Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[ApolloBoy]

The controller that is superior is the one that matches the game you are playing. I pick the controller to match the game style. It provides 100% control 100% of the time.

Exactly. I don't even see why there needs to be an argument about this, it should be clear to everyone that you use either an analog or digital controller depending on what kind of game it is.

[atariksi]

The controller that is superior is the one that matches the game you are playing. I pick the controller to match the game style. It provides 100% control 100% of the time.

Exactly. I don't even see why there needs to be an argument about this, it should be clear to everyone that you use either an analog or digital controller depending on what kind of game it is.

 

He's wrong (and so are you by logic). You never have 100% control with an analog joystick. Relying on feedback is always inferior to knowing the state of the joystick a priori. Neither joystick has 100% control as far as flight simulator goes.

[atariksi]

You were claiming inadequacy on the user as if you knew your analog joystick states. Even going partially on your analog joystick there's uncertainty as analog joysticks vary in range (as stated before) and what will you gain maybe estimate 1/3 or 1/2 pressed instead of full and introduce the complexity for the rest of the games.

No, I claim that you don't need to know the exact state to play certain games better with an analog stick. There really isn't a hindrance not to know that the stickis pressed up 73%. I just need to know I pressed it up a little more than a second ago.

 

As already answered a few times, don't take one example and generalize to all games. You can't rely on feedback for many games to adjust your joystick. If I kept quoting your example like someone else keeps doing, I would end up with a joystick that looks like a flight cockpit.

The analog joystick doesn't need to perfectly replace the flight controls. It just has to do a better job than a digital joystick, which it does.

 

Since you at least admit digital controls are better for some games, perhaps you want to consider what makes them better. The more control you have and the less uncertainty, the better for the human's interface to the computer.

The difference is, the games that work better with digital controls are the ones that are designed (surprise) to move the player at a constant rate.

That's not true. It depends on the implementation and the game. And as I pointed out earlier, you can just enhance the digital joystick to add the "extra" feature rather than switch to analog. Since you already admit [now] that you don't have control over all those states anyway so there pretty much useless; 3 or 4 states would suffice in some specialized digital controller -- not in a controller for general use.

 

When the gameplay requires more subtle control variation, analog is better.

 

I would rather have terrible play (50% control) at Flight Simulator and have 100% control on the other games than have inferior (say 70% control) on all the games and make the joystick complicated.

You seem to live in a weird world where you have a choice of only 1 controller.

 

The controller that is superior is the one that matches the game you are playing. I pick the controller to match the game style. It provides 100% control 100% of the time.

 

The poll is asking you to choose which one you would give you better control; I live in the REAL world where majority of the games don't need the analogicity so when you have to make a choice between the two, you go with the one that gives 100% control in majority of the games. Analog joysticks have their issues so can never be 100% control. Maybe in your imaginary world.

[atariksi]

It's always about the right tool for the right job. Games that require precise control like Frogger or certain platform games a digital stick is the way to go. Centipede? Missile Command? No way do you go digital there.

Really, seems this topic is yet another in a long line of digs at the 5200 controllers. Maybe I'm reading into the OP's post too much but there's an awful lot of those popping up lately. Seems like it's a weak debate.

 

No shot at specifically Atari 5200 controllers. You know very well I'm an Atari 5200 user and have been for a long time-- even built the digital joystick adapter for it. Just getting to the facts; not emotionally involved like some posters have become. You can do digital on Missile Command and Centipede. You can't look at it after the fact-- oh this game supports analog so it depends on the game. Analog introduces uncertainty which could have been avoided in most cases. Uncertainty means less control.

 

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but Centipede and Missile Command were not made analog after the fact. they were made digital, then converted for the likes of the 2600, etc to digital, then back to analog on the 5200, which is what those games were meant to be.

 

They had to be made analog given the 5200 joystick ports. You can't say they were meant for analog since they work perfectly fine with digital controls. What I meant by "after the fact" is the title was originally analog and you assume it REQUIRES an analog joystick. But that's not true as that just happens to be the way it was implemented. Even Pole Position works fine with digital joystick.

