I saw there was a bit of debate earlier this afternoon on twitter about video game controllers, namely, which one was the worst. Chris Sims argued it's the Nintendo 64's controller, other folks mentioned Dreamcast or Intellivsion, maybe the Gamecube.
I've never understood the gripes about the N64 controller myself. I was able to use it fine. My father - whose total video gaming experience prior to the N64 was that time he played Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 co-op with me - was able to play Goldeneye competently with it. OK, not competently, but he played so rarely he kept forgetting which button cycled through weapons or opened doors, and I don't see how that's the controller's fault. The point is he could work the controller, so what's the big deal? I find most controllers to be difficult to work until I put in sufficient time with them. Like most things, they just take practice.
Sims did agree the N64 controller worked, but apparently he found it aesthetically unpleasing. I can see what's he saying, but it wasn't something I was expecting as a reason a controller is bad. It did set me to thinking, and I realized I have this sort of spectrum in my mind, with Aesthetically Pleasing on end, and Functionality on the other. Perhaps that's common, something everybody does, but it's not something I'd ever fully realized until today. Different things I'm going to purchase sit at different places on the spectrum, depending on what's important to me with regards to them.
A painting would be almost purely about whether I like how it looks, with maybe a little consideration to whether I have a place to put it. Clothes are a bit more about Function, but mostly about if I like how it looks. It doesn't matter if a shirt can fit me, if it's ugly I'm passing it by. A car would be functionality first, but I wouldn't want to buy one I found unappealing, if there was something that could do what I needed that looked better. That could mean it's less beat up, painted a color I prefer, or the shape of it is more pleasing to the eye*.
Once I started thinking about this, I realized video game controllers are almost entirely about function for me. I'm sure there could be a controller so ugly, so confusing looking I wouldn't want to mess with it, but my concern is essentially whether I can use the controller properly. If I can, then how it looks won't amount to much. I do think the large XBox controllers to be kind of ugly, lots of wasted space and generally too thick, but I can still play the games just fine, so it isn't a big deal for me. I tend to use a smaller controller, but if Alex wants that one, then I can use the big controller, it works the same.
* I find PT Cruisers ugly, so I'd not buy one if there were any other options. Which fortunately there are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think the biggest issue with the N64 controller was that the D-pad and analog stick should have been swapped, since the analog stick got a lot more use than the D-pad. You can't really fault Nintendo for this, since the N64 was the first console with an analog stick from the start. Where it was placed was all right for most folks, I guess, but those of us with big hands ended up rubbing our knuckles together an awful lot. If they'd put the never-used D-pad on the middle post, it wouldn't have been any problem at all.
That being said, I think the worst controller is a toss-up between the first-gen giant Xbox controller, and the first Saturn analog controller. Both were far too large for their own good.
Tom Foss: I can't remember ever using the D-pad, so they could have helped by switching them I imagine. I have long fingers, though, so maybe that's why it didn't bother me as much.
Totally agreed on the XBox controller. I have that one, and I prefer the little controller so much.
Post a Comment