The placement of the left analogue stick

I honestly don't care. Both work for me just fine.

Above the d-pad ala Xbox One controller is what I find to be most comfortable.

Both work for me. Both suck compared to keyboard and mouse

To me it's not such a minor point. I refuse to buy a PS4 until Sony solves this issue. Why should I play games on a controller that I don't like and I KNOW IS FLAWED?

This is the way you control the games you play. Great control is very important.

But I have literally zero issues controlling games with the DualShock 4, and controlling them just fine. It's a good controller with great ergonomics and great button spread (unlike the DualShock 3, which was utter trash). The analog placement is apparently not as breaking an issue for me as it is for you.

N64 was the first console aimed for 3D gaming

uh... jaguar 3DO??? PS was made for 3D as well.

That wasn't an option, you HAVE TO CHOOSE. Just take a look at your perfect Switch pro controller :)

Well, my favorite controllers ever are the Xbox 360 controller, Gamecube controller, and Xbox One controller, and all three have the analog placed at the top, so if I had to pick, I'd pick that option. But honestly, having to pick an option at all seems to be pretty superfluous to me haha

I owned a 3DO, it didn't even come with analogue sticks. It was just a big ugly D-pad. And it sucked for street fighter. The Jaguar again didn't have an analogue stick, only a D-pad and it was a complete failure.

The 3DO was considerably more powerful than the Jaguar. Neither console was capable or had the power to do proper 3D games. The Playstation and Saturn were both WAAAY more powerful than the 3DO. That's why 3DO was going to release the M2 console back then which was supposed to be more powerful than the Playstation and Saturn but it never happened. Instead the 3DO died a slow horrible death. The Jaguar was even worse, it was DOA. Mostly because the games looked like SNES ports even though it was supposedly a 64-bit console.

One final point I would like to make is that not even the Playstation nor the Saturn were really powerful enough for 3D. The N64 BARELY was and they were the ones who truly brought gaming into 3D with amazing efforts such as Super Mario 64, Golden Eye, Zelda OOT, Banjo Kazooie and many others. Playstation had Crash Bandicoot and the real game that to me surprised me of how great it looked and ran in 3D was Metal Gear Solid.

I never gamed enough on PS to get used to it. It was always for a couple of hours at a friends house, but in total I would be surprised if I was past 100 hours of Playstation gaming, so for me the choice is obvious.

I prefer asymmetrical, but I can use either. It can be tricky switching from system to system in short bursts.

Maybe I'm just upset at the stupidity of Sony. I know it would be so damn easy to make a good controller for them. WTF, just copy the Xbox one and Switch Pro controllers. It would be amazing.

Honestly, until before the DualShock 4, I would have argued for asymmetrical layouts myself all day- but the DualShock 4 is just so comfortable and works so well, that I've come around to it. But yes, I think like you, my primary, natural impulse would be an asymmetric layout.

Ah, good a controller argument.

Well, like I said in a previous post, until before the DualShock 4, I would have argued for asymmetrical layouts myself all day- but the DualShock 4 is just so comfortable and works so well, that I've come around to it. So I don't have many complaints anymore.

Above the d-pad. Any controller that deviates is less than ideal as far as I am concerned.

I'm actually considering the PS4 Pro right now only because of one game, Persona. One of the things that influenced me is a post of yours I read where you wrote that if you had to choose, you would take it over Zelda BOTW. If it's that damn good, I think I have to play it.

Just a heads up, Persona has no Pro enhancements lol, so you can get away with just a standard PS4 Slim and save yourself some money too, if you're only buying it for a handful of games.

Definitely above the D-pad... can't stand the layout of PS controllers. It's one of the main reasons I don't own a PS4 anymore, my fingers got cramped when I used the DS4 for extended periods.

XB1 controller is easily the best overall.

@Xplode_games

I owned a 3DO, it didn't even come with analogue sticks. It was just a big ugly D-pad. And it sucked for street fighter. The Jaguar again didn't have an analogue stick, only a D-pad and it was a complete failure.

Which has nothing to do with 3D games. Or the 3DO and Jaguar being made to play 3D games, mostly the 3DO.

