Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[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.

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.

 

Show me an example where you can control your run/walk speed with a digital joystick. Show me a game where you can run your character in a smooth circle with no choppiness by moving a digital joystick through 360 degrees of rotation. Until you can do that. you're wrong about which type gives greater control.

Edited October 26, 2010 by OldAtarian

[OldAtarian]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

[+Stephen]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

[JamesD]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

Hmmmm... now where did you come up with those? I wonder.

<edit>

BTW, +1

Edited October 26, 2010 by JamesD

[RevEng]

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

You missed one.

 

-that doesn't make any sense (i.e. I have no logical counter-argument)

[atariksi]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

 

If your referring to Ledzep, show me an argument he made that isn't in one of those catagories. I don't mind refuting that stuff but it's unrelated to the topic and confuses things as is evident by your own citing of analog examples. I KNOW the difference between analog and digital. The poll is about which *joystick* gives better control. Read post #1.

 

 

If you're not referring to Ledzep then refute my arguments if you are capable of and stop beating around the bush. As far the circle argument goes, I have a paint program that makes a circle just fine using a joystick.

[atariksi]

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

You missed one.

 

-that doesn't make any sense (i.e. I have no logical counter-argument)

 

That one applies to your incoherent replies perfectly well. If your replies weren't so illogical, I wouldn't have to use such factual remarks.

Sometimes the truth can only be handled by those that are unbiased.

[atariksi]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

Hmmmm... now where did you come up with those? I wonder.

<edit>

BTW, +1

 

Since you are as inept as them, your replies will be ignored. Here's post #1 which you keep forgetting to read and keep repeating your mistakes:

 

"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."

[atariksi]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

 

Show me how you play breakout better with all those controllers you listed vs. an Atari Paddle (or should I say clunky Atari paddle since your emotional bias seems to show up here).

[atariksi]

 

Don't know who you are talking to, but you are free to vote however you like. I prefer voting according to hard facts and logic. An analog joystick has more levels but that's not important as the control you have over the joystick. What's the big deal if you have infinite values but can hardly use any of them with certainty and introduce all sorts of undefined/erroneous samples and slower switch rates. It's what the user has control over that is more important than what the joystick supports. You can transmit more information using analog circuits, but the world is gone digital and because it's better defined and well defined; i.e., there's MORE CONTROL. How anyone can miss this logic is beyond me. It's all around us.

 

Here's the post #29 again for the above people that didn't seem to read it or too biased to accept. Anything you can do with an analog joystick, I can do with BETTER CONTROL with a digital joystick. It just so happens that joysticks in times when Atari/Commodore/etc. companies were simpler and so were the analog ones. Later the analog joysticks got complicated with addition or many buttons and multiple joysticks. Now if those companies still existed and were making new computers, they would have continued to use digital joysticks (as pattern shows with their next generation machines like Atari ST(e)/Amigas/etc.) Now just because the companies are no longer around and those console makes kept enhancing their analog joysticks that the digital joysticks become inferior. Digital always provides MORE CONTROL than analog. If you enhanced the digital joystick, you can incorporate anything the analog can do and in a MORE CONTROLLED way. I can prove logically through and by examples of games.

[RevEng]

That one applies to your incoherent replies perfectly well. If your replies weren't so illogical, I wouldn't have to use such factual remarks.

Sometimes the truth can only be handled by those that are unbiased.

That doesn't even make any sense!

 

Maybe if you weren't so emotional you'd be able to see my logic.

[atariksi]

 

Don't know who you are talking to, but you are free to vote however you like. I prefer voting according to hard facts and logic. An analog joystick has more levels but that's not important as the control you have over the joystick. What's the big deal if you have infinite values but can hardly use any of them with certainty and introduce all sorts of undefined/erroneous samples and slower switch rates. It's what the user has control over that is more important than what the joystick supports. You can transmit more information using analog circuits, but the world is gone digital and because it's better defined and well defined; i.e., there's MORE CONTROL. How anyone can miss this logic is beyond me. It's all around us.

 

Here's the post #29 again for the above people that didn't seem to read it or too biased to accept. Anything you can do with an analog joystick, I can do with BETTER CONTROL with a digital joystick. It just so happens that joysticks in times when Atari/Commodore/etc. companies were simpler and so were the analog ones. Later the analog joysticks got complicated with addition or many buttons and multiple joysticks. Now if those companies still existed and were making new computers, they would have continued to use digital joysticks (as pattern shows with their next generation machines like Atari ST(e)/Amigas/etc.) Now just because the companies are no longer around and those console makes kept enhancing their analog joysticks that the digital joysticks become inferior. Digital always provides MORE CONTROL than analog. If you enhanced the digital joystick, you can incorporate anything the analog can do and in a MORE CONTROLLED way. I can prove logically through and by examples of games.

