XE was a faliure, I thought it should have been marketed better + joypad!

[atariksi]

Fact: Xbox 1 was the best Sixth gen console.

 

Fact: 360 is the best Seventh gen console.

 

What makes your opinion right and someone who considers the PS2 and PS3 their favorite consoles wrong?

 

I don't have "XBOX d"s (where d = 0 to 360 degrees) nor any "PSn" where n is 1..4. Are these backward compatible? I mean controllers, video cables, games, etc. Someone wants to give me an XBOX w/o any cables/controllers.

[mcjakeqcool]

I always thought that the Xbox controlers were more comfatable then the PS controlers, they mould in to you're hands, you can make love to them. The PS controlers are like a dogbone, and as for the Wii controlers... I can't even be bothered to make a statement about them, ok I can, lol! Abysmal X 9999 Nongentillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers . I mean really! How can you play a game properly with a **very** small remote control.

Edited May 26, 2009 by mcjakeqcool

[atariksi]

I always thought that the Xbox controlers were more comfatable then the PS controlers, they mould in to you're hands, you can make love to them. The PS controlers are like a dogbone, and as for the Wii controlers... I can't even be bothered to make a statement about them, ok I can, lol! Abysmal X 9999 Nongentillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers . I mean really! How can you play a game properly with a **very** small remote control.

 

They all suck compared to Atari digital joysticks. I rather have simple joysticks that are digital than 10+ button joysticks that are analog. I heard they even have analog buttons. In a fact motion type game, you can't have 10+ choices to do emergency acts-- that gets a lot to get to used to for every game plus the fact that you are only doing a percentage move up/down/left/right/diagonally. As far as you loving the X-box joysticks, I have one that I tried that has two "propellers" built-in that makes it feel like if you do something wrong in the game, the joystick will open up and kill you like Maximillian did in the movie Black Hole.

[FastRobPlus]

If those A__hats at M$ could do that they would have done it long ago. They have been trying to buy rather than innovate the console market for a long time. Still isn't working for them this cycle.

 

 

[atarian63]

If those A__hats at M$ could do that they would have done it long ago. They have been trying to buy rather than innovate the console market for a long time. Still isn't working for them this cycle.

 

 

:roll:

[atarian63]

I always thought that the Xbox controlers were more comfatable then the PS controlers, they mould in to you're hands, you can make love to them. The PS controlers are like a dogbone, and as for the Wii controlers... I can't even be bothered to make a statement about them, ok I can, lol! Abysmal X 9999 Nongentillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers . I mean really! How can you play a game properly with a **very** small remote control.

The Wiimote has Gotta be better than those crappy xbox dual analog multi button ones. I really hate those. Give me a digital joystick and 1 to 3 buttons max.

Edited May 28, 2009 by atarian63

[Bill Loguidice]

The Wiimote has Gotta be better than those crappy xbox dual analog multi button ones. I really hate those. Give me a digital joystick and 1 to 3 buttons max.

 

Actually, the Xbox 360's controller is probably among the best ever, save for the d-pad, which is pretty awful. The number of buttons on a controller is irrelevant, it's how the games make use of the controller, i.e., not every game should make use of every button, and there's often a good argument for there being a need for just one or two buttons used per game. Obviously you have a greater chance of using far fewer buttons on say an Xbox Live Arcade title than you do a full retail 360 title on DVD, but the point remains the same. Certainly the Atari standard of one button was probably a few too few ultimately, which is why the console switches were sometimes incorporated. I'd say the sweet spot is probably three buttons, but again the number of buttons does not mean that all of them need to be used. Certainly I was a fan of controllers with keypads, and those certainly have more buttons than even modern controllers in many cases.

 

Anyway, one thing I will say for modern controllers is that in my experience they tend to be built better than older controllers, particularly those from the pre-crash era, but there are plenty of examples even post crash. Most likely that's because modern controllers are far more complex and need it - multiple buttons, digital and analog, wireless, etc. - but the side effect of better build quality remains. I find it's much harder to wear through modern controllers than it was with the standard Atari digital joystick (and let's not even get started on some of the other controllers, like the one for the Intellivision II or the Atari 5200, for instance).