The 3DO was considerably more powerful than the Jaguar.

No it wasn't. The Jagaur was arguably the same as the PSX, the Jaguar ever had full access to its main graphical system due to certain elements not being able to run at the same time. The 68k thrown in for BC witht he cancelled 32-bit panther also didn't help as it took up the bus. So the jaguar ended up being a 3D machine that was run by a 2D set-up. but if all specs were utitlized the 3DO would be crushed by the jaguar.

Now in practice, the opposite happened due to the ease of development of 3DO's hardware design which is similar to the design found in the PSX. Hence more PSX comparable games, a vastly larger library, and millions of consoles sold.

Neither console was capable or had the power to do proper 3D games

This is false. As the 3do clearly had proper 3D games and so did the jaguar in a much more limited number. Proper 3D game doesn't mean analog stick. need for speed is a proper 3D game, Crash Bandicoot is a proper 3D game. The only way you can say they aren't is if you are falsely believing analog stick usage. If that's the case than Ball Blazer on the Atari 5200 is a proper 3D game.

The Playstation and Saturn were both WAAAY more powerful than the 3DO

No they were not. the PSX had worse graphical rendering hence the warping and only really beat the 3DO in memory and textures. Which the latter was due to the former. The jump from 3DO to PSX wasn't anywhere near as big as a lot of people expect. Most PSX games can run on a 3DO, some started on 3DO first, some 3DO multiplats ran better on 3DO. More so with the Saturn. The PSX/3DO/SAT (and even the n64 to an extent) were horrifically weak machines that could barely run Cruis'n USA 1994 arcade game and it took the N64 to even reach that, and that WASN'T a power house arcade game in 1994.

That's why 3DO was going to release the M2 console back then which was supposed to be more powerful than the Playstation and Saturn but it never happened

The reason for the M2 was to create a new console to the closing in on 4 year old 3DO before it became clear the same model wouldn't work since 3DO was losing profits and so where the manufacturer which is why only Panasonic was partially interested. This became even more evident when they moved to PC where they started out with barely enough funds to support spamming might and magic leading to their slowdeath.

Instead the 3DO died a slow horrible death

The 3DO console did not dye a slow horrible death. it even had increased profits when they dropped the price in 1995 contrubuting to its sales total. A 3DO with 2 free games for $50-$100 less than the Saturn and PSX was a good bargin. to late to completely change the game since PSX devs were jumping from 3DO to PSX, but it helped.

The Jaguar was even worse, it was DOA

It wasn't DOA, nobody was expecting to flop as bad as it did, especially after the games released in 1994 including AVP. Atari was also not expecting millions out the gate, because they didn't have the money to produce that many consoles in the first place, especially since the head of Atari at the time cut off all revenue by shutting down all other atari projects except the jaguar by because..he was dumb I guess... The whole intention of the jaguar was to sell with smaller shipments first and increase as they sold out.

What's funny is the system that people were saying that was DOA was the 3DO and not the Jaguar.

Mostly because the games looked like SNES ports even though it was supposedly a 64-bit console.

I always find it amusing when I see ignorant "gamers" spouting about bits when they don't know what bits actually are even years after the fact. The jagaur was 64bit as it was built, and no many games did not look like SNES ports, the SNES can't even do Super burnout and would likely struggle with that even with chips. And there are people who will say Star Fox looks and runs better than Cybermorph when Cybermorph pushed more polygons, was not on rails, had more going on screen, and had lighting when Starfox was an onrails show box game running at 10fps on the actual hardware. Zool 2 and bubsy are the only real arguments to the Jaguars 2D looking like the SNES.

The N64 BARELY was and they were the ones who truly brought gaming into 3D with amazing efforts such as Super Mario 64, Golden Eye, Zelda OOT, Banjo Kazooie and many others. Playstation had Crash Bandicoot and the real game that to me surprised me of how great it looked and ran in 3D was Metal Gear Solid.

So now its about power? because if that's the case then why would you site MGS as the example of a "proper" 3d game?

Crash bandicoot was the better graphical showcase than Mario 64. So does that mean Crash was a more "proper" 3D game or do we move back to analog sticks? Does the washed out textures and empty fields hurt or help Mario 64 by your definition compared to the higher amount in activity seen in other N64 platformers?

