Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[JamesD]

Most definitely refuted.

 

Nothing from my side has been refuted. I guess Divya is right that some people are imagining that it has been refuted.

You are imagining that it has not been refuted.

[atariksi]

...

[\quote]

 

Given you keep running into P and -P logic, the debate is over with you. In normal debates, once one side comes to P and -P, the other side wins. So I can walk away with the win if I want to. I already let you go once with P and -P.

 

Only facts count and only experiments count. Opinions can be given by anyone including those who nothing about joysticks. Study the data given and see the results. More data is available for reinforcement.

[potatohead]

That's it!

 

A test of conviction! That's what this is! Post up something and let the unbelievers do their best, only to hold firm, devout, secure.

 

(which means Atariski failed the last one, because I got those special PM's)

Edited December 5, 2010 by potatohead

[+poobah]

Most definitely refuted.

 

Nothing from my side has been refuted. I guess Divya is right that some people are imagining that it has been refuted. So what is refuted-- the fact that I scored higher with digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks for all the games that I play? The fact that analog joysticks fail more often or slower reaction time in quick turns, running jumps, maneuvering around tight corners, etc. Just played Donkey Kong again with both joysticks and so same results come out again.

 

At best, you've demonstrated the that you don't play as well with analog sticks.

 

If the 'experiment' you list is your standard for proof, then me winning the HSC with an analog stick proves that analog sticks are superior.

 

You can't have it both ways.

[atariksi]

Most definitely refuted.

 

Nothing from my side has been refuted. I guess Divya is right that some people are imagining that it has been refuted. So what is refuted-- the fact that I scored higher with digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks for all the games that I play? The fact that analog joysticks fail more often or slower reaction time in quick turns, running jumps, maneuvering around tight corners, etc. Just played Donkey Kong again with both joysticks and so same results come out again.

 

At best, you've demonstrated the that you don't play as well with analog sticks.

 

If the 'experiment' you list is your standard for proof, then me winning the HSC with an analog stick proves that analog sticks are superior.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Your case:

You can't do a comparison if you only play with one joystick which is your case. Nor did you play each game many times with both joysticks and note down the where the high failure rate of each is. You are comparing your game skills with someone else's which makes the experiment uncontrolled. Your experiment doesn't say anything about analog joysticks.

 

My case: it's a controlled experiment since all that's required to use both joysticks is that you be used to using both. I have years of experience with analog joysticks although not that much is required to be able to use them. Although from experimental sense, it's true it only proves it for me, that's how experiments work. If I do experiment with F=ma, it only proves F=ma for me. Then you have others who have had similar experience and so the induction principle applies.

[jetset]

Most definitely refuted.

 

Nothing from my side has been refuted. I guess Divya is right that some people are imagining that it has been refuted. So what is refuted-- the fact that I scored higher with digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks for all the games that I play? The fact that analog joysticks fail more often or slower reaction time in quick turns, running jumps, maneuvering around tight corners, etc. Just played Donkey Kong again with both joysticks and so same results come out again.

 

At best, you've demonstrated the that you don't play as well with analog sticks.

 

If the 'experiment' you list is your standard for proof, then me winning the HSC with an analog stick proves that analog sticks are superior.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

[potatohead]

There it is folks!!

 

"Although from experimental sense, it's true it only proves it for me, that's how experiments work. "

 

That is as much as I've ever seen.

 

Refuted.

 

Why?

 

Because a formal methodology and data was never published so that others could prove it for themselves, rendering the proposition a matter of faith, as in "trust me, I got this", not fact.

[Cebus Capucinis]

[JamesD]

Most definitely refuted.

 

Nothing from my side has been refuted. I guess Divya is right that some people are imagining that it has been refuted. So what is refuted-- the fact that I scored higher with digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks for all the games that I play? The fact that analog joysticks fail more often or slower reaction time in quick turns, running jumps, maneuvering around tight corners, etc. Just played Donkey Kong again with both joysticks and so same results come out again.

