Very tempted to switch to PS3

Shamikebab · 24 Jul 2008 at 14:24

It was only done so they could say they were 'innovating' and to shut up the 'its the same damn controller' crowd.

JBeck · 24 Jul 2008 at 14:45

I doubt they spent all that cash and R&D time to 'shut up the crowd'.

Shamikebab · 24 Jul 2008 at 14:52

Well ok, probably more the first point then. Plus they needed some excuse after they lost rumble.

wannabedamned · 24 Jul 2008 at 15:06

Shamikebab said:
Well ok, probably more the first point then. Plus they needed some excuse after they lost rumble.

Actually, How did they manage to get that back for DS3?

Shamikebab · 24 Jul 2008 at 15:07

They settled out of court with the company that owned the patent I believe. Originally they said it couldn't be done, which was obviously a lie, because they didn't settle with them.

lovedaddy · 24 Jul 2008 at 18:04

Shamikebab said:
It was only done so they could say they were 'innovating' and to shut up the 'its the same damn controller' crowd.

And the 360 controller technically went backwards too, it lost all the analog face buttons. Least with the PS3 one, they adpoted an open standard for wireless, unlike MS that kept it closed and charged manufactures.

Demon · 24 Jul 2008 at 20:28

lovedaddy said:
And the 360 controller technically went backwards too, it lost all the analog face buttons. Least with the PS3 one, they adpoted an open standard for wireless, unlike MS that kept it closed and charged manufactures.

I think you have to be quite desperate to try and elude that going from analog to digital buttons is even remotely comparable to the farce that was the removal of rumble...
And open standards are a double edged swords, there being guarantee of 'quality'.. great for some things, not so great for others..

Nismo · 24 Jul 2008 at 20:38

lovedaddy said:
And the 360 controller technically went backwards too, it lost all the analog face buttons.

How many games actually used 'analogue' face buttons? (it always felt more like 2 degrees of digital to me, but anyway). I can't think of many :confused:

wedgie · 24 Jul 2008 at 21:18

Nismo said:
How many games actually used 'analogue' face buttons? (it always felt more like 2 degrees of digital to me, but anyway). I can't think of many

I can't think of a single game where it was integral to the experience, I always found it impossible to apply a consistent level of pressure on the face buttons.

Nismo · 24 Jul 2008 at 21:37

wedgie said:
I can't think of a single game where it was integral to the experience, I always found it impossible to apply a consistent level of pressure on the face buttons.

I think GT3 might have done on the PS2, but that was purely down to the lack of analogue triggers. I have a gut feeling that GT5P does as well, but might be wrong. I guess if it does it's an indication of how crap the default SIXAXIS/DS3 triggers are

But yes, the amount of travel in the buttons always rendered them pretty pointless IMO.

RobH · 24 Jul 2008 at 22:15

Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance made use of the analog face buttons on the xbox for the aiming/shooting but that's all I can think of, it's not a great system anyway because it's still quite easy to fire instead of aiming and vice versa.

Paranoid_Robot · 24 Jul 2008 at 22:21

Overall Sixaxis has been fairly useless and uneccessary. However I did like it in games like flow and I believe flower uses it as well.

Hopefully we will start to see more software using it better. One of the few games where I think it will feel right and hI ave read previews that it is really good, is Wipeout HD.

The hovercraft driving makes sense for the sixaxis in a racer but for racing games like Burnout and Motorstorm it's rubbish.