Jump to content

ledzep's Photo


Member Since 15 Feb 2010
OFFLINE Last Active Yesterday, 12:12 AM

#2123990 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:26 AM

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 :roll:
- Chewbacca defense :sad:
- It's not science (i.e., it doesn't agree with my opinion which is fact) :x

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.

#2123988 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:22 AM

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.

#2123310 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:47 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explain how to accurately represent 1/3 digitally.

Damn you, analog real world!!

#2123246 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:17 AM

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?

#2123239 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:53 AM

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?

#2122494 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:53 AM

You are voting for one of the three joysticks. You can't vote for multiple ones since you have to decide which one you prefer. I thought you were joking about feedback earlier. But it's a lame excuse for not admitting the uncertainty of the state of analog joysticks. You already have game elements to worry about than to add to the user frustration of determining his joystick state by looking at feedback. Analog joysticks are giving less control if you have to rely on feedback rather than knowing a priori the state. You are ahead of the game with digital joysticks. When they made rotary phones and put those circular holes in it to try to minimize the uncertainty of the analog state of what you dial, that couldn't rely on feedback but had to know beforehand. Of course the touch tone phones (digital) were better.

The subject line says "Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks (It's a scientific fact; let's see who can refute it)". That is what I was responding to. For you to make your case you have to prove (which you haven't) that it is actually a scientific fact (which it ain't). I didn't vote for multiple anything (I chose analog). But you put out a loaded, incorrect statement like that subject line and this is what you end up with.

It's clearly stated in the first post that you are picking from the joysticks in the picture or similar NOT paddles. Yes, paddles do have uncertainty as well but not as much as analog joysticks. I know it's made of two POTs but the construction makes a big difference. I would never put arrow keys/ctrl key (digital) in a separate catagory if I didn't think the construction makes a difference. Heck, even piano keys are digital so that can also be modified to serve as a digital joystick but it would be much harder to use than a joystick with a stick and button(s). For one thing, going diagonally is easier with a stick like in a game like Topper. I think Archimedes said if he had a lever big enough, he can lift the earth. So less stress/strain using a stick-based digital joystick. Mouse is easier to use than a trackball although they are essentially the same circuit-wise. So NO, paddles are not the same as an analog joystick.

It's clearly stated in your subject line that you are challenging people to refute your "scientific fact". You can't expect counter-arguments to be comprised solely of "nuh-uh" and "yuh-huh". I could quote Monty Python's Argument Sketch, specifically gainsaying, but I doubt you'd successfully follow that point, either.

And if you think piano keys are digital you've never played a piano and you really don't understand the advantages of analog controls. They, like analog joysticks, paddles and trackballs, have a speed or force component to their action, something that the simple on/off inputs from a digital joystick can never provide.

It's in the first post. You don't see anyone driving cars with an analog joystick either but using a big paddle (not a small paddle either) since car steering require analogicity and both analog joystick and digital joystick would produce bad results. And FYI, even breakout is playable with digital joystick (see Flashback system) and they do provide better control, but you lack the fast motion from one side to the other that you get with a paddle so they sacrificed the better control for adding that analogicity so they get that extra speed feature.

"Playable" doesn't equal "better control". Have you actually played Breakout? When it gets really fast you most definitely need the fast motion which you admit that digital joysticks don't provide while ignoring that analog joysticks do. Again, it depends on the game.

And why do you keep ignoring actual planes (I'm assuming single-seat fighter) with their (gasp!) analog joysticks? Do you really think a pilot can fly a plane with a digital joystick and get the same responsiveness? And what if you replaced the foot pedals with two giant digital buttons? When that poor bastard gets shot down at least he can die content that he knew, at every moment, what state his digital joystick was in, thank Odin, and wonder how he even got shot down by the other pilot with his worse-controlled analog joystick plane.

Well, programming matters because the sampling/interpreting of the data plays a role. There's calibration needed with Wicos and even for A5200 sticks you get inconsistent values for center/left/right/etc. regardless of calibration.

No, it doesn't matter when your position is that digital joysticks provide better control (vs. ease of programming) and it's a supposed scientific fact. That is a user evaluation, not a programmer evaluation. Maybe you're just not that good at programming for analog controls. You might as well include the extra difficulty in manufacturing and the extra components required for analog joysticks, like that would matter to the player using the joystick, either.

You misunderstood. Just quoting one game requiring analog and one game from digital doesn't make the joysticks equally in demand. You are voting if you had to choose. You do better in games where you have more control so you choose the joystick that provides better control. Nothing to do with laziness. Controllers are meant for controlling so no sense in picking analog because it gives you some speed feature but which one provides better control. If only digital joysticks existed, the few games that need analogicity would get adapted for digital.