The 3DO/SAT/PSX ran 3D games. They were (to the lesser extent Saturn originally) were all 3D game machines. If you are talking about power in terms of running high fidelity 3D games "consistently" you wouldn't see that until the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox, mostly the latter 2.

Except the N64 didn't have an analog stick. It was a digital stick that used a series of digital inputs to approximate an analog source; much like how a CD is a digital source that approximates a digital one. They are both still digital. And this worked so well for Nintendo that they never used it again.

Also, neither Nintendo nor Sony invented rumble, thus Sony was sued by Immersion and not Nintendo. Nintendo had an easier path to market releasing it as an add-on while Sony integrated it into the controller and got beat to the market by a matter of days (Sony released it in Japan before the rest of the world in the same month Nintendo released the rumble pack).

The only argument that exists for non-symmetrical layout is having non-symmetrical hands. Since no one ever complains about the right stick, which is used constantly for aiming and camera controls, that must be the best location. Therefore, with symmetrical hands holding the controller symmetrically, in the same corresponding spot for the left stick is the correct location. It is also in this orientation that you have a better range of motion for your thumbs, which is needed for an analog stick and not needed for a D-pad. In fact, the only way to be able to properly use a controller with the left analog above the D-pad is to slide your left hand up, holding the symmetrical handgrips at different places, reorienting the stick closer to the Dualshock position relative to your hand and making the D-pad a worse reach.

It doesnt matter

Without even looking, I can say with 99.9% certainty, you can find a quality aftermarket controller for PS4 that is set up exactly how you want it, enabling you to just sell off the DS4 that comes in the box.

edit: google searched "xbox style controller for ps4" and voila

http://www.geek.com/games/ps4-owners-gain-option-of-xbox-one-like-controller-1625949/

Hori makes decent stuff, I have a street fighter style controller from them that cost $100 instead of $300 like the arcade pro ones, and it worked quite well.

I prefer the left stick above the d-pad. The Switch Pro Controller is perfect

I don't know if you ever held an xbox controller but your hands don't slide up at all. Your thumbs actually are in the area that the analog is with both hands if you grip it properly. You actually have to use effort to move your right thumb down on the right stick. The xbox controller was designed so your thumbs are comfortably on both sticks just like Sony does with the PS4 controller. They design their so you grip the controller in a more claw like format so you have your thumbs on the symmetrical sticks.

Yep, both the 360 controller and the One S controller I got for my PC. I don't know if you've ever actually paid attention to where you hold the controller with each hand, but for me, with mostly symmetrical hands, I hold the controller with my left hand a little higher and slightly more towards the back of the controller. This is something that quickly becomes natural, but if you pay attention and put your hands in the same relative position on each side, it's much less comfortable to use.

@undefined: when it comes to analogs the left is usually the legs and the right is usually the body (look around button)

Its only natural to keep those to angles 180 to each other.

That constant diagonal stance that comes with holding xbox controllers get annoying.

I keep my thumbs 180 degress to each other when i play thanks.

No preference, either way works for me. I use a variety of different controllers and I never even think about it.

It's stuff like buttons, analogs, triggers, dpad, etc. that differentiate a controller for me, the placement of the analogs is the least of my concern.

Most modern games primarily use the left analog stick and rarely use the d-pad, so it makes logical sense that when holding the controller your thumb should naturally rest on the left analog stick and you shouldn't have to stretch away from the natural resting position in order to reach it.

This is probably the biggest reason why Playstation consoles will always be a secondary console just for exclusives to me while Xbox consoles continue to be my primary for multiplats unless Sony changes this archaic, unnatural controller design.

I don't mind either way but I do prefer the Xbox style.

This, the Dualshock 4 is plenty comfy.

I prefer the 360 pad, but I'm not like regretting my decision to play a game on the DS4 when I have to. Hell i probably like the DS4 more than the Xbox One pad.

I have never liked the asymmetric placement. I think it is a dumb awkward design that unfairly punishes my short thumbs by forcing me to angle my left hand forward. I am fine being in the minority on this - it's a fact that I don't have your hands :-P

This. I notice no difference in ease of use.