[atariksi]

The Wiimote has Gotta be better than those crappy xbox dual analog multi button ones. I really hate those. Give me a digital joystick and 1 to 3 buttons max.

 

Actually, the Xbox 360's controller is probably among the best ever, save for the d-pad, which is pretty awful. The number of buttons on a controller is irrelevant, it's how the games make use of the controller, i.e., not every game should make use of every button, and there's often a good argument for there being a need for just one or two buttons used per game. Obviously you have a greater chance of using far fewer buttons on say an Xbox Live Arcade title than you do a full retail 360 title on DVD, but the point remains the same. Certainly the Atari standard of one button was probably a few too few ultimately, which is why the console switches were sometimes incorporated. I'd say the sweet spot is probably three buttons, but again the number of buttons does not mean that all of them need to be used. Certainly I was a fan of controllers with keypads, and those certainly have more buttons than even modern controllers in many cases.

 

Anyway, one thing I will say for modern controllers is that in my experience they tend to be built better than older controllers, particularly those from the pre-crash era, but there are plenty of examples even post crash. Most likely that's because modern controllers are far more complex and need it - multiple buttons, digital and analog, wireless, etc. - but the side effect of better build quality remains. I find it's much harder to wear through modern controllers than it was with the standard Atari digital joystick (and let's not even get started on some of the other controllers, like the one for the Intellivision II or the Atari 5200, for instance).

 

Analog joysticks suck in general not just picking on XBox. Even Atari 5200 analog joysticks suck. Paddles are the only ones that are EXACT that you can make pinpoint moves and read it in analog fashion. Very few games require analog motion. Many games like Pacman, Donkey Kong, etc. are much much better with digital joysticks. They are faster from programming perspective (as they are implemented currently) and better control from user perspective. You can build the digital joysticks better to make them last longer but I rather have a low build quality digital joystick than a robust analog joystick that lasts 100 years.

 

As far as buttons go, it's better to have one or two. Console keys shouldn't be built into joysticks. They are only to set game options before game starts. If complex games require many options like Flight Simulator, then you mine as well use the keyboard or build a special controller for it rather than memorize all the complex overloaded functions of a 10+ button joystick which will be different for a different game. I have easily been able to get kids 5-7 years old start playing with Atari games within a few minutes whereas XBOX and other modern consoles are just too complex and require bigger learning curve.

 

Even the cartridge loading is a + on Atari side compared to waiting for DVD/CDs to load and be susceptible to getting scratched.

[Bill Loguidice]

That's a rather self-serving argument. Of course digital control is better for Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, et al., as that's what they were designed for, just like a 4 way joystick is better for Pac-Man than an 8-way. Modern 3D games require the subtler control of analog. Obviously it's not ideal for a modern controller to try and play most classic games, just like it's not ideal for a classic Atari joystick to control most modern 3D games. It all comes down to how well the control options of the game are designed. The controller is almost irrelevant. Having had the luxury of using and still owning nearly every system ever made, I can honestly say that there have been few truly great controller designs, and to me, to say something like the Xbox 360 controller is no good means you probably haven't used one, as it certainly ranks as one of the great controller designs in my experience.

[carmel_andrews]

it's pointless trying to compare a modern day joy/game pad with old school joysticks

 

modern games are someowhat more complex and require more complex input systems (for which the likes of pc,mac, xbox,wii, psx/ii/iii joy/gamepads are ready made for), where as old school game only require not so complex input systems (for which the likes of the cx40 and it's ilk are ready made for)

 

case in point being, trying to use a modern pc etc gamepad with an old school game running on an emulator, you don't get the same feel for the game like you would if you were using an old school joystick (like a cx40 etc)

 

and you certainly wouldn't see someone try using an old school joystick on anything resembling a modern game

Edited May 28, 2009 by carmel_andrews

[atariksi]

That's a rather self-serving argument. Of course digital control is better for Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, et al., as that's what they were designed for, just like a 4 way joystick is better for Pac-Man than an 8-way. Modern 3D games require the subtler control of analog. Obviously it's not ideal for a modern controller to try and play most classic games, just like it's not ideal for a classic Atari joystick to control most modern 3D games. It all comes down to how well the control options of the game are designed. The controller is almost irrelevant. Having had the luxury of using and still owning nearly every system ever made, I can honestly say that there have been few truly great controller designs, and to me, to say something like the Xbox 360 controller is no good means you probably haven't used one, as it certainly ranks as one of the great controller designs in my experience.

