Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[Divya16]

PS3= analog thumbsticks

XBOX 360= analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Wii nunchuk= analog thumbstick

PSP=analog thumbstick

PS2=analog thumbsticks

XBOX=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Gamecube=analog thumbsticks

Sega Dreamcast=analog thumbsticks

Sony Playstation=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo 64=analog thumbstick

Sega Saturn 3d control pad=analog thumbstick

 

The game industry has been using strictly analog sticks for ages now and control has never been an issue. They spend millions developing their controllers. How many millions have you spent deciding that digital sticks are better? What do you know that they don't?

 

Maybe that's why some people here are so biased. Because they are stuck/attached to their modern game consoles. I wouldn't have come to AtariAge if I was stuck/attached to my modern game consoles. Maybe you can come up with some better logic rather than "what most people use is the right or where most people spend their money is right." That's some science that supposedly refuses the fact that analog joysticks are inherently flawed compared to digital joysticks.

 

Using your logic, nobody should be on AtariAge (shut down the forum):

 

Look at the billions people have spent on modern computers.

Look at the software/games most people use (Atari software won't even show in a pie chart).

 

If things never changed for the better, you would still be following the pre-Galilleo theories about the solar system.

 

Do yourself a favor-- go repeat the experiment rather than BLINDLY follow what others are doing. Go play a game of pac-man on both PC and Atari 800 and then tell us that control is no problem. Your user id is an indicator of hypocracy.

 

You're missing the point entirely. Why would the industry spend so much money developing analog sticks if they were inferior? Why wouldn't their controllers have the digital sticks you claim are so much better? Don't you think they would use them if they were better? The mere fact that all the major players in the industry gave up on digital sticks long ago in itself proves they are inferior.

 

No, I'm not missing the point. Analog joysticks were the norm in the PC industry and they kept that tradition (for compatibility) and those other small-time companies have disappeared. There's one reason for you. I'll let someone else reply as I don't want to hog up the thread. Not everything is as best as it can be; some things you use now will be different later; electric cars are better and have been around but never caught on.

[RevEng]

That made no sense at all. You already admitted that certain games are better with digital joystick. So, there's some science behind it.

Try looking at it again with less emotion.

 

The fact that some games are better with a digital stick does not prove that digital sticks are superior. You're missing a few links in your logic chain.

 

Your analogy of red/blue is inapplicable. You are assuming it's one subject.

Atariski said his scientic fact was proven by playing hundreds of games himself. I can only take him at his word.

 

It's actually you who keep repeating example of variable speed that falls under one subject and in the minority.

Certainly. But I'm not the one claiming my opinion is the proof for a scientific fact.

 

You clearly don't understand what a scientific fact is. 2X=1, X=0.5 is not a scientific fact. Its a mathematical statement.

 

Maybe you should look up what a scientific fact is before claiming something as one.

[ledzep]

Wait, so you're claiming that you did link to some kind of scientific study? Because I looked at those posts you listed and there's no link from you in any of them to any supposed scientific study or data. Care to try again?

 

It is very simple. If you state that it is a scientific fact then that means that you can provide proof of that scientific fact either through referencing some kind of scientific study (and one study doesn't really help much compared to multiple studies that support this scientific "fact") or conducting your own viable, unbiased scientific study and presenting the results or by gathering data that exists already about the subject. Can you do any of those things? If not then why did you make the unsupported claim that it's a scientific fact?

 

You know that nothing you wrote in this thread has made any sense to me and you are basically repeating the question that was alreasdy answered a few times. Let me sum up some things you write (putting aside all the irrelevant to the subject remarks):

 

You know I don't doubt that nothing I wrote in this thread has made any sense to you. Yes, that's sarcasm. I will keep repeating the question until it's answered. Atariksi hasn't.

 

(1) It's better to compare digital vs. analog rather than digital joystick vs. analog joystick. I hope you know that digital wins hands down in the modern world. Wow, what logic.

 

(2) You don't NEED A LINK to a scientific study for something to be a scientific fact. If 2X=1, X=0.5 is a scientific fact. Duh, how can you miss that? And performing a controlled experiment yourself also doesn't require a link to someone else's experiment.

 

(3) You can't mix paddles with an analog joystick since he already admitted in post #1 there are games that would work better with paddles. What's with this "fair game" business. If I used an analog joystick in a car, I would get into an accident.

 

(4) The fact that you tried to move a digital joystick in a way that you move your analog joystick means you are not being fair. In a controlled experiment, for the analog features that aren't implemented in the digital interface, you wouldn't be trying those since you would be using the 100% control to do better in all the other features of the game.

 

(5) You wrote that you have more control with analog because it has infinite levels. That's rubbish. You have ZERO control over those levels. And if you rely on feedback, I don't see why you can't use digital joystick to control the event as well.

 

Tangents? Sure, I can answer those for you (though you write so similarly to atariksi that I question whether you're a separate individual) -

 

1) Great, show where digital wins hands down in the modern world. Show were a digital representation of an oil painting is superior to the actual oil painting. Show were a digital recording of a musical instrument is superior to the actual instrument. Digital is a sampling, an approximation. I can't wait for you to prove that an approximation or a sampling of something wins hands down over that actual something that was approximated or sampled.

 

You are confusing ease of use with superiority. A digital recording, for example, "wins" because it's easier to reproduce. That doesn't make it better, only simpler for the person manufacturing it. No audiophile will prefer the sampling rate of a CD over an analog recording of the same musical piece.

 

2) Do you know what a scientific fact is? A quick online search seems to favor -

 

"An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)"

 

So either atariksi links to a scientific study that satisfies that or he in some other way must show that the observation (digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks) has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. And "accepted" doesn't mean simply by you two guys.

 

3) Would you get into an accident more quickly driving a car with an analog joystick or a digital joystick?