 

It works fine with a digital joystick, but the debate is what provides better correct? If we went simply by what "works fine" your entire point is, well...pointless. "Works fine" does not = "better"

And all but a few games on the 5200 "work fine" with the analog control. PacMan, Miner 2049er, Kangaroo...they all work just as "fine" with analog as Centipede and Missile Command work "fine" with digital.

 

You do have 100% control in pole position with a digital joystick. By "fine", I'm referring to missed features. I don't see any features that I missed given that Pole Position is supposed to be one of those few games that use analogicity. It's not like Breakout where I can't move quickly from one side to the other. In breakout with a joystick, you also have 100% control with digital joystick but you have 0% control in quickly going from one side to the other (as currently implemented using standard digital joystick), so that would work better with paddles.

 

As far as Centipede and Missile Command, digital joystick wins there hands down over analog joystick.

[RevEng]

For accuracy with an analog stick one doesn't need to know the exact accurate position of the stick. Nobody is thinking "I need to move up at 27% of full speed... Adjusting sick to 27% of the throw distance"

 

The analog stick provides 100% accuracy from the perspective that I'm able to move the player at my intended varying relative rate. And I'm hardly unique in that ability.

 

So tell me, how does one accurately use a digital stick to move a player at a heading 5 degrees from straight up?

[atariksi]

For accuracy with an analog stick one doesn't need to know the exact accurate position of the stick. Nobody is thinking "I need to move up at 27% of full speed... Adjusting sick to 27% of the throw distance"

 

The analog stick provides 100% accuracy from the perspective that I'm able to move the player at my intended varying relative rate. And I'm hardly unique in that ability.

 

So tell me, how does one accurately use a digital stick to move a player at a heading 5 degrees from straight up?

 

Without making the logic specific to your example of a usage, if you could know the exact state of when it's 10% or 20%, that would be better control than not knowing that. Thus, you do not have 100% control over your joystick. And for your specific case, you are relying on feedback which is inferior to knowing exactly which state you are in a priori (as stated many times).

 

If you are going to allow for feedback, I don't see any reason why you can't move a digital joystick until the heading reads 5 degrees. The problems you get in using an analog joystick in pac-man, Miner, etc. still exist for those games that use the analogicity for speed so you're never at 100% control.

[atariksi]

The original poster has clearly made up their mind and will argue against any other opinion so it's pointless to even answer.

 

Don't represent me. Otherwise, I can also say "JamesD is an Apple fan and will vote for analog regardless of it's lack of control over digital."

[atariksi]

So... what kind of controllers are on modern game systems?

 

And the poll says it's a scientific fact. So where is a link to the scientific evidence?

 

Read the thread (and the title). It's not about what controllers are used by what systems but which provide better control (for humans).

I read the thread. I see "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it". I see no link to any kind of scientific study... I just see an opinion poll in an Atari forum which isn't exactly an unbiased group.

 

You were just in the mood for more arguing so you posted this poll.

 

 

I answered that in someone else's request. See post #29 that sums up my logic. Or earlier in post #6 or post #1 (which you should have read before voting).

 

Or my next post which I am going to make shortly.

[atariksi]

Is the basic argument in favor of digital joysticks that the state of the controller itself can be better determined by the user because there are only two states (per direction) and that the controller encounters a physical stop when the active state is reached? While I do agree that the absolute state of the controller is much more evident, that argument wouldn't be entirely true. Based on some research I did when building a digital controller, I found that there is a specification (even on rubber dome switches common in gaming joysticks) that indicates how far the user can move the switch beyond the point where electrical contact is made. In other words, the game could respond to the active condition well before the user hits the physical limit on the switch. This physical phenomenon occurs with microswitches, leaf switches and I'd guess most types of mechanical "digital" push button. So, there's not technically a complete correlation between physical stop and electrical contact in a lot of digital controllers.

 

There is a widely available joystick device in which electrical contact is practically synchronous with the physical limit of the switch mechanism. The construction of the Tac-2 affords such a feedback system as I think the OP is referring to. I don't personally care for that feel and would sell you my Tac-2 sticks if you wanted to buy them and I could locate them.