 

At best, you've demonstrated the that you don't play as well with analog sticks.

 

If the 'experiment' you list is your standard for proof, then me winning the HSC with an analog stick proves that analog sticks are superior.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Your case:

You can't do a comparison if you only play with one joystick which is your case.

Your logic is flawed here.

 

The game competition provides a better sample size of people than you did.

It let people adapt to whatever controller the player was competing with to eliminate unfamiliarity or inexperience with the control device as a factor from the test.

Multiple joysticks were used, just by different people. People could actually bring any joystick they wanted which probably leads to a larger sample size of joysticks than you used. This also let people pick an analog stick that may have been better suited for games designed for digital joysticks.

 

There certainly are flaws with just turning people loose like this and calling it an experiment.

The only gathered data was scores. However, that is a better indicator of whether someone has better control overall.

What it doesn't tell us is why. Was it a natural faster reaction time, the choice of games, or the type of joystick. But then your experiment has the same flaws.

 

Your hypothesis was all encompassing and he beat all comers with an analog stick vs ANY digital joystick.

An exception to the hypothesis has been proven, therefore your hypothesis in the original form has been dis-proven since in this case, an analog stick proved superior overall.

 

Nor did you play each game many times with both joysticks and note down the where the high failure rate of each is.

Actually, that was your choice of analysis. The hypotheses is pretty open ended and could be supported or dis-proven in many ways. If you want to restrict the analysis to the same methods you used, you must use a more restrictive hypothesis.

Games were played many times by different people and both types of joysticks were used in an attempt to get the best score. You do not have to have each player use each type of joystick to get an accurate result if you look at the dataset as a whole.

 

One thing the game competition does not do is keep track of how people did with digital vs analog joysticks on a person by person basis so you cannot rule out anomalies in the results. However, with an all encompassing hypotheses, even the existence of an anomaly that counters the hypothesis disproves it. If you were to adjust the hypothesis to include some statement such as "for most people", then it would require more testing to disprove.

However, it would only be a theory anyway and any experiment would just support the theory rather than prove it.

 

You are comparing your game skills with someone else's which makes the experiment uncontrolled. Your experiment doesn't say anything about analog joysticks.

And ability to control a game with an analog stick is a game skill. All you have done is shown that you have poorer game skills with an analog stick.

 

My case: it's a controlled experiment since all that's required to use both joysticks is that you be used to using both.

But multiple joysticks were used in the game competition. And your "controlled experiment" did nothing to factor out inexperience with a specific type of joystick. If anything, it was biased in favor of digital joysticks by choice of games.

 

I have years of experience with analog joysticks although not that much is required to be able to use them.

Not that much experience is required to be able to use analog joysticks, however, quite a bit of experience may be required to be good with them. At the very least, more experience than you have. Just using analog sticks occasionally over the years does not mean you have played with them enough to adapt to them.

Some of us grew up with analog joysticks. You have to adapt you playing style to the joystick.

 

Although from experimental sense, it's true it only proves it for me, that's how experiments work.

Thank you for that admission.

One important thing to note is that you conducted an experiment. That does not mean it is the best experiment or that it factored in all variables, and a sample size of "me" isn't enough to prove anything.

It's why there is such a thing as peer review.

And the games competition indicates an analog stick was better for someone else, which at the very least indicates a flaw in your experiment and the hypothesis.

 

If I do experiment with F=ma, it only proves F=ma for me. Then you have others who have had similar experience and so the induction principle applies.

In the case of F=ma, you do not have others who have had similar experience, you have others who have proven it in experiments with measurable data. It's math, you do the experiment, the math works or it doesn't. Your experiment does not involve mass, acceleration, force, or math so any reference to this formula is just slight of hand to distract from flaws in your experiment and hypothesis.