 

4) How so? The original versions of Centipede and Missile Command (my two examples) used trackballs. That control provides a speed component to the directional movement. I am used to the games operating that way. Why? Because that is how they were designed. So excuse me for expecting, even subconsciously, that trait to exist in the home version of Centipede or Missile Command. But you know what controller does prove the correct speed component? Analog.

 

You, like your doppleganger, keep assuming and stating that the digital joystick is better while never proving that or even demonstrating that. Why?

 

The fact that you expect others to prefer digital joysticks for analog games means you are not being fair. If a game is designed to act and react a certain way then that's what I expect when I play it.

 

5) Explain that. Don't just say "that's rubbish", prove it. Show how having infinite levels of control provides no control. By that (non) logic what you are claiming is the less levels of control you have over something the more control you actually have. Seriously? So then you believe that you would attain maximum control when you reach zero levels of control?

 

Explain the popularity and usefulness of the wah pedal for electric guitar and how you would have more control if that pedal only provided full on and full off positions. For extra credit, explain how useless a fretless bass is because it has infinite note levels and how someone like Tony Levin has ZERO control over it and would somehow have more control if he switched to a Rock Band guitar controller.

 

Explain how a car accelerator would provide more control if instead of having an infinite range of levels it was designed to only provide wide-open and closed states.

 

Explain how infinite levels of color in a color picker or color wheel is inferior to only having max value choices (255,0,0, 0,255,0, 0,0,255, 255,255,0, 255,0,255, 0,255,255, 0,0,0, 255,255,255). For extra credit, explain how you represent the color between 125,0,0 and 126,0,0 without more levels of control.

 

Explain how RC analog plane controls provide less control than a digital joystick. Extra credit if you can even find RC plane controllers that use digital joysticks.

 

Explain how remote-controlled limbs (waldos) would be more useful if the were not analog but were only controlled by the few digital states of digital joysticks.

 

Explain why higher sampling rates in music and digital imaging is considered superior to lower sampling rates if more levels of control should be, in your view, avoided.

 

Explain how to accurately represent 1/3 digitally.

 

 

Damn you, analog real world!!

[+5-11under]

Wow, this thread has 4 pages! Oh well, I'll add to it...

 

Choose both:

Pac-Man - digital controller

Kaboom! - analog controller

 

If you can only choose one, it's got to be the analog controller. The digital controller won't control Kaboom! the way it was designed. However, the analog controller should be able to mimic the digital controller properly for Pac-Man (if it works well ergonomically, has an option for self-centering, and the program is written to match the controller).

[Divya16]

Wow, this thread has 4 pages! Oh well, I'll add to it...

 

Choose both:

Pac-Man - digital controller

Kaboom! - analog controller

 

If you can only choose one, it's got to be the analog controller. The digital controller won't control Kaboom! the way it was designed. However, the analog controller should be able to mimic the digital controller properly for Pac-Man (if it works well ergonomically, has an option for self-centering, and the program is written to match the controller).

 

You misvoted. Kaboom uses a paddle not analog joystick. It's ledzep who was confusing the two, and you fell for his confused state.

See post #1.

[atariksi]

That made no sense at all. You already admitted that certain games are better with digital joystick. So, there's some science behind it.

Try looking at it again with less emotion.

 

The fact that some games are better with a digital stick does not prove that digital sticks are superior. You're missing a few links in your logic chain.

You are missing the logic. The "badness" that is inherent in the analog joystick for the games you ADMITTED to, is also present in the games where it's not so conspicuous.

 

Your analogy of red/blue is inapplicable. You are assuming it's one subject.

Atariski said his scientic fact was proven by playing hundreds of games himself. I can only take him at his word.

 

It's actually you who keep repeating example of variable speed that falls under one subject and in the minority.

Certainly. But I'm not the one claiming my opinion is the proof for a scientific fact.

 

You clearly don't understand what a scientific fact is. 2X=1, X=0.5 is not a scientific fact. Its a mathematical statement.

 

Maybe you should look up what a scientific fact is before claiming something as one.

No, you should look it up:

 

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

 

You have neither repeated my experiment nor refuted the logic behind it. A mathematical truth can also be scientific fact. Just relate it to real data. Go get a life and stop taking advantage of girls.

[atariksi]

Wait, so you're claiming that you did link to some kind of scientific study? Because I looked at those posts you listed and there's no link from you in any of them to any supposed scientific study or data. Care to try again?

 

It is very simple. If you state that it is a scientific fact then that means that you can provide proof of that scientific fact either through referencing some kind of scientific study (and one study doesn't really help much compared to multiple studies that support this scientific "fact") or conducting your own viable, unbiased scientific study and presenting the results or by gathering data that exists already about the subject. Can you do any of those things? If not then why did you make the unsupported claim that it's a scientific fact?

 

You know that nothing you wrote in this thread has made any sense to me and you are basically repeating the question that was alreasdy answered a few times. Let me sum up some things you write (putting aside all the irrelevant to the subject remarks):

 

You know I don't doubt that nothing I wrote in this thread has made any sense to you. Yes, that's sarcasm. I will keep repeating the question until it's answered. Atariksi hasn't.

 

But you don't bother answering my points so why should I take your rubbish straw-man arguments and Chewbacca Defense. You just confused someone to vote for analog as if I am comparing all digital vs. analog controllers. Guess what, I got news for you. I love playing paddle games. I hate analog joysticks. Once you understand this, then reply.

 

(1) It's better to compare digital vs. analog rather than digital joystick vs. analog joystick. I hope you know that digital wins hands down in the modern world. Wow, what logic.

 

(2) You don't NEED A LINK to a scientific study for something to be a scientific fact. If 2X=1, X=0.5 is a scientific fact. Duh, how can you miss that? And performing a controlled experiment yourself also doesn't require a link to someone else's experiment.

 

(3) You can't mix paddles with an analog joystick since he already admitted in post #1 there are games that would work better with paddles. What's with this "fair game" business. If I used an analog joystick in a car, I would get into an accident.