The contacts not coming together instantaneously for some joysticks is not that big of a deal as you have a few microseconds before the value of the joystick gets latched. And then again in the improbably case even if it doesn't get latched with correct value instantly, what's the error (it'll read center state instead of the direction for a few microseconds or less as you turn). Compare that to error of analog POTs-- may jump from 228 to 0 or any value in between. What happens to the POT when you turn while the POT scanning is in the middle of taking place. And POTs take the screen time to scan or 1ms to 2ms in the PC's case. Enough time to get a screwed up reading in quick turns.

 

While the analog control itself is effectively working on a continuum of positions, it is possible for the user to ascertain the state of the device by how the game is responding. Thus, visual feedback gives the necessary information instead of strictly tactile feedback. I suppose it would have to take the human brain longer to process "is it moving as fast/far as I want" vs. "is it moving", but it seems to work well enough in many situations. There is also the sense of proprioception which allows us to know how far we've moved the input device. There's also in many cases a (slightly progressive) spring in the joystick which provides some additional tactile feedback regarding position.

I don't feel any clicks or springs on my analog joystick. Maybe there are some that have it -- analogous maybe to a rotary phone. And you can't rely on feedback as that's too late and less control than knowing the state a priori. When I turn left, I shouldn't have to see the left turning taking place to know that I turned left.

 

Some of your other points I already answered.

 

I really, really wouldn't want to drive my car with an all or nothing throttle, steering or brake control. (The analog/digital division gets fuzzy because a true digital encoder or similar device would likely be used to approximate analog control.) I feel the same way about digital controls in a driving game. I've never been in need of one, but I imagine an electric wheelchair is controlled by an analog joystick for similar reasons.

Sometimes you don't want the complexity of the real world in the video game. Less complexity is also related to better control. If I can't tell turning joystick 1/2 or 1/3 especially in a fast paced game, it slows down my response time. Pole Position doesn't use analog brakes nor analog gas pedals. It's a fun car game. Hey, even the analog joysticks have mainly digital buttons so are you for changing those buttons to analog because they would help you better simulate the gas/brake pedals. I hope not.

 

Of course, you can build into the software a "ramp" that will allow an object to move progressively more rapidly, but that doesn't feel as intuitive to me. And tapping a digital joystick can provide a measure of fine control. Again, I have a harder time using that method.

My point is to leave out the complexity altogether for directions and for buttons. That helps user have full control of the joystick without contemplating how much to press the button or the directions which would only apply in specific games that are very much in the minority.

 

Digital joysticks are simpler to implement, routinely made more compact and must be considerably cheaper to implement than an analog joystick. Those factors alone would tend to favor their use in video games (really, anywhere that they are practical). They've obviously been successfully deployed very widely. From this perspective, I would like digital joysticks better if I were a game manufacturer.

Actually, the PC analog joystick port is a simpler and cheaper circuit-- just some 555 chip or something that allows you to measure one-shots. The joysticks vary in prices depending on many factors.

 

Clearly, move-at-a-fixed-rate-in-limited-number-of-directions control methodology is far better served by a digital joystick. Games like Pac-man that only support movement in very narrow, discrete directions and don't require variable speed are ideal candidates for a digital joystick. I agree with those who say that the design of the game dictates which control methodology works best.

 

All in all, if I were pressed to choose one technology over the other, I'd have to go with analog due to its flexibility. I can apply some mechanical stops to an analog joystick and set the software to trigger "all or nothing" at some point in the travel to act like an analog stick. I can imagine a possible way to implement an analog simulation with a conductive rubber dot type of digital joystick (assuming conductivity increases when more pressure is applied), but it'd be tricky if it even worked and would be somewhat limited.

The question is which one you would choose for BETTER CONTROL. I don't see it's flexibility either as all those games that show better results with digital joystick like pac-man, DK, Berzerk, Robotron, Montezuma's Revenge, Pengo, etc. prove my case.

 

NB: I am well aware that I haven't cited a single source of scientific evidence for any of this. I might be willing to read any scientific evidence presented to refute any of my opinions. However, the question in the poll does start with "Do you prefer..." so I choose to focus on preference and my reasons for said preference.

