I'm sick of things people make up about the DS3

[QUOTE="speedsix"]The DS3 is antiquated garbage.BobHipJames

Live uses a client-server model, just like the PS3 and just like the PC. I think what you're trying to say is user hosted is somehow an outdated technology, which obviously makes no sense. Especially if you consider the business advantages of taking the burden of hosting off the developer, but you probably hadn't even considered this aspect right?

The DS3 is antiquated garbage.speedsix

cosgin:D

Well games that are D-pad intensive on the 360 must be a real **** since they're in the exact same location as the PS3 analog. And you realize the right analog on the 360 is in the same place as the PS3's? This makes them cockeyed of course, so I don't know what you're complaining about. I'll bet you thought you were making a good point here, but sadly no. Here in 2008 90% of games are controlled with the Left analog, NOT the dpad. So you have the 360 controller with the primary input placed properly for 90% of games, while the DS3 has the primary input placed properly for 10%. Yeah, the 360 controller isn't the most comfortable for games that use the Dpad, but at least those games make up a vast minority of titles. Now on to your point about the right analog...tell me for the majority of games what is the primary input on the right side of the controller? Is it the buttons or the stick? The DS layout was fine in 1998 when games used the dpad and face buttons as their primary input, and both of those are placed where your thumbs rest(as evidenced by their position before the DS ever came out). In the 10 years since then, the left analog has replaced the dpad as the primary input, and the DS hasn't changed to reflect that. Now we have people arguing the placement is proper because it is "symetrical". That would make sense if the primary input for each thumb was the same, which it isn't. The dualshock layout is proper for fighters(which use face buttons and dpad as primary inputs), and arguably turn based RPG's(though the left analog for menus isn't much different than the dpad). That is literally the ONLY genre where the dual shock has both inputs in the "sweet spot". For most other genres it has 1 input in the proper spot and 1 improper, and for shooters it has BOTH inputs in the wrong spot. The 360 pad has 1 improper and 1 proper for fighters, 2 proper for most other genres(ie games that use analog control and face buttons), and 1 proper and 1 improper for shooters(pretty much the only genre that uses both analogs as inputs the majority of the time).

If you want a frank explanation for this "thumbstrain" phenomenon, it's a result of the fact that the Dualshock was released for the Playstation 3 as a special controller addition. Literally, the PS3 analogs were an afterthought, or at least a later addition to an existing product. You take away the analogs and literally, that's the original PS1 controller. You're supposed to have primary control over the D-pad and the face buttons. Then shooting games happened and all that got jettisoned out the back of the window.Not just shooting games, but nearly every game other than fighters use the left analog rather than the Dpad.

Is it unnatural? Yes. Is it uncomfortable? Be honest. Be frickin' honest. No controller is uncomfortable. Do me a favor and grab a NES controller or a Snes controller once...they sure as hell don't feel comfortable anymore. In fact, if you lift your palms from the face pad when you hold the analogs, it fits more naturally in your grasp, letting the controller hang in your lower three fingers. Maybe they should have added some girth and "fill" those empty spots with the controller shell for support. And it's not cockeyed. So breathe a sigh of relief. Jeez, you guys will make an issue out of ANYTHING. The Wii controller must be absolute HELL.

BobHipJames

i don't see a problem with a DS3... an individual can get used to anything if he uses it oftenly... but if you hate something, you tend to hate the things about it also...

[QUOTE="speedsix"]The DS3 is antiquated garbage.dthach614

cosgin:D

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="speedsix"]The DS3 is antiquated garbage.speedsix

Live uses a client-server model, just like the PS3 and just like the PC. I think what you're trying to say is user hosted is somehow an outdated technology, which obviously makes no sense. Especially if you consider the business advantages of taking the burden of hosting off the developer, but you probably hadn't even considered this aspect right?

The PS3 controller the only thing i feel is wrong with it is the lack of triggers on the underside and the rubbish triggers we get instead, saying that my fingers never slip off the triggers.