 

(4) The fact that you tried to move a digital joystick in a way that you move your analog joystick means you are not being fair. In a controlled experiment, for the analog features that aren't implemented in the digital interface, you wouldn't be trying those since you would be using the 100% control to do better in all the other features of the game.

 

(5) You wrote that you have more control with analog because it has infinite levels. That's rubbish. You have ZERO control over those levels. And if you rely on feedback, I don't see why you can't use digital joystick to control the event as well.

 

Tangents? Sure, I can answer those for you (though you write so similarly to atariksi that I question whether you're a separate individual) -

 

1) Great, show where digital wins hands down in the modern world. Show were a digital representation of an oil painting is superior to the actual oil painting. Show were a digital recording of a musical instrument is superior to the actual instrument. Digital is a sampling, an approximation. I can't wait for you to prove that an approximation or a sampling of something wins hands down over that actual something that was approximated or sampled.

Actually, that's a good topic to discuss on its own, but it's nothing but straw-man and Chewbacca defense. Look up those terms and stop confusing the people here.

[Divya16]

Explain why higher sampling rates in music and digital imaging is considered superior to lower sampling rates if more levels of control should be, in your view, avoided.

 

 

Just my last word before I split (although its irrelevant to the topic): higher sampling rates and lower sampling rates are both digital. If you put some more digital buttons on a digital joystick, you would end up more DETERMINISTIC functionality on the digital joystick than the analog joystick. Note the word JOYSTICK not CONTROLLER.

[atariksi]

PS3= analog thumbsticks

XBOX 360= analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Wii nunchuk= analog thumbstick

PSP=analog thumbstick

PS2=analog thumbsticks

XBOX=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Gamecube=analog thumbsticks

Sega Dreamcast=analog thumbsticks

Sony Playstation=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo 64=analog thumbstick

Sega Saturn 3d control pad=analog thumbstick

 

The game industry has been using strictly analog sticks for ages now and control has never been an issue. They spend millions developing their controllers. How many millions have you spent deciding that digital sticks are better? What do you know that they don't?

 

Actually, in my experiments I only used the analog joysticks with POTs and you are voting for those as pictured vs. a digital joystick. I think they may have improved the slow sampling/erroneous data inherent to the POT-based analog joysticks with voltage regulators and ADCs in some modern analog devices. So your stuff is off-topic and not even worth addressing here.

[RevEng]

You are missing the logic. The "badness" that is inherent in the analog joystick for the games you ADMITTED to, is also present in the games where it's not so conspicuous.

Yes and I also admit to the badness of digital controls with other games. So by your logic digital controls are inferior.

 

You're still missing the link in logic.

No, you should look it up:

 

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

It has not been repeatedly confirmed that digital controls are superior.

 

You have a hypothesis that you're desperately trying to pawn off as fact by talking about qualities of analog sticks that irrelevant to game play.

 

Go get a life and stop taking advantage of girls.

Your mother was more than willing. If anything she took advantage of me.

[atariksi]

"The question is which one you would choose for BETTER CONTROL." No, actually, the question was "Do you prefer analog or digital[?]"

"The joystick that provides more control to the user will overall produce better results for the user in the game." In my opinion, if this were an actual scientific study, the definition of "better control" would be clearly and concisely disclosed up front. What is your definition of "control"? By what objective measurements do you qualify control as being "better"? By my measures of being able to manage more attributes of the motion of the controlled object, e.g. speed and direction and possibly acceleration, analog would be the better control.

I also wouldn't expect an audience of video game enthusiasts to necessarily understand the term "a priori" and would provide a formal definition and restatement in my own words what the core of my argument means to me. It's not assuming that the audience is less intelligent, it's being courteous to the reader and disclosing more clearly the basis upon which you intend to make your argument.

I also think you'll also have a tough time building credibility by claiming to have evidence that you don't supply to support your "scientific fact" assertion. One person playing hundreds of games without defined test parameters qualifies as anecdotal evidence and personal experience, not scientific fact.

Finally: I don't appreciate the inclusion of the phrase "biased emotional attack" within your characterization of my post. There was no hostility or attack in my posting. I actually find the inclusion to be a bit ironic.

 

 

The above is merely my opinion based on my personal experience, education and training.

 

 

 

Opinion: there are better uses of my time than posting to this thread.

Factual statement: I'm done posting to this thread.

 

You put too much character modifiers in your reply that I can't even split your message. The question "which you one prefer" and "which one you would choose for BETTER CONTROL" are related. A controller is meant to control things. A controller that gives you better control is normally what a person would prefer. But you are free to choose whatever you want as some have done. If I knew a controller was giving me inferior control, I would only choose it for subjective reasons.

 

Some people gave their emotional biased views and I wrote what you did was better than those people. You misinterpreted it to apply to you.

 

I can also say that one person trying to prove F=ma and finds that mass = 2kg and F=1 newton and if he doesn't come to the conclusion that A=1N/2kg then he's mistaken. Now, instead of telling me my stuff is anecdotal, you have to repeat the experiment. I already stated I have a joystick simulator and I can play the same exact game on same exact machine with variety of controllers. That's as controlled as you can get since the variable is ONLY the joystick being used. And then I repeated this experiment with hundreds of games (PC/A5200/Atari 8-bit).

[atariksi]

You are missing the logic. The "badness" that is inherent in the analog joystick for the games you ADMITTED to, is also present in the games where it's not so conspicuous.

Yes and I also admit to the badness of digital controls with other games. So by your logic digital controls are inferior.

You screwed up again. You have 100% control on the digital joystick. There's nothing bad. If there's a feature you can't implemented by a particular digital joystick, it's nothing wrong with the joystick. You made no sense whatsoever. Calm down and think about what you wrote.

 

You're still missing the link in logic.