 

(BTW - did I miss the citation of scientific fact upon which the thread purports to be based? It's a long thread and I tend to miss things a lot.)

 

Hey, you are free to express your opinions and facts as you have done. It should be a learning experience not a biased emotional attack. As for my statement about scientific fact, it's based on experiment of playing hundreds of games with both types of joysticks (analog and digital). Paddles/trackball wasn't included. And the following logic (which doesn't require any experiment of study reviews):

 

The joystick that provides more control to the user will overall produce better results for the user in the game. You know the state of the digital joystick at all times. You do NOT know the state of the analog joystick. You have less control over the device which you don't know the state of. I'm speaking knowing "a priori" which is superior than relying on feedback. Analog joysticks have slower switch times given the POTs and have sampling/interpretation flaws.

[Syfo-Dyas]

I wonder what people with no hands prefer to use?

[potatohead]

Classic Atariski argument here where "Better" presented without a qualifier, which is necessary for a rational conclusion, by the way, as it stands right now, no conclusion can be made as the argument is incomplete.

 

If I had to choose one controller, it deffo would be auto-centring, spring loaded, analog stick, with free movement option and two buttons.

 

For FPS, Keyboard Mouse hands down.

 

I would enjoy this discussion much more, if we had a series of qualifiers. Which controller preference for a particular game dynamic is "better", probably would be a worthy read, just sayin'

 

I don't see any missing qualifiers. It's a complete sentence and argument. I do see some gaping holes in your logic (or lack of it).

 

Your logic: That rock is blue. Therefore, all rocks are blue.

 

You are not even showing your case is true (the rock is blue) and claiming it's a "Classic atariski argument". Perhaps, you should have spoken out when those other arguments weren't to your liking and refuted them then. Maybe the machine you like happens to have an inferior analog interface. I suggest English Composition as a start to learn about qualifiers. Digital joysticks provide better control is true blue in my experience.

 

Hey, maybe you're just having an emotional fit so I'll stop here.

 

LOL!!

 

Well, "digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks". What kind of better control? Are we talking about the latency between thought and action, or perhaps that same latency between user input and program recognition of it? Does fewer overall input states = better? If so, which scenarios? PACMAN requires one set of input states, and TAIL GUNNER requires another, by way of one of many examples.

 

Now, there is a solid argument for fewer overall input state choices being better, but in which ways would that be? Fewer choices = less confusion, faster actions, more consistent input?

 

And which analog joysticks. Now I qualified my post, with a kind of joystick. Some of the ones out there are really horrible. Would take the digital device in a second, unless it's that Intelly disk thing. Ugh.

 

So then, are we really talking about just bad controllers in general, with potentially analog controllers having the potential to be a lot more bad, and in more ways than digital ones? Hell, I think there is a case for that one to be true enough.

 

And it goes on and on.

 

When we use a word like "best", "better", "good", "bad", we invoke what is known as a value judgment. Those must be qualified to tell the other readers what is actually being said, or no real "scientific" conclusion can be made. Much better to then say, "I like digital controls better than analog ones, and believe/feel that is true, because..." Other readers can then identify with what is being communicated, and the exchange has some value, beyond just cheering up the ones people like the most. Now, that's pretty fun, no worries, but is a far cry from scientific.

 

...oh, and no emotional fit here! I like controller / input device discussions. I like them a lot, when said discussion actually has some context that's useful, but I still like them in any case, just not as much.

[potatohead]

The original poster has clearly made up their mind and will argue against any other opinion so it's pointless to even answer.

 

But it could be entertaining

[potatohead]

BTW: The skilled analog joystick user does know the state of the stick.

 

It works just like a paddle does. There is a period where the ratio of input to motion is learned. For a paddle, that's just a one dimensional thing. With a analog joystick it's two dimensions, but the mechanic is the same.

 

The case for the KABOOM user, for example, not understanding the state of the paddle is pretty weak, given the overall speed of that game. One of the core game skills learned by the better players is to map that paddle to the absolute screen positions, in a sense, just knowing the "state" of the input in it's entirety. There is not a feedback* in play for this, the learning of the state maps thought to action, just as we see happening with a digital device.