 

I have used an XBOX controller if you read the reply in this thread where I talked about maximillion killing someone with his propellers in movie Black Hole.

 

You are making the same point again without even answering the argument. They are easier to program for and are more precise in handling than analog sticks. That's a fact. You use the same PC joystick and try to read the values on different machines and you will see the amount of error in the reading so you can't even use the analogicity to its full advantage. It's not a self-serving argument as I did not list all the games; I ended with "etc." Also, those same games are being used by Atari 5200 and other machines with analog sticks where the control is less precise. I'm not talking 8-way vs. 4-way but digital vs. analog. I don't see how the Atari joystick which is also 8-way has much impact on Pac-man which only uses 4-way. Your argument is that it's your experience; my experience is the XBOX controller is one of the worst controllers I have ever used although it may last a hundred years. Your argument regarding 3D requiring analog is bullcrap. I have played this frog frenzy game and it would work great with a digital joystick. It depends on how you write the program. It's better to write for a digital joystick since it's easier to use and easier to program for. And I'm giving you more than my experience-- it's a FACT that analog joysticks are much slower to read the way they are implemented currently. And it's a fact that 10+ buttons is confusing and complicated compared to one or two. And it's a FACT that reading "1"/"0" for a direction is more EXACT than reading a RANGE of values.

[Bill Loguidice]

It still comes to down to each of our respective opinions. You may say it's a "fact" that a controller with 10+ buttons is more confusing than one with one or two buttons and I may superficially agree, but that doesn't mean it's not better to have MORE buttons than fewer, only that the learning curve is most likely higher on the multi-button controller. A TV that receives only five channels is far easier to work with than a TV that receives hundreds, but I think most people would prefer receiving hundreds of channels. All more buttons means are more functionality and more options. Again, it's up to the developer how the controller is used and whether most, all or only one of the buttons are worked into the gameplay. And no, we DON'T need digital control for 3D games. Analog is superior the majority of the time. Your timing argument is irrelevant in real world operation. I'm not talking about what your meter says, but actual real world play.

[FastRobPlus]

If those A__hats at M$ could do that they would have done it long ago. They have been trying to buy rather than innovate the console market for a long time. Still isn't working for them this cycle.

 

 

:roll:

 

 

You wrote roll roll roll. I think you meant troll troll troll

[mcjakeqcool]

Always thought the Xbox duke was the best, though I am paschal to a Dreamcast or Jaguar controler, damn those controlers are comfatable to hold! Can't go wrong with the Atari 2600 joystick however, especially in Combat, Space Invaders, Pacman, Defender etc..., though I don't know how keen I'll be playing GTA 4 or Saints Row 2 with a 2600 Joysick. Lol!

[FastRobPlus]

Always thought the Xbox duke was the best, though I am paschal to a Dreamcast or Jaguar controler, damn those controlers are comfatable to hold! Can't go wrong with the Atari 2600 joystick however, especially in Combat, Space Invaders, Pacman, Defender etc..., though I don't know how keen I'll be playing GTA 4 or Saints Row 2 with a 2600 Joysick. Lol!

 

Honestly I just wish the XEGS had come with two joysticks. I think this must have been one of the very first consoles not to ship with two and the start of a trend.

I also remember being surprised when consoles stopped shipping with a bundled starter game of some kind.

[ApolloBoy]

If those A__hats at M$ could do that they would have done it long ago. They have been trying to buy rather than innovate the console market for a long time. Still isn't working for them this cycle.

 

 

:roll:

 

 

You wrote roll roll roll. I think you meant troll troll troll

Well put.

[atariksi]

It still comes to down to each of our respective opinions. You may say it's a "fact" that a controller with 10+ buttons is more confusing than one with one or two buttons and I may superficially agree, but that doesn't mean it's not better to have MORE buttons than fewer, only that the learning curve is most likely higher on the multi-button controller. A TV that receives only five channels is far easier to work with than a TV that receives hundreds, but I think most people would prefer receiving hundreds of channels. All more buttons means are more functionality and more options. Again, it's up to the developer how the controller is used and whether most, all or only one of the buttons are worked into the gameplay. And no, we DON'T need digital control for 3D games. Analog is superior the majority of the time. Your timing argument is irrelevant in real world operation. I'm not talking about what your meter says, but actual real world play.