No, you should look it up:

 

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

It has not been repeatedly confirmed that digital controls are superior.

 

You have a hypothesis that you're desperately trying to pawn off as fact by talking about qualities of analog sticks that irrelevant to game play.

I repeated the experiment and so have many others who have played the same games on A5200/PC/Atari 8-bit using analog joysticks and digital joysticks. It has been repeated just not by you since you are already preset in your biased views.

 

Go get a life and stop taking advantage of girls.

Your mother was more than willing. If anything she took advantage of me.

 

Don't know what my mother has to do with this. But then again your whole message was just incoherent nonsense anyway.

[RevEng]

You screwed up again. You have 100% control on the digital joystick. There's nothing bad.

When I want to move a little right and a lot up it can't be done on a digital stick without introducing lots of error. Moving in a cardinal direction for a a portion of second another for the rest of the second is a terrible approximation. Lots of error there, unless you're claiming you can change directions in 60ths of a second.

 

I repeated the experiment and so have many others who have played the same games on A5200/PC/Atari 8-bit using analog joysticks and digital joysticks. It has been repeated just not by you since you are already preset in your biased views.

I've repeated it hundereds of times myself along with others, and the results are that certain controllers work well with some games, and other controllers work with others.

 

If you look at the results of your poll you'll see your "scientific fact" is in dispute.

 

Go get a life and stop taking advantage of girls.

Your mother was more than willing. If anything she took advantage of me.

 

Don't know what my mother has to do with this. But then again your whole message was just incoherent nonsense anyway.

Next time read slower and and less emotion. If you try hard enough you'll be able to shed your bias and it will make sense!

Edited October 26, 2010 by RevEng

[atariksi]

You screwed up again. You have 100% control on the digital joystick. There's nothing bad.

When I want to move a little right and a lot up it can't be done on a digital stick without introducing lots of error. Moving in a cardinal direction for a a portion of second another for the rest of the second is a terrible approximation. Lots of error there, unless you're claiming you can change directions in 60ths of a second.

The inbetween states of directions don't exist on digital joystick. There is no error involved. Once again you are thinking of some specific example and generalizing to the digital joystick. We just went through this yesterday. And the point was that the flaws of the analog joystick that you admit to that exist in games like pac-man, Miner, etc. are ALSO present in games like Flight Simulator. So you never have 100% control. Whereas in a digital joystick, you have 100% control and those features of in-between movements in games like Flight Simulator don't exist. So either they get implemented differently or you have 0% control of that feature.

 

I repeated the experiment and so have many others who have played the same games on A5200/PC/Atari 8-bit using analog joysticks and digital joysticks. It has been repeated just not by you since you are already preset in your biased views.

I've repeated it hundereds of times myself along with others, and the results are that certain controllers work well with some games, and other controllers work with others.

 

If you look at the results of your poll you'll see your "scientific fact" is in dispute.

 

Go get a life and stop taking advantage of girls.

Your mother was more than willing. If anything she took advantage of me.

 

Don't know what my mother has to do with this. But then again your whole message was just incoherent nonsense anyway.

Next time read slower and and less emotion. If you try hard enough you'll be able to shed your bias and it will make sense!

 

That's funny. First you ask someone for definition of scientific fact and then you think it's refutable by a poll where YOU KNOW people aren't voting according to controlled experiments. You yourself haven't performed any controlled experiment if you keep citing the same flight yoke/throttle example.

[+5-11under]

Wow, this thread has 4 pages! Oh well, I'll add to it...

 

Choose both:

Pac-Man - digital controller

Kaboom! - analog controller

 

If you can only choose one, it's got to be the analog controller. The digital controller won't control Kaboom! the way it was designed. However, the analog controller should be able to mimic the digital controller properly for Pac-Man (if it works well ergonomically, has an option for self-centering, and the program is written to match the controller).

 

You misvoted. Kaboom uses a paddle not analog joystick. It's ledzep who was confusing the two, and you fell for his confused state.

See post #1.

 

True for most consoles (not the 5200), but still analog, though. It's the first game I thought about, that I know requires an analog controller... of some form... to function properly (wasn't confused by ledzep).

[JamesD]

No, you should look it up:

 

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

 

You have neither repeated my experiment nor refuted the logic behind it. A mathematical truth can also be scientific fact. Just relate it to real data. Go get a life and stop taking advantage of girls.

Just a few problems with that atariksi.

 

Repeatedly confirmed does not mean by 1 person. It means by multiple people, aka the scientific community. Your experiment must be repeatable BY OTHERS.

 

It says "scientific observation", but you have not even provided any of the data you should have collected so that it could be confirmed or refuted.

Did you record reaction times? Did you have some sort of custom built application that records how fast someone could navigate an object through a maze or move a cross hairs around the screen to hit a target?

You do not list you what control methods were used.

Were the length of the sticks a factor? Did all the joysticks have the same length to eliminate that as a factor?

Was the throw of the stick a factor? Did you have to move the joysticks the same distance at maximum throw so that distance wasn't the factor rather than type of joystick?

Was the type or position of the buttons a factor? Did the joysticks have the button in the same place?

Was the size of the base a factor?

etc...

You clearly used a small sample size for joysticks which by itself could bias any results you have.

You have only one test subject. For all you know you just suck at analog joysticks or your analog joysticks suck.

You could also have a personal bias so without a large sample size with OTHER PEOPLE that could bias the results.

Your observations are flawed to say the very least.

 

You mention a mathematical truth. So... where's your math?

You mention real data, where is your data? You state opinions but post no recorded data to back it up.

The only thing you have done is provided a rambling hypothesis that appears to be an attempt to back up your opinion.

If you want it to be scientific, do it right and stop arguing because arguing will never fix the problems with your study.

 

And is the comment about taking advantage of girls a personal attack? From you? Nooooooo... that would never happen.