 

Realistically, if continuous feedback is needed, there is a great case for that user not yet learning to map the analog space of the stick to the field of motion, or more general case input.

 

Again, the game "Tail Gunner" works exactly the same way in two dimensions, and the better players simply map the plane of movement on the screen to the movement on the stick, being then able to instantly select the desired screen position, from all possible screen positions, and to do so computing, and ideally executing, one vector of motion. (there is some correction for lower skill players, of course)

 

The digital device user, in both scenarios one dimensional and two dimensional, must compute multiple things, or have the game physics adapt their motion to compensate for the coarse input means available to them.

 

Finally, there are states on digital sticks as well as analog ones. There are fewer of them, of course, but they are still there. A digital stick, say in the "left" position, requires a different motion to reach "lower right", than it would from "up", for example. The vectors of motion for the user are fewer, and generally do not require the "mapping" skill described above. That's a much simpler case, which arguably can deliver robust control, given the interaction dynamics are within the limits of that digital input case.

 

Where those dynamics exceed that simple case, the control is arguably less effective than with a more appropriate input device.

 

 

There is a good reason analog buttons, and sticks are on modern controllers today, and that is being able to handle a very wide variety of game dynamics on a single, robust, input device.

 

So, I don't know where that fits into "better", but I do know the scope of possible inputs and game play mechanics is significantly more diverse with analog means, both buttons and sticks, than it is simple, digital only ones.

 

*at least not one of the type described here. It's a more general case of constant "calibration", where each movement has some amount of error, generally being the sum of the noisy device, the users hand inertia, etc... Skilled players are taking that feedback to PRECOMPUTE their next moves, not to validate the move that was just done. That happens to be the key skill needed for effective mastery of a analog device.

 

Without that skill, the user must cycle through move, validate, move, validate, and that has too much latency for all but casual gaming.

 

...and the case of "knowing I moved left", isn't any different for the analog user. They simply put the stick into the left position, just as the digital user does. The difference being the state can be "generally left", and that depends on the game dynamics, and how the input is processed.

 

If the game is orthogonal, the analog space is divided into some limits, with in-between states, either filtered out, or rounded into the simple orthogonal states. (I personally prefer the rounding, because it's more fault tolerant for moderate skill players, but that's just me. Others may prefer the filters...)

 

Again, if the mapping of input space to actions is learned, the user is just as capable of placing the stick in "left" position, from some other position as the digital user is. If that were not true, "Tail Gunner" would simply not be possible at the more advanced levels of play, requiring exactly that skill to prevail as a player.

 

Edit: For the case of digital joystick states and player confusion / skill, remember that game Zzap? It was just a block in the center of the screen, and I might have the name wrong, but the whole game was about quickly mapping the digital joystick states to actions. Baddies came in from the cardinal directions, and the player had to move the stick in different directions, with lots of patterns in order to blast them away. The point being, if there were no challenge in using the controller, that game would be significantly less entertaining than it actually is!

 

IMHO, just about every artifact of human / controller interaction has been exploited as a game, somehow. On a side note, isn't that kind of cool?

Edited October 26, 2010 by potatohead

[BigO]

"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.

[JamesD]

So... what kind of controllers are on modern game systems?

 

And the poll says it's a scientific fact. So where is a link to the scientific evidence?

 

Read the thread (and the title). It's not about what controllers are used by what systems but which provide better control (for humans).

I read the thread. I see "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it". I see no link to any kind of scientific study... I just see an opinion poll in an Atari forum which isn't exactly an unbiased group.

 

You were just in the mood for more arguing so you posted this poll.

 

 

I answered that in someone else's request. See post #29 that sums up my logic. Or earlier in post #6 or post #1 (which you should have read before voting).

 

Or my next post which I am going to make shortly.

You seem to assume that people can't read or don't understand just because they don't agree with you or because they think your logic is flawed.

 

What study did you cite to back up the claim? None that I can see in any post you mention.

So, what point in time did your logic justify the statement "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it" in the comment for the poll?

At any point in time did you follow any kind of scientific method to verify the accuracy of your hypothesis?