One part of the PS3 controller im undecided about are the joysticks im not sure if i prefer my XBox Joysticks or the PS3 ones! One negative thing i found with the Xbox 360 Sticks is the way your thumb can slip off the top left stick!! Thats what i have found anyhow, aiming with the sniper rifle on Halo 3 and doing a chindori on Naruto bonds......Slip my thumb wants to fall of the controller.

All in all both controllers have negative points but combined they could be perfection.

Yeah lay off the PS3 controller fanboys to be honest even you guys with both consoles should realise by now how good the PS3 joysticks are for 1st person shooters.Honestly its all down to the Triggers for me.

You know what on a side note after reading some more posts in here, some guys make some great points! After holding both controllers for a while i realised my mistake on the 360 controller i dont rest my thumb down in the concave as such i tend to play using the outside of the joystick! A lot of the problems with controllers is most likely down to the individual rarther than the ergonomics of said controller.

.InsaneBasura

.

the triggers are the only ones that i hate the DS for...

the rest are FINE imo.

unless you really are into absorbing other people's opinion and feel on how the 360 controller is anyway better, then NO, the DS is teh suckz.

but in all honestly, 360 controller is very comfortable when playing with shooters.

[QUOTE="speedsix"]

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"] So is client-based networking for online games. Why aren't you *****ing about that again? Oh, that's right, because you're a fanboy. Damn, this forum makes more sense when you crack the code.BobHipJames

Live uses a client-server model, just like the PS3 and just like the PC. I think what you're trying to say is user hosted is somehow an outdated technology, which obviously makes no sense. Especially if you consider the business advantages of taking the burden of hosting off the developer, but you probably hadn't even considered this aspect right?

There is no way I'm gettign dragged into an argument about online gaming in a thread about controllers except to say that you said the concept used in Live is antiquated, not 'better' but somehow an outdated technology. I'd argue the exact opposite, in terms of technology, the system Live utilises is much more complex than the typical PC setup of specifying a dedicated host to connect to. With Live you have dynamic host switching, voice, matchmaking etc. etc. You need to understand that Live is the way it is because of a business decision, it's nothing to do with outdated technology. If you think it's inferior then that's something different entirely and not what you were claiming in your original quote.

Also, can you tell me which PS3 games use dedicated servers? I assume you know.

the triggers are the only ones that i hate the DS for...

the rest are FINE imo.

unless you really are into absorbing other people's opinion and feel on how the 360 controller is anyway better, then NO, the DS is teh suckz.

but in all honestly, 360 controller is very comfortable when playing with shooters.

joopyme

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="speedsix"]

Live uses a client-server model, just like the PS3 and just like the PC. I think what you're trying to say is user hosted is somehow an outdated technology, which obviously makes no sense. Especially if you consider the business advantages of taking the burden of hosting off the developer, but you probably hadn't even considered this aspect right?

speedsix

There is no way I'm gettign dragged into an argument about online gaming in a thread about controllers except to say that you said the concept used in Live is antiquated, not 'better' but somehow an outdated technology. I'd argue the exact opposite, in terms of technology, the system Live utilises is much more complex than the typical PC setup of specifying a dedicated host to connect to. With Live you have dynamic host switching, voice, matchmaking etc. etc. You need to understand that Live is the way it is because of a business decision, it's nothing to do with outdated technology. If you think it's inferior then that's something different entirely and not what you were claiming in your original quote.

Also, can you tell me which PS3 games use dedicated servers? I assume you know.

You'll notice my argument rested on the "garbage" part and really didn't touch on the word "antiquated." In fact, I didn't use the words antiquated or outdated once. So, does that mean YOU're ready concede on your totally baseless post? Considering you haven't made a single attempt to justify it, I mean.

I don't care that Live is complex. I'd still rather play on dedicated servers. Like Warhawk, RFOM, R2, UT3, or SOCOM. No, it's not a lot. That's why I'm not a fan of PSN. And that's why I support open networks, which Xbox Live is the total antithesis of, in addition to being a plain extortion.

.

Parasomniac

Its doesnt make sense.

The primary controls depend on the game. In fps the you use both analog sticks and the trigger. The buttons are used less often.

