REVOLUTION CONTROLLER HAS BEEN REVEALED!!!!!

[Weltall]

Ryan/ You must have been on your period or something because this argument started because someone said that Nintendo innovated with the d-pad and you said they didn't and now you say they did. Nintendo did invent the d-pad, like it or not.

They did not. They modernized an existing design.

Okay, so as a toy it was a success, but if you compare it to any video game system in history it was a complete failure. Except maybe if you compared it to the Virtual Boy. I'm sorry Ryan but that logic is absurd, it is a video game system and it is a part of the video game market and in that market it is a failure. I agree that it was still made for years, shit you can buy those plug and play systems now for 20 bucks that have Atari, Intellivision, etc. People would buy them for nostalgia or what have you, but in this industry the Intellivision was not a success as a home video game console.

Wrong, wrong, and so wrong. Failed consoles do not last long, certainly not eleven years. Failed consoles drop out very quickly. Now, it came nowhere near the established base of the Atari 2600, but it was a solid competitor, and was a vastly better machine to boot.

Again, by your logic, the N64 and Gamecube have been fantastic failures, because they were distant second place and third place competitors to the Playstations.

1.) it wasn't already done, because the Intellivision used an unmarked disk. Not a d-pad. The d-pad was better because it's easier to use, more comfortable, easier to pick up and play and, regardless of your opinion, was a revolution for the industry. Everyone and their dog adopted Nintendo's d-pad.

That is so stupid, I mean really. It's like saying that cars were horses until they made automatic transmissions.

2.) Companies do not think that way, they do their best to create something original that sets them apart while still retaining functionality. Sega's d-pads always looked different, in fact they look like a cross between a disk and a d-pad, sony opted for d-pad that is a collection of four individual buttons, the worst design of the d-pad i've ever seen. Second only to the GC's ultra tiny pad which you cant really use as a full d-pad.. more like extra buttons (for my giant hands anyway). But the point is, as you said, they chose the d-pad design because it's better, not because they wanted to associate their system with Nintendo's. That logic is completely destroyed when looking at current or next gen consoles. Nintendo isn't king, and yet everyone is still using a d-pad.

The product association idea is certainly possible. You're not going to go radically different if you're trying to play catch-up, are you?

The Dreamcast's D-Pad, while not the same feel as Nintendo's, is exactly the same shape. No disc.

Hahaha :D come on, using that logic makes every controller on the market a rip off of the arcade stick and the roller ball.

That's completely true. Although you apparently do not differentiate "ripping off" from "adapting". I don't know why.

It's not just the tech inside the controller, it's how the player interacts with it, that's where leaps and innovation is made. The technology to give us that level of interaction is a reaction. It starts on a drawing board with ideas of how it should look for comfort and interactivity, once that's settled on it's sent to a different group to figure out how to build the actual controller using existing technology and sometimes inventing new technology. In this case, Nintendo went through R&D and decided that a directional pad would be best, and the entire world agreed.

This is the crux of one of my arguments: you interact with the Intellivison disc and with the NES D-Pad in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. WITH YOUR THUMB. Even when I was six and I got my NES and I used the controller for the first time, I didn't think "Hey, this is radically different!" I thought "Hey, this is very similar to the Intellivision controller, and I'm used to that!", which made it very easy to adapt.

I'm sorry man, but this argument of yours is just too wrong to be funny.

You yourself said that the d-pad was an necessary evolution. If Nintendo made the NES with a disk instead, and Sega made the d-pad - We would be having a Sega Vs. Intellivision debate. That OMG CROSS design, is what makes a d-pad a d-pad, and it what makes it so innovative over the disk design. It was an evolution, and Nintendo founded it. In evolutionary terms, the disk on the intellivision is the is a mutant gene, the d-pad is the refined gene found in all DNA. *makes lab coat sounds and points at chalk boards*

No it's not. Here is an excerpt from a Wiki article about the subject:

A D-pad is the directional pad found on nearly all modern video game console gamepads and game controllers. Like early video game joysticks, D-pads are digital: they allow input of exactly 8 directions (the points of the compass), with no intermediate values. Although they provide less nuance than analog controls, they can easily be manipulated with very high accuracy using only a single thumb.

It doesn't say anything whatsoever about it having to be cross-shaped in order to qualify as a D-Pad. In fact, the article goes on to state that Intellivision was the first to come up with the idea, and then Nintendo adapted it to the Game & Watch, and later the NES, and made it an industry standard.

Of course, the remark that started this whole argument was that "Nintendo came up with the D-Pad first". It's not true. Continuing to argue the point is just making you look silly.

Again, with your logic, every car would be a rip off of the first car ever made. What you're saying is that the Model T is the same as a 57 Chevy and ignoring the fact that it's much improved vehicle.

Every car is based on the first car ever made. Cars today are a billion times more advanced, but almost all of the basic functions of the modern automobile were in place a hundred years ago. Today's result is one of evolution. The automobile itself was the innovation. There was nothing even remotely like it before.

I agree for the most part and I happen to like the c-buttons alot more than a second stick (PD :D) but games like Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion could not have been done without two sticks. I think Sony wanted to make their controller seem better saying "we have two instead of one!" while most developers use the second stick for changing camera and little else, most of the time the same functions could have been applied to 4 c-buttons (which is basically a d-pad) anyway.

Exactly.

Intellivision disk:

A round unmarked disk with no tactile impression of direction. Controller could be held 4 different ways depending on the game with no idea of what is "up" until you pressed the correct corresponding direction on the pad to cause the appropriate movement. Lack of any marks or tactile feedback to the user meant that you didn't know where down was until you character moved down or you had to look at the controller.

I would think that if you had any sort of capacity to read whatsoever, you would hold the controller with the numbers facing up. If someone's too stupid to figure that out, they should engage in less mentally-challenging activities such as composing rap lyrics.

What it really comes down to is that they are both pads in which you maneuver objects on-screen. They are the same technology, they are manipulated in the exact same way with the exact same body part. One is easier to use than the other.

Bullshit, you knew exactly what you were doing and now you're getting your ass handed to you. :D

Just because you don't know when you're beaten doesn't mean I'm getting my ass handed to me. You're wrong, and repeating yourself a dozen times can't change that.

And what might that be? Using your thumbs? No, that was done before Intellivision. Having a phone pad? Nope, before Intellivision too... what could you mean? Oh! Creating another failed input device for video games, yes! oh, but it wasn't the first at that either. :D

Which console had a thumb-operated direction pad before the Intellivision.

"If you measure it against the NES, it's a failure. Then again, would not the N64 also be a failure?"

No, because according to Nintendo the N64 sold more consoles in the same amount of time. To date, the NES wins... over every console in existence, but in a 5 year span, the N64 outsells the NES. This is because more people play video games now in America than in 1984.

I'm not comparing the N64 to the NES. I'm comparing the N64 to its direct competitor, which outsold the N64 almost threefold. Which, by your logic, makes the machine a failure.

Okay, if we remove the Intellivision from the video game industry and put in the toy industry, it's a success. put it in the video games market, and it's a total failure. Understood.

All you're doing is proving that you hate any machine Nintendo didn't create, because the facts completely contradict you. You really ought to give this up.