If only analog joysticks existed, the games that didn't need your "analogicity" would continue to not benefit from it. Like 5200 Pac-Man.

You didn't understand the logic. You were using Paddle/trackball examples to promote the analog joystick. But the two are different so rethink your logic.

I am promoting analog controllers, of which the analog joystick is one. I understand the logic fine. As stated by you, you seem to believe that all users would be in controller bliss if only they were restricted to one option wherein they always knew the state of their digital joystick, that they were certain that left could only mean left and up could only mean up and there were no fears of in-between positioning or states. Because, ya, that's what everybody talks about, right? What state is the joystick in?

In order to argue against that narrow-minded view it is necessary to discuss the differences and preferences between analog and digital in general. Otherwise why would any user ever prefer an analog joystick? You seem to think that it's really really really difficult for anyone to use an analog joystick with a digital style game. It isn't. It's annoying to get used to at first but so what.

Analog provides infinite control. Digital provides limited (two states per) control. It is possible to argue that an analog stick provides too much input for a simple on/off requirement such as left, right, up, down, but it is absolutely wrong to claim that something that provides infinite results (through two analog POTs) provides worse control than something that provides limited results (through 4 or 8 on/off switches). It will be harder to master but if you want easy you should get someone else to play the game for you so you don't have to worry.

Your description shows you are not used to digital joysticks. In order to perform the experiment in an unbiased way, you have to be used to both controllers. Your experiment is biased and not controlled.

Your entire premise is biased and not controlled. Where do you get the idea that you know whether I'm used to digital joysticks or not? I have been playing video games and using digital and analog controls for them since arcade games and home consoles started. I'm used to all controllers, not just joysticks. You assume that because someone can prefer an analog stick and explain why that he must therefore be biased? How biased are you with this digital joysticks provide better control/it's a scientific fact crap?

I am used to the right controller for the job. Which has cost me lots of money because I have to own an actual arcade (tabletop) Tempest and Star Trek Strategic Operations Simulator in order to play my favorite games since using anything other than a spinner and buttons is a waste of my time. There is no way on Earth that you can convince me that Tempest would be just as good with a digital joystick. That's nuts. At least an analog joystick would get me close. Still terrible but not as useless as a digital joystick.

Nothing to do with personal preference in regards to which provides better control. You take longer time to turn a POT to switch directions than move a stick handle of a digital joystick (sampling wise and moving it). So in games like Pac-man, you end up turning upon yourself (instead of going into another row), find it harder to wiggle away the monsters, etc.

Maybe you suffer from arthritis and assume that everyone else does, too. Do you think that moving a joystick such that it stops contacting one leaf switch or button and then contacts a different leaf switch or button is instantaneous? Do you even know how an Atari 2600 physically operates? Do you believe it's impossible for a human being to be as fast left-to-right or up-and-down using an analog stick as he is with a digital stick? Just because you can't handle playing Pac-Man with an analog stick, just because it haunts your dreams and mocks your nervous system, doesn't mean that it's the case for everyone else. How fast do you think a game like Pac-Man is, anyway? It's not about speed, it's about accuracy, and once you figure out how to deal with an analog stick you can play digital controller games with analog controllers just fine. I know a game like Frogger is a pain to play on a 5200 initially but you get used to it. Now try Star Wars with a digital stick and see what a miserable experience that is.

#2121723 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:00 AM

No, my argument is not just programming perspective. It's also from user perspective (see first post). From logical point of view, user has more control if he/she KNOWS the state of the device he has in his hand (and the computer program also knows it as fast as possible once the state changes). You do not know the state of the analog joystick (except fire button(s) which are usually digital). A surgical glove that you put on, you have complete control over but if it had two fingers or was some baseball glove, you have less control. Without any experimentation, you can draw this conclusion. Most of the software in the world can do without analogicity. Some software basically forces it because they assume an analog joystick.

I know the state of the analog stick in my hand just fine when I play analog games. It's called feedback, you get used to it (at least I did). From a logical point of view this argument only matters if you are forced to choose only one controller to use for all games and your two final choices are analog or digital joysticks.

I never argued against Paddles. The choice you are making in the poll is between joysticks (and for the general case not for <1% case where a paddle would be better). Paddles are more accurate than analog joysticks (assuming jitter free). For analog joysticks (they don't really compare to real flight yokes), I used the tick counter on the PC (840 ns/tick) and calibrated several dozen analog joysticks. The range I get is 0..500 for some; 0..900 for some, 0..1200 for many; and some 0..2000. So you got the issue of calibration to worry about. Then you have some that reach their minimum/maximum without you having to take them to the extreme in the left/right/up/down direction. So lack of control right there before you even use the joystick.