Secondly, why do the primary controls have to be at the top. They should be in the place where your thumbs naturally rest.

Here is a little experiment: hold your hands up as if you were holding a controller. Your thumbs naturally rest in the middle adjacent to eachother. Then move them up where you say the primary controls are. You have to reach up in an unnatural position. Ergonomically, the analog sticks should be right in the middle where your thumbs are.

[QUOTE="Parasomniac"]

.

Mr_Ditters

Its doesnt make sense.

The primary controls depend on the game. In fps the you use both analog sticks and the trigger. The buttons are used less often.

Secondly, why do the primary controls have to be at the top. They should be in the place where your thumbs naturally rest.

Here is a little experiment: hold your hands up as if you were holding a controller. Your thumbs naturally rest in the middle adjacent to eachother. Then move them up where you say the primary controls are. You have to reach up in an unnatural position. Ergonomically, the analog sticks should be right in the middle where your thumbs are.

it's not that the ps3 controller is bad, it's that the 360 controller is that much better

My biggest complaint against the DS3 is the analog. Move that with the d-pad and it'd be so much better. If you only have had a PS this made seem weird, but after you use a 360 controller it just feels so much better this way.

For fighters however, the d-pad should be in the top left as the primary control should always be on the top left. Solution? The Fightpad that Madcatz is making.

I own both consoles and prefer the Xbox360 controller. :)

My hands get cramped after using the DS3 after a couple hours.

R2/L2 triggers feel horrible. Analog sticks are too close. D-pad is good. Thats what I think.Haziqonfire

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

Sadly, the PS3's triggers are pretty bad, and as a PS3 fan I am willding to admit it. They should be concave, not convex, which is where the slipping problem comes from. Fortunately, I managed to score myself two sets of these. :)

They're just a simple snap-on accessory for the DS3 and Sixasis that makes the triggers more "trigger like," so your fingers don't slip. They were a little pricey ($5 each, shipped from London), but they are definitely worth it. Once I got them, I immediately started remapping the trigger in first person shooters to R2, because it feels much more natural to me now. They also kick ass for racing games!

AdmiralDan

Mind if I ask - can you link that product page? i want to get myself a pair.

Oddly enough, there's not really a lot of online documentation about these things, because I think they may have been limited run. However, I can direct you over to the ebay search that yielded my stash of them.

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38.l1313&_nkw=ps3+real+triggers&_sacat=See-All-Categories

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]The analog sticks stink. The L2/R2 triggers stink. Hmm, I'm sure there's more, but I don't need to explain. It's a mediocre controller, imo, and it's why I prefer something that feels better and more sturdy, a la the Nyko Zero.finalfantasy94

I agree with the Triggers,but everything els is perfect.

I agree there is nothing wrong with the ananlog placement people just like making stuff up

.

Parasomniac

You should also point out it's other flaw. Like the fact the triggers found on the Dual Shock 3 is convex when it should be concave. It's uncomfortable to hold in comparison to the 360 controller, but at least it's much more responsive than it. Thanks to it's pressure sensitivity and better/sensitive dead zone.

But the 360 controller is without it's flaw. My problem with the 360 controller is the crappy D-pad, the first set of shoulder buttons sucks in comparison to the DS3, the left analog stick is too close to the edge of the controller, and like I said, it isn't as responsive as the Dual Shock 3, but it is much more ergonomically design than the DS3, making it much more comfortable hold.

[QUOTE="Mr_Ditters"][QUOTE="Parasomniac"]

.

TOAO_Cyrus1

Its doesnt make sense.

The primary controls depend on the game. In fps the you use both analog sticks and the trigger. The buttons are used less often.

Secondly, why do the primary controls have to be at the top. They should be in the place where your thumbs naturally rest.

Here is a little experiment: hold your hands up as if you were holding a controller. Your thumbs naturally rest in the middle adjacent to eachother. Then move them up where you say the primary controls are. You have to reach up in an unnatural position. Ergonomically, the analog sticks should be right in the middle where your thumbs are.