[JamesD]

Actually, in my experiments I only used the analog joysticks with POTs and you are voting for those as pictured vs. a digital joystick. I think they may have improved the slow sampling/erroneous data inherent to the POT-based analog joysticks with voltage regulators and ADCs in some modern analog devices. So your stuff is off-topic and not even worth addressing here.

So, it's off topic because they may have fixed the flaws in analog joysticks?

But your own statement indicates that the problem wasn't analog joysticks but flawed parts.

That would mean that old digital joysticks were better than flawed analog ones. It does not answer the question of which is better overall.

[atariksi]

Actually, in my experiments I only used the analog joysticks with POTs and you are voting for those as pictured vs. a digital joystick. I think they may have improved the slow sampling/erroneous data inherent to the POT-based analog joysticks with voltage regulators and ADCs in some modern analog devices. So your stuff is off-topic and not even worth addressing here.

So, it's off topic because they may have fixed the flaws in analog joysticks?

But your own statement indicates that the problem wasn't analog joysticks but flawed parts.

That would mean that old digital joysticks were better than flawed analog ones. It does not answer the question of which is better overall.

 

You are confused. First you ask which joysticks I used which was already answered as you quoted above and then you misunderstand even that. The PC-based joysticks are not "flawed" but that's how they come. They were bought NIB and calibrated to know the POTs are in working order. It would be off-topic if the joysticks aren't similar to the ones in the picture but had some ADCs and voltage regulators or other circuits instead of the standard POT-based types that are pictured.

[JamesD]

Actually, in my experiments I only used the analog joysticks with POTs and you are voting for those as pictured vs. a digital joystick. I think they may have improved the slow sampling/erroneous data inherent to the POT-based analog joysticks with voltage regulators and ADCs in some modern analog devices. So your stuff is off-topic and not even worth addressing here.

So, it's off topic because they may have fixed the flaws in analog joysticks?

But your own statement indicates that the problem wasn't analog joysticks but flawed parts.

That would mean that old digital joysticks were better than flawed analog ones. It does not answer the question of which is better overall.

 

You are confused. First you ask which joysticks I used which was already answered as you quoted above and then you misunderstand even that. The PC-based joysticks are not "flawed" but that's how they come. They were bought NIB and calibrated to know the POTs are in working order. It would be off-topic if the joysticks aren't similar to the ones in the picture but had some ADCs and voltage regulators or other circuits instead of the standard POT-based types that are pictured.

You are confused. I didn't ask which joysticks were used (as in brand or model), I asked about controls (not talking about joystick controls) related to scientific method.

 

It's not off topic, you must specify any such limits placed on your experiments and adjust your hypothesis and discussion to reflect the limits on your test methodology up front.

 

For example "Digital joysticks offer superior control overall to POT based joysticks that were available in the 80s" or something like that.

And such limits would must also be reflected in your other arguments as well since you mention modern devices such as cell phones. Once you bring in modern devices that were not available in the 80s, it invites others to bring in modern joysticks.

 

Face it, you sat down and played a lot of games and preferred digital joysticks for yourself but did not conduct a true scientific study.

[OldAtarian]

PS3= analog thumbsticks

XBOX 360= analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Wii nunchuk= analog thumbstick

PSP=analog thumbstick

PS2=analog thumbsticks

XBOX=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Gamecube=analog thumbsticks

Sega Dreamcast=analog thumbsticks

Sony Playstation=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo 64=analog thumbstick

Sega Saturn 3d control pad=analog thumbstick

 

The game industry has been using strictly analog sticks for ages now and control has never been an issue. They spend millions developing their controllers. How many millions have you spent deciding that digital sticks are better? What do you know that they don't?

 

Actually, in my experiments I only used the analog joysticks with POTs and you are voting for those as pictured vs. a digital joystick. I think they may have improved the slow sampling/erroneous data inherent to the POT-based analog joysticks with voltage regulators and ADCs in some modern analog devices. So your stuff is off-topic and not even worth addressing here.

Now you're the one who's veering off topic. The examples I cited are perfectly on topic. If I'm not mistaken the title of this thread is "Digital Joysticks provide better control then analog joysticks". You seem to be fixated on the Atari 5200 sticks, which aren't the subject of this discussion. If they were, then why did you post this in the 8 bit section instead of in the 5200 section? Oh, and btw, the Vectrex uses analog sticks on it's controllers, too, and there never was a digital replacement for those so all those happy Vectrex players from the early 80's must have also been influenced by modern game controllers that didn't exist then.

 

If you want to make this an issue of control, I can go there, too. Answer me this, how can you claim to have 100% control when your stick can't distinguish between when you want to walk your game character and when you want it to run? The digital controller knows only two states. On and off. When it's on, the character runs. When it's off, the character stands still. There is no in between state. With an analog stick I can CONTROL the speed at which my character moves by varying my input on the stick. Full forward produces a run, centering produces a stop, and the speed can vary at every point between those two states. I have greater CONTROL over my character than you would with your digital stick.

 

Here's a perfect example. Try playing Super Mario 64 with the d-pad instead of the analog stick. It can't be done because you need more CONTROL than the digital d-pad can deliver.

Edited October 26, 2010 by OldAtarian

[atariksi]

Actually, in my experiments I only used the analog joysticks with POTs and you are voting for those as pictured vs. a digital joystick. I think they may have improved the slow sampling/erroneous data inherent to the POT-based analog joysticks with voltage regulators and ADCs in some modern analog devices. So your stuff is off-topic and not even worth addressing here.

So, it's off topic because they may have fixed the flaws in analog joysticks?

But your own statement indicates that the problem wasn't analog joysticks but flawed parts.

That would mean that old digital joysticks were better than flawed analog ones. It does not answer the question of which is better overall.