 

Some typos in the above. It should be console makers kept enhancing the joysticks and that doesn't make the digital joysticks inferior. They were always 100% accurate unlike the analog joysticks which even today remain inferior.

[JamesD]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

Hmmmm... now where did you come up with those? I wonder.

<edit>

BTW, +1

 

Since you are as inept as them, your replies will be ignored. Here's post #1 which you keep forgetting to read and keep repeating your mistakes:

 

"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."

I quoted and disputed post #1 point by point, asked you about your scientific methodology (repeatedly), and you had gave no answer. No science was involved, just your own personal bias and opinion.

 

Oh, and personal attacks which you always resort to. People can't read, can't understand, are inept... what insults am I missing here guys?

[atariksi]

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).

 

You can vote however you want, but my point is centered around digital joysticks providing more control than analog ones. I wasn't against paddles. Here's some examples (of many) of games where digital joystick has more control over analog joysticks: Montezuma's Revenge screenshot where jumping over that flame requires a right move and trigger press. Much higher failure rate with analog joystick. Hero game-- slight tap on joystick to move pixel-exact manner while falling and ability to stop at exact spots near that radioactive wall. Much higher failure rate with analog joystick. Space Invaders-- once again those taps on the joystick to kill a column at a time much easily done with a faster switching stick than an analog stick with POTs. Donkey Kong-- easy to jump that Oil Barrel from edge of the platform and quick wiggling back and forth to avoid barrels and jumping off edge in elevator screen. Ms. Pac-man-- can't capture in a photo buy back and forth timing exact compared to threshold-based crap. River-raid-- Tight motion through the narrow river again because of better switching and no fuzzy vague crap. Pole Position-- tap on joystick to move tiny amounts or hold stick to turn in big amounts. Etc. Etc. Yes, there's a science behind why these failures occur more often for analog joysticks.

[+Stephen]

Why is a paddle an acceptable form of input while an analog joystick (just two paddles with a handle) not?

[atariksi]

Why is a paddle an acceptable form of input while an analog joystick (just two paddles with a handle) not?

 

They are all acceptable form of inputs, but question is which provides more control. You have more control of a paddle's in-between states than you do with an analog joystick. Try playing breakout with an analog joystick and then a paddle and you'll see the big difference. Construction makes a big difference.

[+Stephen]

Why is a paddle an acceptable form of input while an analog joystick (just two paddles with a handle) not?

 

They are all acceptable form of inputs, but question is which provides more control. You have more control of a paddle's in-between states than you do with an analog joystick. Try playing breakout with an analog joystick and then a paddle and you'll see the big difference. Construction makes a big difference.

Fair enough - I certainly can't play them using the "thumb" controllers (PS2, XBox etc) but do an acceptable job with the paddles. But I still can't say that one is better than the other, they both have a purpose (for me).

 

Happy gaming.

[+wood_jl]

Wow. This thread is just a bunch of arguing over nothing. If you like analog, use it. If you like digital, use it. Fortunately, on all the new consoles (and some not so new) with analog sticks, they still include D-pads for digital, and arcade sticks are available. You can use the ones you want. If it's older machines, use an Atari 5200 if you think the controllers are great, and use an Atari 400 if you do not. If you're playing Pacman use digital, and if you're playing Ace Combat use analog. Or, use whichever you prefer. Why does anybody have to think either is "better?" Furthermore, why can't you think that independently; who cares whether or not anyone agrees with whichever your preference, what difference would it make in the world whether they did or not, so why argue?

 

At least in the much lamented (or enjoyed, for some) "vs" threads - the Atari vs Commodore thread being a prime example - there was a lot of analysis and revelation. Each side - regardless of which side it was - discussed in detail the specifics of the machine, its nuances and how they were used, and much technical ado. That was the value in the exchange. Remove all of that cool technical analysis, and it's just pure arguing over personal preferences that don't matter. What's next? Argue about whose favorite color is the "best?" Why don't you guys start another A8/C64/Amiga/ST flamewar, because at least there is something to be argued.

Edited October 27, 2010 by wood_jl

[atariksi]

Wow. This thread is just a bunch of arguing over nothing. If you like analog, use it. If you like digital, use it. Fortunately, on all the new consoles (and some not so new) with analog sticks, they still include D-pads for digital, and arcade sticks are available. You can use the ones you want. If it's older machines, use an Atari 5200 if you think the controllers are great, and use an Atari 400 if you do not. If you're playing Pacman use digital, and if you're playing Ace Combat use analog. Or, use whichever you prefer. Why does anybody have to think either is "better?" Furthermore, why can't you think that independently; who cares whether or not anyone agrees with whichever your preference, what difference would it make in the world whether they did or not, so why argue?

Yeah, you're free to use whatever you prefer. But the argument is over which provides more control. The thread would only be one post if I just asked for what you prefer (subjectively).