What type of study did you conduct? Was it a double blind study? Was there a control group?

What sample size of people was the study conducted on?

What peer review was the study subjected to?

How exactly do you define "better"? At what point is controlling something considered "better" with one joystick than another?

 

You clearly have nothing but your argument which has no scientific proof to back it up.

Referring to your own arguments to support your own arguments does nothing to prove your point scientifically, and you clearly claim it's scientifically proven.

 

If you had said, "Digital Joysticks are better than Analog Joysticks" that is fine. You are expressing an opinion. But once you say it is "scientifically proven" that carries a whole different meaning. Opinion and arguments alone do not prove something scientifically.

 

To keep things simple, an argument is just a hypothesis. You need some data that backs it up for it to be scientifically proven and the experiment/study must be repeatable by other people so it can be independently verified.

Look up scientific method before you argue otherwise.

[ledzep]

I'm so sorry you have missed the points and are not even addressing the points in pretending it's a reply to my latest post. Subject is pretty clear and first post is the details for it. You want to argue something else other than what this topic is-- techincally called Chewbacca defense. If you just stick to analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks, your paddles/steering wheel example never would be argued over. Nor have you addressed the contruction issue I brought up and keep giving the same example of flight control. If you have a BIG ANALOG device vs. a small one (like an analog joystick at home), it MAKES A BIG difference. A steering wheel is less prone to error than a small paddle. I'm going to let you think about it and calm down before I answer the rest of your gibberish and drivel since they don't even address the points I made. Just to give an example of your gibberish and irrationality:

 

I've gotten the points just fine. I'm so sorry you can't back up your own words from your own subject line -

 

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

 

If it is a scientific fact then it should be no problem for you to reference or link to these scientific facts. You have stated that it is a scientific fact. Which means it has been established as such. If that is true (it isn't) then you should be able to show us where it has been established. Simply saying you believe it is true and therefore that makes it true doesn't matter. Using sciency words like "thus" and "a priori" doesn't matter. You started this thread with a definitive statement. Until you back up that definitive statement you have lost this argument before it even starts.

 

I'm going to let you think about it and calm down before I disprove the rest of your gibberish and drivel since you don't even address the initial statement you made.

 

You just blurted out something out of the blue. You wrote: "In fact I almost snap the stick off because I'm expecting the digital joystick to respond to how fast I move in a direction (as if it were an analog joystick or trackball)." Now my experiment, I can play the same exact game using any of the controllers discussed using a joystick simulator and even record and view the data from analog and digital joysticks in real-time game play (see picture). Before you blurt out any more crap and insults (which I will ignore), think about it and calm down.

 

I gave you an example where digital joysticks fail me when playing a game that is better controlled with an analog joystick (or other non-digital joystick controller). I didn't blurt anything out, I wrote out a description of an event. You've done nothing but describe how digital joysticks work better for you. Were all those observations "blurted out" as well?

 

No way, you have a .gif image? Well, that's practically the same as scientific data! Or not. If I'm not allowed to include paddles or trackballs in this debate to support my position then neither are you allowed to include joystick simulators. Tsk tsk. Only the actual controls such as those you listed in your poll options should satisfy you. So, you ran an "experiment"? What type of experiment? What were the variables? Who participated? Did you have a control group? Who reviewed your results? Ya, that's what I thought.

 

Since you don't actually have any scientific facts to point us to then your next best move is to conduct an actual experiment. An actual experiment, not just you confirming your own bias towards digital joysticks. Before you blurt out any more crap and insults, you need to find 50-100 people minimum, gamers and non-gamers, and have them play a series of video games to test our your theory (read: not a scientific fact). In fact you'd need two groups.

 

The first group would play a series of games in two sets of plays, one set being maybe 5 times with an analog joystick and the other set playing the same game maybe 5 times with a digital joystick. You would have to include at least one game for each type of native controller (so, a spinner game, a paddle game, a trackball game, a buttons game, a digital joystick game, an analog joystick game, a dual-joystick game, etc.) which can be played with either type of joystick but hopefully multiple examples of each to minimize sampling error. This will give you a good initial grouping of data for how people, not just you, view digital vs. analog joysticks when applied to video games that were originally designed for the various types of controllers.