 

It's not an opinion, if you go try reading an analog joystick on PC, XBOX, and various other systems, you will see it's more difficult to deal with. If you try playing different games that use many many buttons, you will also be confused to as to which button to press-- yeah sure you can get used to it but that's the whole point-- there's more of a learning curve. TV receiving hundreds of channels but you still use the same buttons to change channels-- so analogy does not apply. Real world is what I am talking about. You see so many people selling digital joystick interfaces for PC-- you think they are all not part of the real world. I programmed for 10+ machines with several different joystick interfaces. It's easier to learn a game and play with less buttons and there's no calibration either for digital joysticks and their self-centering as well. I have seen many games in 3D work fine with digital joysticks. Only ones that I have seen that don't work is because they were PURPOSELY made to use analog sticks. You can even write a Super Breakout using a digital joystick.

 

That's one of the problems-- it's up to the developer to see how to use the buttons. Each game will use it's own buttons for different purposes and that creates confusion as to which buttons to press for what purpose.

[Bill Loguidice]

It still comes to down to each of our respective opinions. You may say it's a "fact" that a controller with 10+ buttons is more confusing than one with one or two buttons and I may superficially agree, but that doesn't mean it's not better to have MORE buttons than fewer, only that the learning curve is most likely higher on the multi-button controller. A TV that receives only five channels is far easier to work with than a TV that receives hundreds, but I think most people would prefer receiving hundreds of channels. All more buttons means are more functionality and more options. Again, it's up to the developer how the controller is used and whether most, all or only one of the buttons are worked into the gameplay. And no, we DON'T need digital control for 3D games. Analog is superior the majority of the time. Your timing argument is irrelevant in real world operation. I'm not talking about what your meter says, but actual real world play.

 

It's not an opinion, if you go try reading an analog joystick on PC, XBOX, and various other systems, you will see it's more difficult to deal with. If you try playing different games that use many many buttons, you will also be confused to as to which button to press-- yeah sure you can get used to it but that's the whole point-- there's more of a learning curve. TV receiving hundreds of channels but you still use the same buttons to change channels-- so analogy does not apply. Real world is what I am talking about. You see so many people selling digital joystick interfaces for PC-- you think they are all not part of the real world. I programmed for 10+ machines with several different joystick interfaces. It's easier to learn a game and play with less buttons and there's no calibration either for digital joysticks and their self-centering as well. I have seen many games in 3D work fine with digital joysticks. Only ones that I have seen that don't work is because they were PURPOSELY made to use analog sticks. You can even write a Super Breakout using a digital joystick.

 

That's one of the problems-- it's up to the developer to see how to use the buttons. Each game will use it's own buttons for different purposes and that creates confusion as to which buttons to press for what purpose.

 

 

Again, who cares if it's harder to "read" an analog joystick other than the developer? As long as it's transparent to the user, it really doesn't matter. And while you say you can play Super Breakout with a digital joystick, naturally the best possible control is a spinner/paddle. You can play a game with any type of control. It doesn't mean it's the ideal control. 3D works better with analog, just like Super Breakout works better with a spinner or paddle over either a digital or analog joystick. Regardless, this is a silly, circular argument and neither analog or digital control schemes are going away. For the forseeable future, analog will be front and center (along with analog-like touch and motion), with digital secondary. No big deal, really, and I don't think the end user cares. They'll play what's put in front of them.

[Corby]

If good ol' J.T. wasn't stingy with his money, and wanted to compete with NES, then he should have dusted off the plans for a keyboard for the 7800, gave it the light gun with a shooting game , pack it with the high score cart, peripherals for the keyboard.

 

produce new games.

 

give the system those control pads like the pal 7800 had!

 

Give it a new name like "the Atari 7800 Arcade" the new atari game bundle!!! something like that. Instead of putting out another cpu, the 7800 really needed some attention. not the cpu line.