[potatohead]

Well, that's the rub. Declaring that digital joysticks provide "more", or "better" control as a general case, just isn't defensible, because it all is simply more complex than that.

 

The matter isn't resolvable, without more fidelity in the statement. Could be a set of cases, could be era, genre, something.

 

Without that something, the implication is a universal one, where very clearly that is not the case at all. So then, why assert that? I really don't get it, when it's perfectly plausible, practical, and possible to just say, I prefer digital joysticks for [case] because [attribute]. Consensus is possible then, and where that's true, there is value above and beyond entertainment.

 

And frankly, you did ask, while asserting the answer at the same time, with a challenge I might add! Good entertainment, well I'm entertained, but not really productive, unless one really wants to bone up on forum-debate kung-fu.

 

Re: Technical

 

Yes!! That's what I was kind of hoping to see. Controllers vary widely, and those attributes can and do very significantly impact the performance of the input device. There are some great dynamics there to consider. Ratio of rotational movement, to length of the active component, be it a handle, etc... Whether or not multiple digits are required, or just one... which digit! Then we've got feedback systems, springs, sliders, directional constraints (like the little plates some have to enforce the cardinal directions)... ratio of movement to numeric output precision / noise. Lots of great stuff!

 

IMHO, most of the industry is actually analog. Until this discussion, I really didn't think about it that way, but the only digital things I have are classic console / computer related, or simple toys. And it's only some machines too. Apples, Color Computers, Tandy, probably others featured analog control devices. It's really the home game offshoots that went digital, and only for a while.

 

That would be worth some discussion too. What do we think drove that and why?

Edited October 27, 2010 by potatohead

[ledzep]

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.

 

I already did but I will do so again when you support your own initial statement. Which statement? Why, this one -

 

"Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it."

 

And you reveal your bias by saying "I hate analog joysticks". Ya, we figured that out pretty early. But you could fix all of this if you would simply show where your biased opinion is scientific fact.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

Show. Us. The. Data.

 

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.

 

If it's nothing but straw-man and Chewbacca defense (did you just learn those terms this week and were chomping at the bit to use them?) then cry to Divya16 because he's the one who brought up those 5 points and attempting to "confuse the people here", not me. I was just being courteous in answering him, something you should try.

 

So, you're going to tell Divya16 to stop confusing the people here with his straw-man and Chewbacca defense, right? Can't wait.

[ledzep]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

 

Hahaaha, sweet. You throw in a "thus" or an "a priori" once in a while and I think you got yourself a decent atariksi simulator. I can certainly +1 that.

[JamesD]

And scratch that last example. Instead of moving a game character, go into a draw program on the 8 bit or ST and try to draw a circle and see how clunky the digital joystick circle is compared to the analog stick. The analog circle will be closer to round than the digital one.

I'll give you a miltiple choice reply to that (in good fun of course):

- Strawman argument

- Chewbacca defense

- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact)

 

Hahaaha, sweet. You throw in a "thus" or an "a priori" once in a while and I think you got yourself a decent atariksi simulator. I can certainly +1 that.

Hmmmm... maybe Eliza could be modified to fit the bill.

 

Comments might be:

 

"You can't read"

"I proved you can't read"

"But I proved you can't read"

"I proved it"

"But I proved it"

"I already proved it"

"See, I proved it"

"You just don't understand my logic"

"It's a scientific fact"

"I proved it scientifically"

"It doesn't need data, I proved it logically"

"My logic proves it"

"But it doesn't need proof"

"If you could read, you'd understand my logic"

"My logic is undeniable" < ok, so I stole that from iRobot

"It's not science"

"That's a strawman argument"

"That's the chewbacca defense" < I still say that's when you rip someone's arms off

"See post #" < must refer to the same post repeatedly, doesn't need to make any sense in response to an argument

"Another inept response"

"You are inept"

"Another inept response, if you could read, you would understand my logic" < just getting creative here

"Your inept attempt at a response is beneath me" < it just sounds fitting to me

"I won't even dignify that with a response" < doesn't sound right, any suggestions as to a better phrase?

"You said so in post #" < which must always be a reference to something that was in response to something else but can be taken out of context. The logic might be tough on that one.

 

And then the program must keep track of an anger/frustration level. As that goes up, key words must be all caps such as "But I PROVED you can't read!" Followed by "BUT I PROVED YOU CAN'T READ!!!" when the anger/frustration goes higher.

 

And thus, the artificial intelligence program atariksi is born!

[PeteD]

C64 joysticks are better than A8 ones!!

 

 

[NorthPole(heeHAW)]

C64 joysticks are better than A8 ones!!

 

 

 

 

This is the most stupid thing anyone has ever said on this forum. EVERYONE knows CPC Amsoft joysticks are the way to go!