 

You are confused. First you ask which joysticks I used which was already answered as you quoted above and then you misunderstand even that. The PC-based joysticks are not "flawed" but that's how they come. They were bought NIB and calibrated to know the POTs are in working order. It would be off-topic if the joysticks aren't similar to the ones in the picture but had some ADCs and voltage regulators or other circuits instead of the standard POT-based types that are pictured.

You are confused. I didn't ask which joysticks were used (as in brand or model), I asked about controls (not talking about joystick controls) related to scientific method.

 

It's not off topic, you must specify any such limits placed on your experiments and adjust your hypothesis and discussion to reflect the limits on your test methodology up front.

 

For example "Digital joysticks offer superior control overall to POT based joysticks that were available in the 80s" or something like that.

And such limits would must also be reflected in your other arguments as well since you mention modern devices such as cell phones. Once you bring in modern devices that were not available in the 80s, it invites others to bring in modern joysticks.

 

Face it, you sat down and played a lot of games and preferred digital joysticks for yourself but did not conduct a true scientific study.

 

Unless you stop speculating your own conclusions, I will not answer you anymore. You did it already by asking about various joystick parameters and then drawing some absurd conclusion which made you feel mentally at peace. Now you do it again-- trying to force me to accept some absurd speculation of your with "Face it". I have a logical conclusion which doesn't require experimentation of hundreds of games. And I have a controlled experiment which required experimentation of hundreds of games. Both lead to same conclusion which is subject of this thread. No, the subject is quite clear-- I don't need to modify it. The post #1 gives the details of the subject-- as it should be for all threads. Read post #1 again.

 

It's clearly in the picture what the joystick parameters are. If you have never used any of the analog joysticks in the picture or similar ones, then you shouldn't really vote.

[atariksi]

PS3= analog thumbsticks

XBOX 360= analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Wii nunchuk= analog thumbstick

PSP=analog thumbstick

PS2=analog thumbsticks

XBOX=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo Gamecube=analog thumbsticks

Sega Dreamcast=analog thumbsticks

Sony Playstation=analog thumbsticks

Nintendo 64=analog thumbstick

Sega Saturn 3d control pad=analog thumbstick

 

The game industry has been using strictly analog sticks for ages now and control has never been an issue. They spend millions developing their controllers. How many millions have you spent deciding that digital sticks are better? What do you know that they don't?

 

Actually, in my experiments I only used the analog joysticks with POTs and you are voting for those as pictured vs. a digital joystick. I think they may have improved the slow sampling/erroneous data inherent to the POT-based analog joysticks with voltage regulators and ADCs in some modern analog devices. So your stuff is off-topic and not even worth addressing here.

Now you're the one who's veering off topic. The examples I cited are perfectly on topic. If I'm not mistaken the title of this thread is "Digital Joysticks provide better control then analog joysticks". You seem to be fixated on the Atari 5200 sticks, which aren't the subject of this discussion. If they were, then why did you post this in the 8 bit section instead of in the 5200 section? Oh, and btw, the Vectrex uses analog sticks on it's controllers, too, and there never was a digital replacement for those so all those happy Vectrex players from the early 80's must have also been influenced by modern game controllers that didn't exist then.

I hope you know that the Gravis PC joystick and that huge Microsoft joystick in the picture are both PC joysticks. And there are two analog joysticks. So your absurd conclusion that I'm speaking against Atari 5200 sticks is unwarranted. So Vectrex people also got inferior sticks like the PC ones. I never said PCs and Atari 5200 were the only ones with analog joysticks. Modern gaming people also use Gravis PCs and that Microsoft one so I'm not restricting to 1980s. The analog interface was invented in the 1980s. Get your facts straight as you just speculated something that you have no evidence for. Some of the items in your list don't even resemble a stick-based joystick-- what to speak of internal circuitry.

 

If you want to make this an issue of control, I can go there, too. Answer me this, how can you claim to have 100% control when your stick can't distinguish between when you want to walk your game character and when you want it to run? The digital controller knows only two states. On and off. When it's on, the character runs. When it's off, the character stands still. There is no in between state. With an analog stick I can CONTROL the speed at which my character moves by varying my input on the stick. Full forward produces a run, centering produces a stop, and the speed can vary at every point between those two states. I have greater CONTROL over my character than you would with your digital stick.

 

Here's a perfect example. Try playing Super Mario 64 with the d-pad instead of the analog stick. It can't be done because you need more CONTROL than the digital d-pad can deliver.

 

This was already answered like 10 times. Maybe Divya is right-- you're just too attached to your modern consoles and can't see the clear cut logic nor the patience to experiment yourself. First of all, you can't generalize from one specific piece of software. Second of all, you are looking at the software after the fact. It was developed with that analog joystick in mind. How do you know it can't be done with a digital joystick. As I said before, even pole position works with a digital joystick which is supposed to be an analog-type game. Third of all, the analog joystick flaws/uncertainties remain for digital and analog based games. Fourth of all, not all analog joysticks have the same range and center. Fifth of all, the complexities introduced for making one game have some in-between state features can be detrimental for other games.

 

And as far your list of analog thumbpads, all I said was they weren't in my experiment. They may have the same issues or other issues.

[JamesD]

Unless you stop speculating your own conclusions, I will not answer you anymore. You did it already by asking about various joystick parameters and then drawing some absurd conclusion which made you feel mentally at peace. Now you do it again-- trying to force me to accept some absurd speculation of your with "Face it". I have a logical conclusion which doesn't require experimentation of hundreds of games. And I have a controlled experiment which required experimentation of hundreds of games. Both lead to same conclusion which is subject of this thread. No, the subject is quite clear-- I don't need to modify it. The post #1 gives the details of the subject-- as it should be for all threads. Read post #1 again.

 

It's clearly in the picture what the joystick parameters are. If you have never used any of the analog joysticks in the picture or similar ones, then you shouldn't really vote.

Again, you refer to the photo and what joysticks were used and avoid questions on your scientific method.