 

Sounds great on paper, I know! but thats all history now

 

 

Corby

Edited May 29, 2009 by corbysatarigame

[atarian63]

The Wiimote has Gotta be better than those crappy xbox dual analog multi button ones. I really hate those. Give me a digital joystick and 1 to 3 buttons max.

 

Actually, the Xbox 360's controller is probably among the best ever, save for the d-pad, which is pretty awful. The number of buttons on a controller is irrelevant, it's how the games make use of the controller, i.e., not every game should make use of every button, and there's often a good argument for there being a need for just one or two buttons used per game. Obviously you have a greater chance of using far fewer buttons on say an Xbox Live Arcade title than you do a full retail 360 title on DVD, but the point remains the same. Certainly the Atari standard of one button was probably a few too few ultimately, which is why the console switches were sometimes incorporated. I'd say the sweet spot is probably three buttons, but again the number of buttons does not mean that all of them need to be used. Certainly I was a fan of controllers with keypads, and those certainly have more buttons than even modern controllers in many cases.

 

Anyway, one thing I will say for modern controllers is that in my experience they tend to be built better than older controllers, particularly those from the pre-crash era, but there are plenty of examples even post crash. Most likely that's because modern controllers are far more complex and need it - multiple buttons, digital and analog, wireless, etc. - but the side effect of better build quality remains. I find it's much harder to wear through modern controllers than it was with the standard Atari digital joystick (and let's not even get started on some of the other controllers, like the one for the Intellivision II or the Atari 5200, for instance).

Yes, reliability sure has improved! Mostly hard to kill modern controllers. I do like the dreamcast the most of modern controllers.

[atarian63]

It still comes to down to each of our respective opinions. You may say it's a "fact" that a controller with 10+ buttons is more confusing than one with one or two buttons and I may superficially agree, but that doesn't mean it's not better to have MORE buttons than fewer, only that the learning curve is most likely higher on the multi-button controller. A TV that receives only five channels is far easier to work with than a TV that receives hundreds, but I think most people would prefer receiving hundreds of channels. All more buttons means are more functionality and more options. Again, it's up to the developer how the controller is used and whether most, all or only one of the buttons are worked into the gameplay. And no, we DON'T need digital control for 3D games. Analog is superior the majority of the time. Your timing argument is irrelevant in real world operation. I'm not talking about what your meter says, but actual real world play.

 

It's not an opinion, if you go try reading an analog joystick on PC, XBOX, and various other systems, you will see it's more difficult to deal with. If you try playing different games that use many many buttons, you will also be confused to as to which button to press-- yeah sure you can get used to it but that's the whole point-- there's more of a learning curve. TV receiving hundreds of channels but you still use the same buttons to change channels-- so analogy does not apply. Real world is what I am talking about. You see so many people selling digital joystick interfaces for PC-- you think they are all not part of the real world. I programmed for 10+ machines with several different joystick interfaces. It's easier to learn a game and play with less buttons and there's no calibration either for digital joysticks and their self-centering as well. I have seen many games in 3D work fine with digital joysticks. Only ones that I have seen that don't work is because they were PURPOSELY made to use analog sticks. You can even write a Super Breakout using a digital joystick.

 

That's one of the problems-- it's up to the developer to see how to use the buttons. Each game will use it's own buttons for different purposes and that creates confusion as to which buttons to press for what purpose.

 

 

Again, who cares if it's harder to "read" an analog joystick other than the developer? As long as it's transparent to the user, it really doesn't matter. And while you say you can play Super Breakout with a digital joystick, naturally the best possible control is a spinner/paddle. You can play a game with any type of control. It doesn't mean it's the ideal control. 3D works better with analog, just like Super Breakout works better with a spinner or paddle over either a digital or analog joystick. Regardless, this is a silly, circular argument and neither analog or digital control schemes are going away. For the forseeable future, analog will be front and center (along with analog-like touch and motion), with digital secondary. No big deal, really, and I don't think the end user cares. They'll play what's put in front of them.

Good points. I just hate analog controllers! Never got used to them. OK a paddle is analog but I am talking modern gaming or pc joysticks. Try playing pacman with and analog stick or dpad. It just doesnt works. I suppose the same can be said of a modern rpg and digital would work for me but not most people. I always equated analog sticks with flight sim games. Varying degrees instead of just right,left up,down. Trying to use 2 analog sticks like in Halo is just too weird for me (age) that was why I returned that game. Controls not the game itself.