If you want to get really anal, then both the PS3 and the XBox 360's controllers suck for shooters, because neither have the right analog stick in the "primary position," and the right analog stick is the most important in shooters. When people claim that the 360 controller is superior for FPS, I always LOL, because there's really no difference between the two when it comes to aiming, and everything beyond that is pretty much trivial.

You may claim that that having the D-pad in the so-called "primary position" is "incorrect," but it depends on the game. I love playing fighting games and clas.sics, so for me the PS3's superior D-pad and more comfortable placement is a major asset. No-one complains about having to reach down to use the right analog stick in Halo 3 or GEOW2, even though it's in the "incorrect" position for those games. If you can tolerate keeping your right thumb on the right analog stick for the entirety of a shooter, then why is it so hard to keep your left thumb on the left stick? IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

The one place where the difference between PS3 and 360's controls is noticeable though, is Katimari Damacy, and the Xbox 360 falls pitifully short in comparison to the PS3. Katamari Damacy is built around "tank control" which requires perfecty equality between the two joysticks, and since the 360 controller has a decidedly lopsided design, it makes controlling the Katamari a total pain. And it's for that reason, that I feel like the PS3's control setup is better. There's really no true advantage to having the left joystick above the D-pad, but there are advantages to having both joysticks paralell, and also the PS3's D-pad is superior in pretty much every way to the 360's. So for those reasons, I give the edge to the PS3.

Also, I've always felt like the Xbox 360's controller was bulkier than it needs to be, and I hate the buttons on it.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="Mr_Ditters"]

Its doesnt make sense.

The primary controls depend on the game. In fps the you use both analog sticks and the trigger. The buttons are used less often.

Secondly, why do the primary controls have to be at the top. They should be in the place where your thumbs naturally rest.

Here is a little experiment: hold your hands up as if you were holding a controller. Your thumbs naturally rest in the middle adjacent to eachother. Then move them up where you say the primary controls are. You have to reach up in an unnatural position. Ergonomically, the analog sticks should be right in the middle where your thumbs are.

Timstuff

If you want to get really anal, then both the PS3 and the XBox 360's controllers suck for shooters, because neither have the right analog stick in the "primary position," and the right analog stick is the most important in shooters. When people claim that the 360 controller is superior for FPS, I always LOL, because there's really no difference between the two when it comes to aiming, and everything beyond that is pretty much trivial.

You may claim that that having the D-pad in the so-called "primary position" is "incorrect," but it depends on the game. I love playing fighting games and clas.sics, so for me the PS3's superior D-pad and more comfortable placement is a major asset. No-one complains about having to reach down to use the right analog stick in Halo 3 or GEOW2, even though it's in the "incorrect" position for those games. If you can tolerate keeping your right thumb on the right analog stick for the entirety of a shooter, then why is it so hard to keep your left thumb on the left stick? IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!

The one place where the difference between PS3 and 360's controls is noticeable though, is Katimari Damacy, and the Xbox 360 falls pitifully short in comparison to the PS3. Katamari Damacy is built around "tank control" which requires perfecty equality between the two joysticks, and since the 360 controller has a decidedly lopsided design, it makes controlling the Katamari a total pain. And it's for that reason, that I feel like the PS3's control setup is better. There's really no true advantage to having the left joystick above the D-pad, but there are advantages to having both joysticks paralell, and also the PS3's D-pad is superior in pretty much every way to the 360's. So for those reasons, I give the edge to the PS3.

Also, I've always felt like the Xbox 360's controller was bulkier than it needs to be, and I hate the buttons on it.

The majority of games use the left analog and the face buttons as primary controls so they should be in the primary positions. 90% of the games that use both analog sticks are FPS's and the PS3 sticks are just two damn close and the fact that they are parrellel offers no advantage. Almost any other game uses the left analog and face buttons with the right stick mainly limited to camera adjestment.

the DS3 is to smallnaruto7777

[QUOTE="naruto7777"]the DS3 is to smalldark-warmachine

The majority of games use the left analog and the face buttons as primary controls so they should be in the primary positions. 90% of the games that use both analog sticks are FPS's and the PS3 sticks are just two damn close and the fact that they are parrellel offers no advantage. Almost any other game uses the left analog and face buttons with the right stick mainly limited to camera adjestment.