 

You have a logical conclusion based on a limited sample size of controllers, a very limited sample size of participants, and with a limited sample size of games which you don't even provide for us to repeat the test or so that we may point out flaws in you methods.

 

Post #1 does not address any of the issues I have posted.

 

From #1:

Which joystick do you prefer when playing games? See the picture which contains what you are choosing from (or similar ones). Arrow keys are not pictured because they are front of you as you read this. Only one digital joystick is in the picture.

Just asking for opinion here, I have no problem with that other than you have limited the choice of analog sticks to models with a long throw.

 

Now my argument:

This is the problem... it's an argument, not a scientific fact and it appears you started the topic just to start an argument.

 

Digital joysticks provide better control than Analog joysticks.

That is your opinion since you didn't provide any data to back it up.

 

They are easier from programming point of view since you only read on/off states for the directions and fire button(s).

You are implying it's easier to make a digital joystick work on a flight simulator than to make an analog stick work on PacMan.

 

For a digital joystick to work on a flight sim it must do some sort of timing algorithm so that you don't instantly go into a loop or roll, but for an analog joystick it just reads a pot value to determine pitch and yaw rate.

To make an analog joystick react like a digital joystick, you read the pot values and do a range check but the digital joystick is just that, on or off and you just read the values.

 

The question is, is range checking easier or is timing easier?

If you have a table where a pot value corresponds to a joystick on off state, the range check is very easy. Read pot, read from table, done.

If you have to do timing, I'd guess you would be counting interrupts. The longer the player holds the control in a position the more you increase/decrease the pitch/yaw rate. Is that as simple as a table lookup?

 

They are easier to use-- you don't have to worry about in-between states-- whether you have pressed sufficiently in a particular direction. Instant change in direction.

Changes are not instant. There is some space between the joystick being centered and the switch being activated.

That depends on how far you have to move the joystick which impacts how long it takes to move it and that impacts how long it takes the game to react.

That is a logical observation that requires no experimentation to verify.

 

Every analog joystick in the picture has a long throw, I know, I've used them. I own a Wico, the store I worked at in college sold Gravis joysticks, and the Microsoft one was in displays everywhere and was clearly geared towards flight sims. The Atari joystick in the picture has a short throw.

Modern analog sticks which are so prevalent are shorter in size/mass, making them quicker to throw for games that just use up/down/left/right type of controls.

This indicates there is some bias in your test results.

 

I accept there are few games that can do better with the analogicity as in Paddle type games like Super Breakout or car racing where you need a steering wheel.

Ah, but there is a problem with that. As systems became faster, more games became like the real world and analog sticks offer better control under those conditions. A digital joystick was cheaper and worked well with simple games of the time but it does not work as well with complex games of the time (flight sims). That does not support an all encompassing statement that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks. It may just be due to the selection of games which is heavily biased towards games that respond well to digital controls and the fact that every analog joystick tested is long throw.

 

Of the sticks shown, if I had no games that could benefit from analog controls I'd take the digital one. If I had a larger choice of digital sticks I kinda liked ones with shorter shafts and smaller more rounded bases. If I had a larger choice of analog sticks I may not choose the digital one.

 

The Atari 5200 joystick wasn't very reliable and sucked at self centering. I haven't used one enough to really like or dislike it. Last time I used one was over a decade ago.

 

The Wico was ok for flight sims from the 80s but the Kraft joysticks were more precise and were easy to control with a thumb rather than using your entire hand. The Wico could take more abuse for arcade games though and you don't show the Kraft joystick. Both were long throw joysticks and I believe the Kraft used pots that were similar to those used in radio controlled aircraft. Clearly not something geared towards arcade games.

 

The Gravis was very long throw and worked ok for flight sims but the Microsoft stick was better. And we had a lot of Gravis sticks returned to the store because they broke. I own a joystick similar to the Microsoft one but I've always had problems with it. Crappy internal parts I'm guessing. All of these were never intended for use with PacMan and were clearly aimed at flight games. As a result they suck for PacMan.

 

I have played hundreds of games using both types of joysticks and always get better results with Digital joystick.[

"I" as in sample size of one, what games, "always" is clearly wrong, what does better results mean?

 

And again, you stated "scientific fact" in the poll and clearly your scientific method consisted of you playing games. You didn't record any data and you didn't make any attempt to make your tests truly scientific.

 

Leaving out subjectivity like "I like the looks of the analog one", "I'm more used to the analog one", or "That one looks like my neighbor or reminds me of old times" please select in an objective manner according to your own experience with both. I will provide more arguments as needed and later.

But people did state their opinions objectively and you argued with them and are trying to tell them they are wrong.

Your arguments are just that, not fact.

 

I'm in a rush right now.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited October 26, 2010 by JamesD

[potatohead]

Folks, we have ignition!!

 

(and it's all good here, just to be really, really clear)

 

So, I read over this stuff, and it occurred to me some perspective might be in order.

 

Long ago, the very first video game I played was PONG. That was all analog, right down to the little chip that literally was the game! No CPU's in those things, just circuits, triggers, timers, and other analog kinds of things.

 

The ratio of movement on screen to paddle position was the very first control I ever experienced, and it kicked some serious ass. I remember that day, as a little kid, just turning thing, watching in facination as the on screen paddle moved perfectly...

 

Then, I got to experience some computer gaming. It was old, but still gaming. Keyboard only, TRS-80. This was followed by the Atari 2600, which came with lots of controllers!! The Paddle and Driving ones are my favorite, because they've got that non-digital feel to them. Yes, the driving one really only has 8 positions per revolution, but it still works great with Indy 500, where the controls are just spot on! All the paddle games rock, and they have that same feel the old PONG console did.