 

Induction? Nope. Within the scientific community you must gain enough support from people that back up your results so that people start to trust and accept your results. It is a world of opinion, bias, skepticism, distrust, stubborn nature, fraud... no induction takes place. Good or bad, that's the way it is.

Take any major scientific feud and you'll see there is no such thing as induction, and you'll also see why there is skepticism and distrust.

Anyone remember cold fusion? Big deal, some support, no wait... it was bad science and fraud.

When Einstein submitted some of his theories, he did it through a 3rd party just because he was German and would receive criticism for it. No induction or automatic acceptance can be assumed. You are trying to dodge criticism.

 

In this case (joysticks) results are much more subjective. They are more subject to flaws in test procedures, and results are going to depend heavily on how much practice time you have with a particular joystick. The digital joystick may be quicker adapt to but that does not mean it has better control.

Finding isolated instances where an analog joystick makes some specific maneuver in a game designed for digital joysticks does not prove an digital joystick offers better control overall no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

[JamesD]

You really have a problem understanding things. You wrote a message that's completely off-topic and personal and then you want to keep telling other people not to do the very thing you did: "it's personal. it's off topic." You can't just label someone something by mental speculation like you did. You did similar thing in the other thread as I recall. Drop it. It serves no purpose now.

BTW, I wasn't complaining about off topic posts, you were. But you clearly attribute it to me.

And I made no speculations about anyone's mental state in this thread... that would be someone else in the discussion.

[potatohead]

I'll rest on the data above. Refuted.

 

And, yes it was me on the mental state. A curio at best, just because those kinds of things are interesting to me. I'll easily cop to it, and can take as good as I give, which means if you want to call me out for some kind of mental thing, I am as likely to entertain it as anything else, no harm, no foul.

 

The absolute least admission was made, and that's something --enough. Honestly, I didn't expect to see one.

[NorthPole(heeHAW)]

It appears posting on this thread is an easy way to obtain "kudos" points unless you're Divya16 or Atariksi.

[jetset]

It appears posting on this thread is an easy way to obtain "kudos" points unless you're Divya16 or Atariksi.

 

Maybe because their arguments fall short.

[ledzep]

You are inept at realizing that a "proof" doesn't compare to actual

. You can say that you proved that having infinite levels of control actual provides ZERO control and you can actually believe you're right but as soon as someone like the talented Tony Franklin demonstrates without doubt that he is in complete control of a completely analog fretless bass your "proof" evaporates and everyone sees your belief for what it is, a bias. The guy is a master of that analog, infinite-levels-of-control bass guitar and it kills you to know that and to not be able to prove that he actually has ZERO control.

 

Sly way to shoving things under the rug. But no worse than claims that logic is an acceptable replacement for claimed generated data.

You are speculating that he has infinite levels of control. You can play the guitar and be off at the position on the string by about a millimeter or so and nobody would notice the difference in the music. What bullcrap are you talking about infinite levels of control. I don't think you even understand what I wrote about more levels leads to less probability of control. Some people can't tell the difference between MP3 and uncompressed music and there's huge difference in terms of the data. You are taking something subjective (you hearing the same music) and just speculating he has infinite levels of control. And this is a person who has practiced many many years not something like picking up an analog joystick and playing a game. And your example is not even an analog joystick. Getting to strings on a guitar type instrument is more like a touchpad-- you have random access and the strings are digital-- discrete items that it would be hard to mess up. The position on the string you could mess up.

 

No, I'm not speculating anything. Ask your female personality, she's the one who said that having infinite levels of control actually means ZERO levels of control. Being able to fret an infinite amount of notes on just one string (and he has 4 strings on that bass) means infinite levels of control of the music he's playing. You further demonstrate that you don't know anything about music and that you've never played music or listened to real music played in a live setting because being off by as much as a millimeter on a fretless string instrument (bass, violin, etc.) would definitely be noticed by people who actually have an ear for music (read: not you). But then you also think that piano keys are purely digital controls, haahaahaa. So what if some people can or can't tell the difference between MP3s and uncompressed music, all you're arguing there is that subjective bias is allowable in experiments which of course would explain your idiotic views about digital joysticks being better when multiple people on this thread have demonstrated to you that not only are analog joysticks as good as or better than digital joysticks in terms of control or simply being able to play video games well but also that in general terms analog controls and analog information is superior to their compressed, digital equivalents. Way to go there.

