layout. A little opening of the mind on what a controller can be, however, allows for some creativity and creative engineering, and the notion that things can actually be done better than standard cross-shaped button layouts.

However, this discussion runs parallel to many economic debates. Here is the observation:

There are exactly 2 good economists in the world. They are both absolutely correct. They never agree on anything.

I believe that not all buttons should be equal, you believe they should. Potato.