Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Alright, I simply must ask at this point. What exactly is it about the PS4 controller that most everyone who sees it seems to hate so much? I keep seeing people basically going "Oh God, that's horrible," but not one of them mentioning just what their problem with it is.
It's basically showing the same attitude they showed with the Sixaxis, which was a major factor in how long it took the PS3 to find success.
Really my only problem with PS controllers in they're too small for my gorilla hands, but then the 3DS has that problem to..
God, I miss the Gamecube controller...
Which is? Sorry, but that statement doesn't tell me anything at all, since I never paid attention to what Sony did with the PS3 beyond the most obvious stuff ("Five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars!" and so on).
This is my complaint about the whole focus on graphics and processing power.
It's one thing to say that we're getting a more powerful processor to simulate an evolving gameworld in realtime for a better multiplayer experience, for example. It's another thing to say that we're getting a more powerful processor because higher-resolution graphics.
Easily the best of the lot.
Anyway, the issue with the PS4 controller is that they're changing what ain't broke. The PS3 controller may not have been quite as good as the Gamecube one, but it was a tried, tested and true design in terms of both button layout and comfort.
^^^Nintendo announced that they were using motion controls, so Sony, not wanting to be left behind, REALLY QUICKLY threw together a motion controller that didn't have rumble and whose motion controls only barely worked. One game that was supposed to be the PS3's early killer app was rendered unplayable.
Awhile later, they made another motion controller, Playstation Move, which people gave even less of a shit about.
The Dualshock 4, meanwhile, has a really, really small touchscreen and Playstation Move integration.
Also, another thing. The specs of the system are kind of vague, the price is unknown and the console has not been shown. Am I the only one wondering if they've actually finalized anything beyond the controller yet?
Now that you mention it, no. No, you aren't.
As much as the Wiimote is silly and stupid, at the very least it is out-of-the-box.
Also, "art" games are not always fun.
Discuss.
^^Also it mostly works. That really should be a given with a system's default controller, but it's a big deal when comparing it to the Sixaxis.
^This is true.
...
Is there anything in particular about that you wanted to discuss?
^^But fun should not be the only standard games are judged on.
Honestly, my only major gripe with the Wiimote is when developers forget that left handed people exist.
Well, the motion control was lauded as the main draw of the Wii in the first place, so Nintendo had to do their damnedest to make sure the motion control actually worked, otherwise they'd be fucked. Sony, on the other hand, only ever made the Sixaxis as a concept and it didn't go down well with the public in general so they scrapped it, and its barely-working motion controls became an almost-forgotten feature of the DualShock 3.
Also, the touchpad on the DualShock 4 and the focus on openness (at least compared to the PS3) both immediately reminded me of the Ouya. Make of that what you will.
Alright, thanks for explaining that.
Anyways, I've honestly never really liked Nintendo's (regular) controllers that much, mainly because they insist on positioning the face buttons so awkwardly and confusingly. Seriously, why the hell does the A button have to be over to the right side rather than on the bottom where it's front and center? Ya, I get that they must think that people will find it easier to locate and push in that position, but I personally find it to be the exact opposite case.
It's worth noting that while the X button on the playstation currently serves as the A equivalent, the O button was originally supposed to serve that purpose, so they aren't alone in that.
One of the first things that happened to me when I played Lunar on PS1, after playing a bunch of SNES JRPGs, was how unintuitive it was that the bottom button was now "accept" rather than "cancel".
If nothing else, O as accept is far more intuitive than X. What system has an X as a positive mark?
Treasure maps.
Some are, though.
See: Journey.
Also, that probably has to do with the thing where exes and circles respectively mark right and wrong in Japan.
As for buttons, I rarely think of them as the one they're labeled. I just have my thumb by default on the bottom one, and the right one intuitively feels like "backing out" of a menu or something.
When QTE's come up I'm usually boned because I don't even pay attention to which buttons are which -- I know them by touch.
Well, yeah, there's nothing that says that art games shouldn't be fun.
But I think art games can choose to not be fun and in fact, they can still be engaging regardless of that lack of fun.
"Fun" is subject to so much variance as a term, too. I'm currently playing Black Mesa Source. It's not what I'd describe as "fun", but then again, neither was either Half-Life game. They flourish when it comes to atmosphere and tension moreso than anything else, and they largely tell their stories through what can be observed in the environment. In fact, not a whole lot of games I like are "fun", but the common factor between them is that they provide experiences that I find engaging.
For me, "fun" is playing cards with friends while stoned or taking the piss out of a bad movie in a similar context. I find that more and more, what I look for in games is engagement in a gameplay system that encourages me to invest some thought into what I'm doing. Minecraft, Fire Emblem, Dark Souls, XCOM -- these games thrive on a combination of extremely strong gameplay and a kind of "mechanical tension" where the balance dictates that a certain amount of efficiency has to be maintained in order to succeed. So I feel invested in the game experience and using a system very deliberately to meet my ends.
Fun things are fun.
No seriously, you could argue that fun is meaningless as a qualifier or whatever, but it's still the number one thing I judge games on.
I had fun with Yume Nikki, even if it wasn't "fun" in the same way Halo 4 is. It's just a vague term, that doesn't make it irrelevant.
I think games that strive to have a message over being enjoyable tend to fall very, very flat on both counts.
Now why couldn't they just have gone with circle and diamond? Would have eliminated the problem of having an X in the first place.
That said,
As
NovaBee pointed out, treasure maps. And x'ed boxes, such as on a ballot or other choice form.Which are more commonly checked.
Bee.
It asks us to put a cross on, here.
Which brings us to the obvious solution. Invent a device that quantifies fun. Anybody found enjoying a non-fun thing will be incarcerated and re-educated for their own safety.