 

Let me address your address:

 

"Who cares."

 

Seems given your high failure rate in backing up your claims of running experiments and generating data, you have resorted to pretending that the subject has moved over to personal attacks in order to avoid admitting that you've never run a single experiment or generated any data from it.

FACT: I have run the experiment, you haven't.

FACT: You are IN FACT mocking and calling names; no pretending; it's here in black and white.

FACT: I care. I have no obligation to reply to a fanatical emotionally biased person who mocks people. I rather deal with serious inquiries. Since you are making misleading remarks and distorting things, I have to keep wasting my time with you.

 

FACT: You have claimed to run "hundreds" of experiments yet have provided no proof that you've run even a single experiment. Prove you have run the experiment.

FACT: You IN FACT started with the name-calling and mocking so you are the last person involved with this subject who can cry about mocking or name-calling, heavily as you do cry about it.

FACT: You don't care. If you did you would realize that you have an obligation to support your claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments and having generated "megabytes" of data by actually releasing all that information into the public eye so that we can evaluate your claims. You'd rather deal with inventing lamer and lamer excuses for not presenting all your data and all the parameters of your experiments. Since you keep making misleading claims about things you supposedly have done and distorting things, we have to keep wasting our time pointing out your myriad faults and screwups.

 

You are unfit to conduct an experiment which explains why you haven't described the parameters of the experiment you claim to have run and haven't presented all the data that your fake experiment is supposed to have generated.

You are just making things up. The experiment is real.

 

Prove it. Release all the parameters of the experiment along with all the data. Why do you continuously resist presenting the information?

 

Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is.

Already did. You don't need links to others if you have done the experiments yourself. If Newton had to provide links to others, nothing would have been discovered by him as scientific fact. Of course, I am sure others have experienced the same results as I don't know every person on the planet.

 

You didn't address the argument. Prove that my views about what an experiment is is not what the real meaning is. I have provided links to definitions that are accepted as the norm by the scientific community. Do you have an alternative definition that supports your idea that running an experiment to determine whether digital or analog joysticks provide better control really only means playing a lot of video games by yourself? Control groups and experimental groups, Genius, what were yours comprised of? What were the variables you tested? How did you test them? What hardware and software did you use to record the raw data? What methodology did you employ to interpret the data? When will you finally run the experiment you claim to have run?

 

What "others"? I'm blaming you for being a terrible debater because you're a terrible debater. "I know you are but what am I" isn't a sound debating technique, by the way.

You didn't understand the English. I think its time for you to take a nap. I'll continue with this if you realize your mistake here.

 

You didn't understand the English, that question was also directed specifically at your female alternate personality. I think it's time for you to have another therapy session. I'll continue with this if you realize that aprioriksi and Didntknow16 are two separate personalities and I was talking to your female one.

 

I didn't start the personal attacks, you and aprioriksi did. You were the ones saying that people were biased, illogical, emotional, hypocrites, blind, etc. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. But, again, too late to turn back now. Trying to change the subject to pleas for less personal attacks doesn't change the fact that you have claimed to have run experiments and generated data from then yet you refuse to corroborate that claim by presenting the parameters of your experiments along with the data those experiments supposedly generated. Empty claims are basically drivel, anyway.

 

You really don't know English. Hypocrite applies to you perfectly. It's not a personal attack. You are biased toward analog joystick as you admitted it. Blind following the blind applies if you follow analog joysticks because many others are doing it (again your own admission). Your P and -P for many things is illogical. Attacking people's user IDs doesn't follow from any argument anyone presented here nor bringing in people's mothers/grandmothers or whoever you bring in.