TOAO_Cyrus1

But none of you, not a single one of you, would say that the Xbox 360 is the superior controller for platformers/RPGs/whatever. I've never heard a lemming say that. No, they shout into a megaphone off the tallest tower that it's the best FPS controller in the galaxy and that the PS3 controller sucks for FPS and then utter something garbled about triggers and spongy analog sticks.

By the way, the fact that they are "too damn close" offers no disadvantage just like the distance between the two analog sticks on the 360 offers no advantage. I don't understand why you made that point. Their proximity means literally nothing. The parallel concept doesn't really confer any advantage either, but I would say exactly the same thing about offset analog sticks and this "primary-secondary position" crap you've seized upon. Let me clue you in: primary/secondary is a matter of focus to the player. If you want to talk about comfort, okay. If you want to talk about location and grip, ergonomics or whatever, okay. If it's uncomfortable for you to use the analogs or unnatural for you to use them, we can discuss that. But I could just as easily say that the location of the PS3's analogs ARE primary, and that's partially because I have no trouble holding it as lemmings seem to.

I use the SIXAXIS. I prefer the actual layout, mabye because I have used the Dualshock/Sixaxis layout for a much longer time. I prefer the buttons on the DS3 (Whatever, that's easier), they require less force and just generally feel more comfortable to press. The analog sticks are exactly the same, except you have to move your thumb up from one position to another. That's the only diffrence, neither feels more comfortable. This is often exagerated, and it annoys me. Go on, give it a try. Hold a DS3 and a 360 controller and see what happens. Feel a noticeable diffrence from that relocation of that one thumb? No? Well isn't that funny?

The D-Pad is better on the DS3, not that is matters, it is hardly used anymore unless you play fighters. The 360 controller is more comfotable to hold because the handles are larger meaning it requires less grip. The start/back/select/dashboard buttons on the 360 controller are much more comfortable to access and to press. I don't understand the the DS3 soft start and select buttons, just feel stupid to me, and can be easily damaged. The front row back buttons are better on the DS3. Much easiser and more comofortable to press down on than the annoying clickly ones on the 360 controller. The back triggers on the DS3 are not ideal. Too shallow, not comfotable to use at all. The triggers on the 360 controller are much better.

At the end of the day each has it's pros and cons, it's just prefrence. There is no defenite answer as to which is the superior hardware. However the DS3 has one major advantage, and that's the USB charger. That was an excellent addition, and that's what gives it the edge for me.

[QUOTE="dark-warmachine"]

[QUOTE="naruto7777"]the DS3 is to smallBobHipJames

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="dark-warmachine"]It's not that much smaller. The 360's is just slightly bulkier.

dark-warmachine

Fair enough, I can acknowledge that. Unfortunately I can't find an exactly even picture with the two controllers in the same frame, but I'll withhold judgment and sorry for going off on the guy, I just hate these threads so damn much.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]

The majority of games use the left analog and the face buttons as primary controls so they should be in the primary positions. 90% of the games that use both analog sticks are FPS's and the PS3 sticks are just two damn close and the fact that they are parrellel offers no advantage. Almost any other game uses the left analog and face buttons with the right stick mainly limited to camera adjestment.

BobHipJames

But none of you, not a single one of you, would say that the Xbox 360 is the superior controller for platformers/RPGs/whatever. I've never heard a lemming say that. No, they shout into a megaphone off the tallest tower that it's the best FPS controller in the galaxy and that the PS3 controller sucks for FPS and then utter something garbled about triggers and spongy analog sticks.