 

The second group would play the same series of games but the difference would be that they would play the games in three sets - the first set of maybe 5 times with the game's native controller, the second set of maybe 5 times with a digital joystick and the third set of maybe 5 times with an analog joystick. This is necessary to get a more accurate view of how digital joysticks stack up against analog joysticks and how well either joystick compares to the game's native controller. It might be that the data says that one joystick scores better than the other but that neither was worth a damn for the game when compared to its native controller.

 

For the games I would suggest, off the top of my head -

 

Button Games - Space Invaders, Space Duel, Rip-Off!, Star Castle

Spinner Games - Tempest, Star Trek Strategic Operations Simulator, Zektor, Omega Race

Paddle Games - Breakout, Kaboom!, Super Monaco GP, Stunt Cycle, Warlords

Trackball Games - Centipede, Missile Command, Quantum, Marble Madness

Digital Joystick Games - Pac-Man, Frogger, Bosconian, Xevious, Rally-X

Analog Joystick Games - Tail Gunner, Star Wars, Star Raiders

Dual-Joystick Games - Battlezone, Robotron, Space Dungeon, Black Widow

 

Now that would get you most of the way towards being able to state that it was a scientific fact. You can't pretend to do that until you have unbiased data via experiments and data gathering to present. You have none. Saying that you prefer digital joysticks over analog joysticks or that it's obvious to you that they provide "better" control is about as useful as watching "Super Size Me" and thinking that that one clown's miserable experience with McDonald's food somehow applies to everyone (hint: It doesn't.)

 

As for your weak argument about POTs being too imprecise for analog joysticks, what does that biased theory say about this? Whoops.

 

Finally, it is the poor debater who won't answer another person's points or questions by pretending to be put off by that person's personal attacks. I didn't attack you but, so what, be the bigger man and actually address the short-comings in your thinking that I pointed out. I can't wait for you to show how piano keys are digital inputs (your claim, not mine), how real airplanes that use analog flight sticks would be "better" controlled with digital flight sticks, how video game players actual worry about or are conscious of joystick position states while they play (and rest easier with the knowledge that the joystick in their control is digital), how you know that I'm not used to digital joysticks based on my one comment about playing Centipede with one, and how you have proof that humans cannot move an analog joystick as quickly as a digital joystick to attain max states (all left, all right, all up, all down). Can't wait. Unless... you can't answer them?

[ledzep]

I read the thread. I see "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it". I see no link to any kind of scientific study... I just see an opinion poll in an Atari forum which isn't exactly an unbiased group.

 

You were just in the mood for more arguing so you posted this poll.

 

 

I answered that in someone else's request. See post #29 that sums up my logic. Or earlier in post #6 or post #1 (which you should have read before voting).

 

Or my next post which I am going to make shortly.

 

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?

[Divya16]

So... what kind of controllers are on modern game systems?

 

And the poll says it's a scientific fact. So where is a link to the scientific evidence?

 

Read the thread (and the title). It's not about what controllers are used by what systems but which provide better control (for humans).

I read the thread. I see "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it". I see no link to any kind of scientific study... I just see an opinion poll in an Atari forum which isn't exactly an unbiased group.

 

You were just in the mood for more arguing so you posted this poll.

 

 

I answered that in someone else's request. See post #29 that sums up my logic. Or earlier in post #6 or post #1 (which you should have read before voting).

 

Or my next post which I am going to make shortly.

You seem to assume that people can't read or don't understand just because they don't agree with you or because they think your logic is flawed.

You can't read (or worse don't understand). He wrote that logic doesn't require a scientific study. And in scientific method, you perform a controlled experiment and let others repeat it. I play Atari 5200, PC, and Atari 800 games and come to a conclusion and let others try to repeat it. Many have done this experiment (except you maybe).

 

What study did you cite to back up the claim? None that I can see in any post you mention.

So, what point in time did your logic justify the statement "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it" in the comment for the poll?

At any point in time did you follow any kind of scientific method to verify the accuracy of your hypothesis?

What type of study did you conduct? Was it a double blind study? Was there a control group?