 

You really don't know English. Hypocrite applies to you perfectly. Of course you and Didntknow16 have been guilty of multiple personal attacks directed towards multiple people on this thread, people have been pointing out these occurrences continuously. You are biased against analog joystick as you admitted it. Blind following the blind applies if you follow digital joysticks because a few of your imaginary friends are doing it (again another of your empty claims that you can't prove). Your P and -P for all your empty claims is illogical, if you've run "hundreds" of experiments and have "megabytes" of data then the logical thing to do is to present all your data and all your findings, otherwise you merely support the majority view that you never ran any experiment in your life and that you have no data to support your theory. You cannot claim to have run "hundreds" of experiments and have "megabytes" of data and then not prove by presenting them to the rest of us.

[atariksi]

 

The data for Donkey Kong was posted in post #540. The screenshot of major failure points and the REC files. REC file is better than a video since in a video you can't really tell what the user did with this controls-- you only see the results.

 

The screenshots for the popular games were posted in posted in post #114. I described the failures using analog joysticks rather than post the REC files which are also available.

[JamesD]

Finding isolated instances where an analog joystick makes some specific maneuver in a game designed for digital joysticks does not prove an digital joystick offers better control overall no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

That was supposed to read as follows:

Finding isolated instances where an analog joystick makes some specific maneuver more difficult in a game designed for digital joysticks, does not prove an digital joystick offers better control overall no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

[kool kitty89]

Finding isolated instances where an analog joystick makes some specific maneuver in a game designed for digital joysticks does not prove an digital joystick offers better control overall no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

That was supposed to read as follows:

Finding isolated instances where an analog joystick makes some specific maneuver more difficult in a game designed for digital joysticks, does not prove an digital joystick offers better control overall no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Yeah, all that does is prove that one particular instance... and you could do the same in reverse. (and that's still excluding what exactly "analog" and "digital" refer to in this context and whether it's refering to limited vs wide range variable control -low vs high precision- be it analog or digital based for either example, how accuracy is taken into account, different joystick/gamepad/controller designs, etc, etc)

 

There are significant numbers of "analog" joysticks/gamepads that are actually digital in the conventional sense. The Nintendo brand N64 controllers use the same mechanism as mechano-optical ball mice with a light source shining through a perpherated disc tied to each axis and photo diodes used to create digital pulses as the output. (the N64 controller of course uses a single serial output line for all data, so the actual mechanism doesn't matter to the game/console/programmer and most 3rd party controllers use potentiometers instead)

 

Of course, that still prevents the user from knowing the exact state, but that's even an issue with a single switch as the user can't be absolutely sure whether it's pressed or not except for specific conditions: ie like if it's a tact switch and the user reliably knows the response given by such and assuming the switch itself (and external casing/mechanism) doesn't cause any complications in reliable and accurate results.

 

I already posted earlier that there are indeed plenty of cases of simple 4-switch joysticks and gamepads that have definite accuracy problems: including the flashback 2 controllers compared to real CX40s or CX10s. Plus, even with a single controller, there's wear issues and throw length, etc. (even with the CX40 you have varying boot wear, presence of the hex disc, etc and a fair amount of throw and force needed to be applied for reliable and accurate operation -I find it a fair be easier to use work/loose controllers with missing hex discs given how stiff the boots tend to be) You can push in a direction and have a fair amount of movement without actually hitting the switch and you'd never know for sure unless you had a display to show feedback.