By the way, the fact that they are "too damn close" offers no disadvantage just like the distance between the two analog sticks on the 360 offers no advantage. I don't understand why you made that point. Their proximity means literally nothing. The parallel concept doesn't really confer any advantage either, but I would say exactly the same thing about offset analog sticks and this "primary-secondary position" crap you've seized upon. Let me clue you in: primary/secondary is a matter of focus to the player. If you want to talk about comfort, okay. If you want to talk about location and grip, ergonomics or whatever, okay. If it's uncomfortable for you to use the analogs or unnatural for you to use them, we can discuss that. But I could just as easily say that the location of the PS3's analogs ARE primary, and that's partially because I have no trouble holding it as lemmings seem to.

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]

The majority of games use the left analog and the face buttons as primary controls so they should be in the primary positions. 90% of the games that use both analog sticks are FPS's and the PS3 sticks are just two damn close and the fact that they are parrellel offers no advantage. Almost any other game uses the left analog and face buttons with the right stick mainly limited to camera adjestment.

Steppy_76

But none of you, not a single one of you, would say that the Xbox 360 is the superior controller for platformers/RPGs/whatever. I've never heard a lemming say that. No, they shout into a megaphone off the tallest tower that it's the best FPS controller in the galaxy and that the PS3 controller sucks for FPS and then utter something garbled about triggers and spongy analog sticks.

By the way, the fact that they are "too damn close" offers no disadvantage just like the distance between the two analog sticks on the 360 offers no advantage. I don't understand why you made that point. Their proximity means literally nothing. The parallel concept doesn't really confer any advantage either, but I would say exactly the same thing about offset analog sticks and this "primary-secondary position" crap you've seized upon. Let me clue you in: primary/secondary is a matter of focus to the player. If you want to talk about comfort, okay. If you want to talk about location and grip, ergonomics or whatever, okay. If it's uncomfortable for you to use the analogs or unnatural for you to use them, we can discuss that. But I could just as easily say that the location of the PS3's analogs ARE primary, and that's partially because I have no trouble holding it as lemmings seem to.

"but there are MANY you can make to support the 360 one being more proper." Including what. Saying that there are many arguments to support that conclusion is a claim, a claim that you haven't made an attempt to support. I'm not going to acknowledge that for no reason. Indeed lemmings do say that DS is better for fighters. But I've seen lemmings say, SMUGLY, so much so that you can detect the odor of their smugness, that the Xbox 360 is so......MUCH better for shooters, and then say nothing else. No, they don't say ONLY that it's better for shooters, but that's only because that's different from only saying that it's better for shooters, which they frequently do. I've never in my life seen even a single person suggest that the Xbox 360 controller is better for other genres, you know, NInja Gaiden and Final Fantasy-type stuff. That really hasn't changed in this thread. Nobody's gone there yet, which I find pretty interesting. As far as secondary versus primary, I think you're missing the point. Secondary versus primary means nothing in and of itself. What you refer to as secondary could be someone else's primary. You need to support that conclusion with something substantial, a legitimate conclusion. Stop trying to corral me.BobHipJames

Let me get this straight - the fact that the Dualshock 3 has convex sticks, short sticks, triggers rounded in the wrong direction, and short, stubby prongs designed to fit alien hands is all a myth? Interesting. I'd also question the longevity of the face buttons. I've had my PS3 for maybe six months, haven't played it much until lately, and the X button is already sticky, popping into place once and a while if I don't press it exactly in the center. Don't get me wrong, the 360 pad has issues (mostly the godawful dpad) but at least they decided to learn from their mistakes and improve on them, not rerelease the same bloody controller a third time and pretend it's perfection.DJ_Lae

That is a myth. I am sitting with a PS3 controller in my hand right now (No I'm not, I'm typing.) and a 360 controller in the other. The PS3 controller has longer sticks. Go see for your self. People do like to say things with out actually checking them though, I guess that is just the way System Wars works.

I agree there is nothing wrong with the ananlog placement people just like making stuff up

Afro_Samurai1

Oh believe because to the King it is in the wrong place. This is an era of gaming where the vast majorit of games are played with the analog stick. King Bond doesn't appreciate my thumb not being able to rest verticle but rather be stretched down and to the right making for the only left analog joystick placement like that. Not only that but the sticks are too close together for hands as stated earlier.