You argued against analog controls (of which the analog joystick is one) by trying to convince the reader that in-between or half states are inferior. Paddles "suffer" from the same problem yet it's much easier to play Breakout or Pong with a paddle vs. a digital joystick or just two directional buttons. What do you think an analog stick is, anyway? Two POTs. A paddle is one POT. Or have you never seen an Atari 5200 joystick converted to a paddle controller? So, "logically", paddles can be included when forming a justification since they share the same supposed inferiority that analog joysticks suffer from, it is possible to be neither all left nor all right yet the user still manages to play the game.

And you didn't answer my question - where have you ever seen planes or cars that are steered with simple digital controls such as buttons for left, right, up or down? If digital controls are better then they're better, right? Should hold everywhere.

It doesn't matter how annoying it might be to program for analog sticks in terms of using them in actual games. That's like saying analog film is inferior because it's harder to produce a photographic print due to dark rooms, emulsions, etc. even if the final analog result is better than a comparable digital photo. The choice in the poll also wasn't discussing programming for analog and digital sticks, only using them, so why bring up that difficulty?

I have never worried about analog joystick calibration when firing up a 5200 game.

Nope. The general case is digital joysticks are better controls. You can't think of thousands of others like Donkey Kong, Miner 2049er, River Raid, Space Invaders, Galaxian, etc.

For you, maybe. Again, analog is better for analog, digital is better for digital. You don't win any points by suggesting only games that started out with digital controls. Have you ever played the arcade version of Tail Gunner? Digital joysticks stink for that. It also doesn't matter that there are more games designed for digital joysticks. Again, unless what you're really asking is if you can only have one controller to play every conceivable video game, which one do you choose? I'd choose an analog stick in that case since it could get me most of the way to native paddle and trackball games whereas a digital joystick won't even try.

Or is your poll assuming a maximum degree of laziness and unadaptability for video game players? Least amount of effort?

Well, leave out trackballs and paddles in this comparison. Trackballs are digital for most machines as they are just like mice. Even on Atari 5200, they are digital and then converted to analog because the joystick ports happen to only take analog input for directional control. They actually provide the better speed control (as someone mentioned earlier) than analog joysticks. So I think you mixed up too many things here. We are just comparing analog joysticks vs. digital joysticks. Paddles and trackballs are separate and also not your general case even if you include them. You can't say anything against digital joysticks in general by taking some specific example where paddles/trackballs work better.

P.S.: I get better Missile command scores using digital joystick than a trackball.

I'm not trying to include other analog controls in the poll but they are fair game in terms of trying to explain why someone would prefer or welcome an analog joystick over a digital one. As I said before, a paddle is the single axis version of an Atari 5200 style analog joystick. And I included trackballs in trying to explain the usefulness of analog controls because they, too, have a speed component to position in video games, same as paddles and analog joysticks (if coded for that). It might be harder, initially, to get used to a native analog joystick game (Tail Gunner) but once you do, the digital joystick version pales in comparison. The Star Wars arcade game also would blow chunks with a digital joystick instead of the flight yoke.

You also can't say anything against analog joysticks in general by taking some specific examples where digital joysticks work better. Logic is a bitch!

P.S.: I get better Centipede and Missile Command scores using a trackball than a digital joystick. 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). I also score higher more easily playing the Atari 5200 analog joystick version of Star Raiders vs. the Atari 800 digital joystick version. And I have no problem playing Vectrex games with its analog stick, either, even for those games that are supposed to have digital joysticks.

It boils down to personal preference and experience. Me, personally, I prefer analog-controlled games. But then I prefer vector games, too, so who knows what that means.

#2121106 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:14 AM

It's a ridiculous argument. Analog is better for analog and digital is better for digital. Who cares which one is better from a programming standpoint if you're arguing about control? As for flight sims or driving games, when's the last time you saw a plane or car that allowed you to steer with buttons that said Left, Right, Up or Down? Flight yokes and steering wheels have partial positions. Infinite partial positions. Just like analog sticks. So what if it's hard to figure out where exactly an analog stick is in a sim. It's called feedback and everyone who has ever learned to drive a car or fly a plane has figured that out. Agreed, analog sticks are infuriating when dealing with a game like Pac-Man. But then so are paddles. Nothing sucks worse than having to use a digital joystick or a trackball in joystick mode when playing a native trackball game. It's just the way it is. The Atari 5200 should definitely come out with a digital joystick at some point but then games that were trackball or analog joystick arcade games (Missile Command, Tail Gunner) suffer when converted to digital joysticks.

#2106566 New Atari PC Computer?