Also thought I would hate the wii u pro controller with the right stick above the buttons but again no difference.

Lemmings just exaggerate this issue because they're desperate.

I find myself preferring the PlayStation layout.

It doesn't matter in honesty. Both work just as well, both are natural positions to rest your thumb on, so it just doesn't matter.

Both are fine. That really should have been an option in this poll. No poll should ever be made without an "other" option.

I don't care, both work for me.

Lmao... hypocrite much?

there is an adapter where you can use pretty much any controller on any system from the last decade (so wii, wii u, ps3, ps4, x360, xone, pc) apart from the switch and some exotic pc controller. It's called the cronusmax, I have it and it works great, sometimes I use a ps4 controller on my xone, a x360 controller on my xone, xone controller on ps4, a pc controller on my xboxone. Also steering wheels, fight and flight sticks all pretty much work. If it works on the other console it will work with the adapter. There's even mouse and keyboard support for consoles.

The only problem I have are with certain pc controllers which don't have xinput but even then there are sometimes workarounds. You can also add certain layout like turbo's , button remap , sensitivity and so on. It's not that expensive for what you get imo, (around 60$)

http://cronusmax.com/

Asymmetrical sticks are for hippies.

After using Wii U, PS4 and Xbox One I've concluded it simply makes no difference.

initially i was going to say i dont really care (and i voted for kinect because i dont). really its not a huge deal either way but if i had to choose i think i would actually go the playstation route (under the dpad). for the simple reason that it also makes the Dpad more comfortable to use.

the benefits of having the stick above the dpad is negligable at best. minor, very minor comfort. let me put it this way: i would never blame losing in a game to having the stick below the d-pad.

however by having the sitck below the dpad it makes the dpad more usable. for 2D games and fighting games the dpad can be preferable to the stick. i just had a quick play around with my PS3 and 360 controller and it definately is more accessable and nicer to use on the PS3 pad. its the same with the wiiu gamepad: the dpad is only really comfortable to use if you slide the controller down a bit and dont use the left stick at all.

Really? Controllers are far superior in almost ever genre of game nowadays apart from RTS and FPS...heck with the latter, the added sensitive on offer with modern controllers, there isn't even much of a difference.

The 360's controller was and still is the best console controller ever made. While the OG's Xbox controller S was a step in the right direction it still was hamstrung by the position of those white and black buttons that made playing GTA VC and SA a pain as they were used to look left and right when in a vehicle to do drive-by's.

The 360's controller solved that by using shoulder buttons. The placement of the left stick fits with our hands whilst still leaving the d-pad in reach.

Although I have large hands, I found the Dual Shock controller easy to use. The DS4 on the other hand doesn't feel right for me. I don't know if its the cheap feel of it or the way they redesigned it but it doesn't sit right. They still haven't managed to sort the triggers but at least they aren't the same ones on the DS3. There is nothing inherently wrong with the DS4 but the little niggles make for a very unpleasant playing experience.

It honestly doesn't matter where the left analog sits as long as its comfortable, which can be either if done correctly. I used to think it mattered when I had only used Xbox/Ninty controllers, but the PS4 changed all that.

Excellent point, coming from the guy with the xbox controller as an avy.

What have gamers like myself to be desperate of? we've got all the games, you have none. The Xbox brand is irrelevant.

@soul_starter: there is still a difference in shooters. Keyboard and mouse is better at that, using a controller for shooters feels like blasphemy these days

@Xplode_games: I dont see how its flawed, that is totally objective. PS4 has sold millions more than xbox even with that "flawed" controller so it honestly isnt a problem for most people. I refuse to buy an xbox until they put out some new interesting IPs. You can get a third party controller for ps4 like ps4 elite controller with sticks like xbox if it bothers u so much

@Fairmonkey: Like I said, might be a slight edge but it's not a world of difference anymore. Having played BF1 on both PC and PS4 I barely felt the difference.

@soul_starter: Playing overwatch on PC compared to ps4, night and day difference in addition to PC being pretty much superior is almost every category