[atariksi]

Yeah, all that does is prove that one particular instance... and you could do the same in reverse. (and that's still excluding what exactly "analog" and "digital" refer to in this context and whether it's refering to limited vs wide range variable control -low vs high precision- be it analog or digital based for either example, how accuracy is taken into account, different joystick/gamepad/controller designs, etc, etc)

It's not a particular instance-- I mentioned many cases where analog has higher failure rate just in Donkey Kong. You do worse in the entire game-- I narrowed it down to those instances where the uncertainty and throw play a major role for that game. And I did use games like Missile Command, Pole Position, and others that are supposed to be analog-based. Even then the digital joystick provides better control. And even if it were a particular instance, that proves that analog joysticks cannot do the same thing a digital joystick can do. If you don't know by now what I meant by digital and analog, then you really are missing out. Read post #1. I clearly stated I'm using Atari 2600 type joystick in the experiment (a Gemini digital joystick is very similar as well) and a Gravis analog joystick as pictured in post #1 and Atari 5200 Wico joystick. Note that both analog joysticks offer calibration and self-centering which is not always true for analog joysticks.

 

Of course, that still prevents the user from knowing the exact state, but that's even an issue with a single switch as the user can't be absolutely sure whether it's pressed or not except for specific conditions: ie like if it's a tact switch and the user reliably knows the response given by such and assuming the switch itself (and external casing/mechanism) doesn't cause any complications in reliable and accurate results.

As I said before, that's rubbish and completely disproven by the blindfold BASIC experiment and the fact that I can do those pixel-exact jumps and maneuvers without relying on ANY FEEDBACK (i.e., response). You really lack the experience of having used digital joysticks. There's only 9 states and one or two buttons. It's the analog joysticks which you don't know the exact state a priori because the extremes are unstable and the center is definitely unstable. Just hitting an analog joystick to one extreme will usually change its center state when let go. And you can't keep calibrating every few seconds. And there are other factors in sampling that effect the values you read. Nor do some softwares allow for calibration and nor is it a good thing for a joystick to require it. I can do those jumps for example in Miner 2049er blindfolded (no feedback needed). If you need feedback for what you are doing, you decreased the control you have of your joystick. While, that may be okay for some slow-paced non-pixel exact games, it still doesn't equate it to a digital joystick. If I allow for feedback, there's no reason why a digital joystick can't do anything an analog joystick can do. Just built a GUI and allow a digital joystick to select whatever needs to be done like a mouse.

 

I already posted earlier that there are indeed plenty of cases of simple 4-switch joysticks and gamepads that have definite accuracy problems: including the flashback 2 controllers compared to real CX40s or CX10s. Plus, even with a single controller, there's wear issues and throw length, etc. (even with the CX40 you have varying boot wear, presence of the hex disc, etc and a fair amount of throw and force needed to be applied for reliable and accurate operation -I find it a fair be easier to use work/loose controllers with missing hex discs given how stiff the boots tend to be) You can push in a direction and have a fair amount of movement without actually hitting the switch and you'd never know for sure unless you had a display to show feedback.

 

Although digital joysticks exist with longer throw than the Atari 2600 joystick, they would still be preferred over analog joysticks with the same throw because they don't produce erroneous samples which user doesn't want. See post #600. Wear issues don't come into play in a controlled experiment. We are using both joysticks in good working new-like condition. A little bit of wear doesn't effect digital joysticks since you are already applying full force to get to an extreme not having to worry about any in-between uncertain crap. Both joysticks can have wear/tear issues. In fact, the POTs wear/break down to produce much worse results than a digital joystick. I have seen even Paddles produce "228"s in the middle position when you are about to move them. Whatever complaints you may have about control of a digital joystick, is worse in an analog joystick.

 

There's more to be said but most of these points were already mentioned earlier and you missed them.

[JamesD]

It's not a particular instance-- I mentioned many cases where analog has higher failure rate just in Donkey Kong. You do worse in the entire game--

You do worse in the entire game.

[jetset]

It's not a particular instance-- I mentioned many cases where analog has higher failure rate just in Donkey Kong. You do worse in the entire game--

You do worse in the entire game.

 

+1,000

[atariksi]

It's not a particular instance-- I mentioned many cases where analog has higher failure rate just in Donkey Kong. You do worse in the entire game--

You do worse in the entire game.