What sample size of people was the study conducted on?

What peer review was the study subjected to?

How exactly do you define "better"? At what point is controlling something considered "better" with one joystick than another?

It's simple logic: You completely control the digital joystick at all times. You don't for analog joystick. It's just hodge podge for most of the games-- erroneous results. You are ignoring things-- or not reading them. You actually defeated yourself here by claiming "what point is controlling something considered 'better' with one joystick than another." Duh, that's what a controller is meant for. It's not for good looks or having 10 buttons. That's too complex to even look at. (see post #1) That's a good starting point for you.

 

@Potatohead: some good points and unbiased.

 

@Syfo: I'm pretty sure a blind man would have hard time using feedback to determine the state of his joystick! That pretty much shows how inferior the control is-- not being able to tell its state a priori. And I'm sure even a blind man can completely control the digital joystick. As for one with no hands, using feet may be the option-- again digital joystick wins there. And for not-handicapped humans, digital wins for all but slow-paced feedback reliant games that are usually too complex to play anyway even with the analogicity.

[Divya16]

I read the thread. I see "It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it". I see no link to any kind of scientific study... I just see an opinion poll in an Atari forum which isn't exactly an unbiased group.

 

You were just in the mood for more arguing so you posted this poll.

 

 

I answered that in someone else's request. See post #29 that sums up my logic. Or earlier in post #6 or post #1 (which you should have read before voting).

 

Or my next post which I am going to make shortly.

 

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):

 

(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.

[RevEng]

...for my statement about scientific fact, it's based on experiment of playing hundreds of games with both types of joysticks (analog and digital).

Congratulations! Your experiment with a sample size of one subject has scientifically proven that for atariski digital controllers are superior.

 

I eagerly await other scientific atariski facts, like how red is superior to blue, and which lucky number is superior.

 

Others here like to call these these conclusions made from studies with a sample size of one subject "opinions". Its the more intellectually honest thing to do.

[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?

Edited October 26, 2010 by OldAtarian

[Divya16]

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.[/font][/color]

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.

 

He wasn't referring to you in "biased emotional attack" as far as I see it. If you read the thread, there were some emotional remarks made by some that were irrelevant to the topic (and some more later).

 

The experiment of playing the same game with analog joystick and digital isn't anecdotal evidence if you can consistently repeat the same results. I have been playing analog and digital joystick based games as well and finishing some levels in Montezuma's Revenge and Miner 2049er is a pain with an analog joystick. Since you agree that digital is better for some games like Pac-man, you can see there's some inherent flaw in the analog joystick. Don't know the technicalities but it's there especially on PCs.

[Divya16]

...for my statement about scientific fact, it's based on experiment of playing hundreds of games with both types of joysticks (analog and digital).

Congratulations! Your experiment with a sample size of one subject has scientifically proven that for atariski digital controllers are superior.

 

I eagerly await other scientific atariski facts, like how red is superior to blue, and which lucky number is superior.

 

Others here like to call these these conclusions made from studies with a sample size of one subject "opinions". Its the more intellectually honest thing to do.

 

That made no sense at all. You already admitted that certain games are better with digital joystick. So, there's some science behind it. Your analogy of red/blue is inapplicable. You are assuming it's one subject. It's actually you who keep repeating example of variable speed that falls under one subject and in the minority.

 

I'm surprised how biased some people are. In the 1980s, when most computers had digital joysticks (amiga, Atari ST, C64, etc.), it was a norm that digital joysticks were superior and people were trying to use digital joysticks with PCs via parallel ports.

[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.

[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?

 

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 or they would still be using them.

 

Oh, and I have Namco Museum for the XBOX 360 and have no problem using the analog sticks.

 

AND just who the hell do you think you are calling me a hypocrite? I call myself OldAtarian because I was there when the machines were actually new and used them over the intervening years so that makes me both old and an atarian. Kindly point out the hypocrisy. The 5200 is also an Atari in spite of how much you seem to wish it weren't and it used analog controllers so analog controllers are as much a part of Atari history as digital ones. So take your charges of hypocrisy and shove them.

Edited October 26, 2010 by OldAtarian