 

At the time, the first joysticks had springs in them. Actually took a bit to realize they were digital as a kid. The next model up, with the hard stop deffo was digital, and for twitch stuff, it's da bomb! Gamed a lot on those, breaking a few too. (we all did)

 

Then came the Apple ][. It had either paddles, or the analog stick. The kind we had would either auto-center, or not, and had two buttons! The better Tandy stick is about the same, and the lesser Tandy stick has no centering, and that's important for what's coming up.

 

Early Apple games made use of that analog stick. Earlier, up thread, I mentioned "Choplifter" for a reason, and that reason is the game rocked! Flying the little copter around with the analog controls really brought a sense of motion to that game, and made it possible to do all sorts of swoop in, land, move, dodge, etc... motions, all of which are limited and more coarse on the digital control editions of that game produced on other machines.

 

At that time, having the 2600 and the Apple, and the old CoCo I and II computers to game on, the Apple with it's color graphics and nice controller won hands down. I could list off the titles, with another great one later on being Drol, which also kind of sucks digital BTW, but suffice it to say, on the digital games, many people put the stick down entirely and just gamed on the keyboard.

 

Robotron on the Apple was a fine example of this norm, as was BOLO, where the keyboard actually did rock hard, but one had to work for it, but if one did, they were king, period. The analog stick proved to be a nice alternative, and having two buttons was a nice bonus at the time as well.

 

We got Atari machines eventually (fuck yes!!), and being able to use the VCS controllers promised huge gaming, but I never did see that promise completely realized. At the time, I thought for sure the driving ones would see some serious use, but were ignored. We modified a Apple analog stick for the Atari, and even wrote some stuff that moved kind of like Choplifter did. Why? Because that was actually very cool to experience.

 

(sorry this will be long)

 

One strength of the Atari machines was the option of doing both! The variety of input devices was seen as a clear strength, and is something in my mind, clearly underexploited, but that's a side discussion.

 

The core point I have to make here is that my roots were analog, with digital being some lowest common denominator one could be happy with, but not really seeing the 8 bit gaming joy with. IMHO, that blunted the experience of many games. I'm thinking most of the Synapse titles, for example, running on analog would be a completely different experience!

 

So then, enter the next wave of gamers. Many of them went right for the mainstream systems, because that's where the action was at. Digital joysticks become more or less the norm, and things focus in on that, with analog options being few and far between, and that's a loss for those of us who first turned a knob, but probably not even on the radar of those that didn't, or who first twiddled a stick.

 

A side note here, the non-centering Tandy analog was horrible. Hated it, because it did take considerable skill to manage state. Once a person did, the controller was fine, but it took more to do, and that's the bottom line on analog devices. It's really easy to make a bad analog device, and fairly difficult to make a really bad digital one, but Mattel did anyway, which is something I think contributed to the diminished exploitation of analog means.

 

Then came the gamepad. NES and Genny, Master system, others... The little thumb pad was a interesting diversion from the joystick, and it took some getting used to, but once a person grokked that, it was GAME ON! For a bunch of titles, particularly platformers, the pad generally was superior, for the rolling action one could do to transition between input states. Notably, more buttons began to appear, because the low number of possible input states inhibited gaming development.

 

The next steps happened in parallel. On the PC, we got keyboard mouse, and the FPS, which came straight from God, who is a gamer I swear, and the ability to utilize all manner of controls on the PC, mapping and other things. On the consoles, we got more analog inputs, with Sony really knocking it out of the park, but in tight competition with SEGA and Nintendo, offering analog options, and variations on the rather complex controllers we have today.

 

As I am older now, it took a while to grok dual analog. It's totally the right thing to do, for all but the FPS titles, IMHO. About the only thing I prefer digital for is button mashing fighters, which depend huge on rapid input sequences. Analog buttons rock here though, because the emotion translates into the button press, and that can impact the game action in a great way!

 

We all have our preferences, and we all have our roots, and it all works a whole lot like music does, which is why "better" really is kind of painful, without qualifiers. Be that as it may, there is a lot of great things to learn and understand about one another, and the games we love new and old to be had by looking at the controllers, how we got here, and how people interact with them.

 

Also, like music, some of us tend to "lock in", get set in our ways, and get rigid. Consider working hard to not do that, because there is more coming! We've got the motion controls now, and from what I can tell, those are very easy to grok, and a lot of fun. Active sensory controllers, 3D, and god knows what else is coming down the line, and it's all gonna be great fun, given we are young enough of mind to jump in and get after it.

 

That's what I'm gonna do.

 

Game on kids! Enjoy the controllers, and shout out your faves and why, but know it's all over the map, for all sorts of reasons, and before you get bitter, jaded, angry, think back to the first time you got to interact, and what that's like, and just be glad you are living in a time where you get to do that! I am.

 

Cheers all, have fun!

[JamesD]

This was already answered like 10 times. Maybe Divya is right-- you're just too attached to your modern consoles and can't see the clear cut logic nor the patience to experiment yourself. First of all, you can't generalize from one specific piece of software. Second of all, you are looking at the software after the fact. It was developed with that analog joystick in mind. How do you know it can't be done with a digital joystick. As I said before, even pole position works with a digital joystick which is supposed to be an analog-type game. Third of all, the analog joystick flaws/uncertainties remain for digital and analog based games. Fourth of all, not all analog joysticks have the same range and center. Fifth of all, the complexities introduced for making one game have some in-between state features can be detrimental for other games.

 

And as far your list of analog thumbpads, all I said was they weren't in my experiment. They may have the same issues or other issues.

Maybe you are too attached to your old Atari, your logic is flawed, and you didn't conduct a real scientific experiment.

 

If the digital joystick is better then why don't modern game systems use them?

"not all analog joysticks have the same range and center"

Ta dah! That alone shows your "experiment" may be flawed.

 

"The complexities introduced for making one game have some in-between state feature can be detrimental for other games."

Really? But that is one side of that argument. Using a controller with no in between states is detrimental to games that could benefit from in between states. You make no attempt at objectivity in your argument which biases your entire argument.