 

+1,000

 

No need to get emotional. As I said, opinions don't mean much to me. The fact that only controlled experiments done show that digital joysticks provide better control means by induction that they apply to others as well. Just like F=ma example. And there's the logic/math to back up that they in fact must follow the same results. No need to dismiss the facts under the rug and try to make F=ma other other experiments look subjective.

[jetset]

It's not a particular instance-- I mentioned many cases where analog has higher failure rate just in Donkey Kong. You do worse in the entire game--

You do worse in the entire game.

 

+1,000

 

No need to get emotional.

 

Nah, a +10,000 or more would be emotional.

[Divya16]

So atariksi didn't make personal attacks for all the world to see? He was framed? He didn't post "You can't read", "I proved you can't read"... and that is the tame stuff.

Actually, you were mistaken there after I had gone through that thread, but it's off-topic to argue that here. The thread is still there so you can go see for yourself.

 

Really? A quick search came up with this:

Post 1150

I don't see the need to continue with that as I have proved my point and that you are wrong.

You are wrong. I read the thread and you misread things (maybe purposely) and then being called "not being able to read" is no longer a personal issue since it's true. But your posts about "trolling" and some others are personal.

 

And I notice this got removed when you quoted me:

Because I don't want to repeat your off-topic personal attacks.

 

Maybe it's not the rest of us that have the problem. You totally missed the insults in the other tread so why should we trust you to actually read our posts?

 

Didn't see any but your insults in this thread are more relevant as we are now in this thread.

[Divya16]

Most definitely refuted.

 

Nothing from my side has been refuted. I guess Divya is right that some people are imagining that it has been refuted. So what is refuted-- the fact that I scored higher with digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks for all the games that I play? The fact that analog joysticks fail more often or slower reaction time in quick turns, running jumps, maneuvering around tight corners, etc. Just played Donkey Kong again with both joysticks and so same results come out again.

 

At best, you've demonstrated the that you don't play as well with analog sticks.

 

If the 'experiment' you list is your standard for proof, then me winning the HSC with an analog stick proves that analog sticks are superior.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Your case:

You can't do a comparison if you only play with one joystick which is your case.

Your logic is flawed here.

 

The game competition provides a better sample size of people than you did.

Your logic is missing and flawed. How can just playing/experimenting with one type of joystick allow anyone to make a claim about the other joysticks. So many variables aren't controlled in that game competition-- how many times each person plays, the experience of each player for the particular game, whether the game actually takes into account pixel-exact moves and jumps, etc. If the same person plays with both joysticks and on same machine and is used to both joysticks, then you can eliminate most of the other variables.

 

In the case of F=ma, you do not have others who have had similar experience, you have others who have proven it in experiments with measurable data. It's math, you do the experiment, the math works or it doesn't. Your experiment does not involve mass, acceleration, force, or math so any reference to this formula is just slight of hand to distract from flaws in your experiment and hypothesis.

 

Induction? Nope. Within the scientific community you must gain enough support from people that back up your results so that people start to trust and accept your results. It is a world of opinion, bias, skepticism, distrust, stubborn nature, fraud... no induction takes place. Good or bad, that's the way it is.

Take any major scientific feud and you'll see there is no such thing as induction, and you'll also see why there is skepticism and distrust.

 

Saying digital joysticks > analog joysticks in control is mathematical just like F=ma.

 

I am not sure about what you meant by scientific method is world of bias, skepticism, opinion, etc.

[Divya16]

Finding isolated instances where an analog joystick makes some specific maneuver in a game designed for digital joysticks does not prove an digital joystick offers better control overall no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

That was supposed to read as follows:

Finding isolated instances where an analog joystick makes some specific maneuver more difficult in a game designed for digital joysticks, does not prove an digital joystick offers better control overall no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

 

You're mistaken. The flaws of analog joystick which you admit to in "digital joystick" games are also present in other games although they may not be as conspicuous.