[atarian63]

If those A__hats at M$ could do that they would have done it long ago. They have been trying to buy rather than innovate the console market for a long time. Still isn't working for them this cycle.

 

 

:roll:

 

 

You wrote roll roll roll. I think you meant troll troll troll

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that my statement was correct.

Troll on troll!

[atarian63]

That's a rather self-serving argument. Of course digital control is better for Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, et al., as that's what they were designed for, just like a 4 way joystick is better for Pac-Man than an 8-way. Modern 3D games require the subtler control of analog. Obviously it's not ideal for a modern controller to try and play most classic games, just like it's not ideal for a classic Atari joystick to control most modern 3D games. It all comes down to how well the control options of the game are designed. The controller is almost irrelevant. Having had the luxury of using and still owning nearly every system ever made, I can honestly say that there have been few truly great controller designs, and to me, to say something like the Xbox 360 controller is no good means you probably haven't used one, as it certainly ranks as one of the great controller designs in my experience.

Oh I have used one at Best buy and it sucks just like the original xbox controller does. That is probably why I am more of a Wii console person than M$ or pS3. Modern gaming for me mostly is a dead end for fun titles as each system comes out I am buying fewer and fewer titles as they are too complex or hard to control to be much fun. The Wii is the exception, I have bought quite a few for it. Maybe that is the dividing line. Casual gaming VS whatever that multibuttonrpg console thing is. Give me a good quick shooter or rail gun game anyday. Jumpers,climbers,or puzzle games.

I suppose that is why there is room for 3 consoles. To each his own. I am just glad there is still something in modern gaming that catches my interest(Wii)(DS).

Still mostly playing 7800 and 8bit atari with some occasional Saturn.

[FastRobPlus]

If those A__hats at M$ could do that they would have done it long ago. They have been trying to buy rather than innovate the console market for a long time. Still isn't working for them this cycle.

 

 

:roll:

 

 

You wrote roll roll roll. I think you meant troll troll troll

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that my statement was correct.

Troll on troll!

I see why nobody here likes you.

Edited May 29, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[FastRobPlus]

That's a rather self-serving argument. Of course digital control is better for Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, et al., as that's what they were designed for, just like a 4 way joystick is better for Pac-Man than an 8-way. Modern 3D games require the subtler control of analog. Obviously it's not ideal for a modern controller to try and play most classic games, just like it's not ideal for a classic Atari joystick to control most modern 3D games. It all comes down to how well the control options of the game are designed. The controller is almost irrelevant. Having had the luxury of using and still owning nearly every system ever made, I can honestly say that there have been few truly great controller designs, and to me, to say something like the Xbox 360 controller is no good means you probably haven't used one, as it certainly ranks as one of the great controller designs in my experience.

Oh I have used one at Best buy and it sucks just like the original xbox controller does. That is probably why I am more of a Wii console person than M$ or pS3. Modern gaming for me mostly is a dead end for fun titles as each system comes out I am buying fewer and fewer titles as they are too complex or hard to control to be much fun. The Wii is the exception, I have bought quite a few for it. Maybe that is the dividing line. Casual gaming VS whatever that multibuttonrpg console thing is. Give me a good quick shooter or rail gun game anyday. Jumpers,climbers,or puzzle games.

I suppose that is why there is room for 3 consoles. To each his own. I am just glad there is still something in modern gaming that catches my interest(Wii)(DS).

Still mostly playing 7800 and 8bit atari with some occasional Saturn.

 

Hmm... I find I have to agree with you here. When I was young back in the 1920s I ran an Atari dealership (the only worthwhile thing I ever did so I'll mention it at every opportunity) and we didn't need controllers with 20,000 buttons and analog sticks for each finger. No sir! We had blocks of wood with a wire running out of them right into the ground! We didn't even need one button. We smacked that piece of wood into our faces and that made the games work. I jut don't understand how we get further and further from that perfection with every generation. All new things are bad period! And getting worse! It's gotten so bad that I've gotta make sure everyone knows about it even if it's wildly off topic. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to walk uphill in the snow for 5 miles both ways to get to a ham radio forum where they NEED TO HEAR about how bad modern consoles have gotten!