Posted by ledzep on Sat Oct 2, 2010 4:47 AM

I'd go with the original Atari 800 case (which isn't a poll option but whatever) and have anything that couldn't fit inside that case be connected to it externally with a faux 850 style expansion case or, even better, an expansion case made to look like one of those hex-shaped cases like the 810 disk drive, you could even call it something new like the 890 Bus Expansion. That way you could upgrade with extra hard drives, card readers, graphics cards, ports, etc. The original Atari 800 (and to a lesser extent, the 400) is, to me, the greatest iconic design that Atari ever had. And I'd try to recreate the feel of those old, classic advertisements, too.

#2081354 Developers view old used games as similar to piracy

Posted by ledzep on Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:59 AM

Well, the first peeved software house the article mentions is THQ. Makers of 10 out of 10 material such as "Bratz: Super Babyz"

I feel sad for the guy who had to pay full price for that.

Joking aside the heart of a game company is the actual artists and code monkeys. Creative Director sounds like an uncreative management job to me. Out of the loop and into their own world.

UPDATE: Looks like they noticed their customers were less than pleased..

"Creative Director" is an uncreative management job, though not as bad as "Producer". But come on. "Then it gets really squishy."? Did he really say that? Is he in the 3rd grade? "Aw shucks, guys, can't you all just pay full price and let me buy a new Ferrari? I wanna hang out with Bill Gates!!" What a lame rebuttal. He wants to punish people who buy used games but he's not man enough to admit it. He acts like buying used media is a recent trend or something. Has he heard of eBay yet? Must have been a shock to the core of his being when he found out such an evil entity exists. "People... buy things used?!? You mean like this guy Craig Slist?"

#2081196 Developers view old used games as similar to piracy

Posted by ledzep on Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:17 PM

Those developers who actually hold this view are retarded. Actually they're lazy, greedy and retarded. If they're not making enough money fast enough through video game sales then they should try something else, like pro sports or pop music or selling crack. Someone in that article asked the naive and dumb question "What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product?" People who buy used CDs and DVDs, of course.

The basic problem is that video game makers believe that it is their right to get paid every time something happens with their games. Nice belief system, too bad nobody else agrees with it. There is no difference between 1) me buying a game new and then selling it used and someone else buying it used, 2) me buying a game new and giving it to someone else as a gift and 3) me buying a game new and handing it down to my little brother later when I'm done with it. In all three cases the game is bought once, the developer only sees one instance of profit yet more than one person ends up eventually owning it. Yet somehow option 1 is worse to them. Simply because new money changed hands and they never saw any of it. Boo hoo. I suppose those greedy clowns think that if I buy a game and then take it to a friend's house to play that I owe them money, too.

It's a similar stupid philosophy in the world of autographs. I've gotten some of my Playboy mags' centerfolds (gasp!) signed by Playmates. I bought the magazine and brought it with me. Typically the Playmate charges nothing or charges $10 or so to sign it (she is there all day and many times pays to have a table at that convention so she has to recoup her expenses somehow). I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the occasional model or actress or whatever who sees that some collectors resell the autographed items on their websites or on eBay for a lot of money. Let's say $50 each. "What!?!?!? That's my money! I signed that magazine, it wouldn't be worth squat without my signature!" So, what happens is some of those celebs assume that everyone is selling their autographs for huge profits and...? Right, they jack up their autograph fees. So instead of $10 or $15 for an autograph it's now $40 or more, even if it's on your own copy you brought with you and you have no intention of reselling the autographed thing. You know, because he/she is "owed". There's nothing to stop that celeb from doing the same thing the resellers do and offer the signed thing online for the same prices. Yet somehow those who think that way are indignant, they see it as some sort of thievery or scam against them. It's ridiculous.

And I agree about the prices, too. It was one thing when games and consoles didn't cost that much. How could they, when they were 8-bit and the games looked like animated LEGOs? Still, they weren't cheap. But now many developers think their games are movies or something, they spend so much money on 3D graphics, texturing, animation, camera moves and now they need to recoup all that expense with massive sales. All for a bunch of games that typically look great but aren't all that fun compared to the hype. If the game is really good then everyone will want it, nobody will be able to wait even a week to get it. But the problem is that too many gamers have been burned by over-hyped expensive games that aren't worth it. Used is a better way to avoid that happening again if you don't mind waiting.

#2056139 CX-52L controllers

Posted by ledzep on Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:41 AM

I suppose this is an obvious, stupid question but are there spring-loaded pots out there that could be retrofitted to the current controllers or is that something that Atari would have had to get purpose-built for this new controller? I have to believe there is no such thing otherwise Best Electronics or somebody else would have offered an upgrade kit by now (sort of like paddle conversions).

#2025855 Imperium Galactum

Posted by ledzep on Fri Jun 4, 2010 5:28 PM

That brings back memories, for sure. I remember really liking that game. I was always a fan of the old Traveller role-playing game so Imperium Galactum felt similar in style to that game.