2 ms·

Well, I should hope "those" DS games don't require complicated dual analog stick controls since the DS only has one input pad (though some games do use the 4 cr

Well, I should hope "those" DS games don't require complicated dual analog stick controls since the DS only has one input pad (though some games do use the 4 cross buttons as something of a second dpad) and it is digital. Pokemon could arguably work okay on a touchscreen-only device, but that's one title cherry picked out of thousands, there are tons of DS games that would suffer greatly by being stuffed into a touchscreen control scheme, and that includes lots of games that are nothing like "Call of Duty". It isn't about how complicated the control scheme is, it is about the need for actual physical switch controls. Even games with dead-simple control schemes like Bomberman or Tetris have this issue (and yes, I know there is Tetris for the iOS -- it is an abomination that proves my point nicely, IMO).

chrischen 15y ago
Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this. Admittedly it's a bit tough to play FPSs on the iPhone still. I've played Tetris for iPod (with the circular wheel) and that was playable and enjoyable. Controls just need to be adapted properly. There's no reason the D-pad and physical buttons are required for good controls. Just because current game ports have bad touchscreen control implementations doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, the bad implementations are probably due to the fact a lot of them naively try to simulate DS-style controls on a touch screen. There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games. It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  "Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this." With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer. "There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games." Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen. Yes, you could produce a version of New Super Mario Bros that used a virtual touchscreen joystick, but it wouldn't be the same game, at all, because the physical nature of the controller has a huge impact on overall gameplay. Nintendo above all other companies recognizes this (thankfully), which is why they have continued to find success even after down periods in their hardware cycles. If they gave all that up and just focused on the iOS market, that would be the worst thing to happen to gaming since Looking Glass went under. "It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras." When the DS first came out, games went crazy trying to support the touchscreen because of the novelty, yes, but well within a year of the system's launch they started to pull back on that and produce games with largely classical controls that only used the accessories for little flourishes and not for main gameplay. Why? Because there are a LOT of games that require physical switch controllers to play correctly. (The same applies to the Wii where they went nuts with motion control and eventually started using that primarily as a flourish for most games, because not all games are a natural fit for motion control).
  - chrischen 15y ago
    > With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer. They do almost replicate the joysticks. I never said it's a good replacement. > Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen. You can make similar arguments against the PS3 or Xbox controllers for not having GPS, Touchscreen, or microphone inputs for controllers. Games take advantage of certain controls because they are made available, if they aren't available, you can adapt. For the Wii and DS if they started abandoning the new ways of inputs and controls, it's only because the old style controls are still there. It's hard to change the way controls are designed and adapt to new inputs so obviously they'd stick to the standard controls if they are still there.

chrischen 15y ago

Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this. Admittedly it's a bit tough to play FPSs on the iPhone still. I've played Tetris for iPod (with the circular wheel) and that was playable and enjoyable. Controls just need to be adapted properly. There's no reason the D-pad and physical buttons are required for good controls. Just because current game ports have bad touchscreen control implementations doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, the bad implementations are probably due to the fact a lot of them naively try to simulate DS-style controls on a touch screen. There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games. It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras.

georgemcbay 15y ago
"Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this." With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer. "There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games." Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen. Yes, you could produce a version of New Super Mario Bros that used a virtual touchscreen joystick, but it wouldn't be the same game, at all, because the physical nature of the controller has a huge impact on overall gameplay. Nintendo above all other companies recognizes this (thankfully), which is why they have continued to find success even after down periods in their hardware cycles. If they gave all that up and just focused on the iOS market, that would be the worst thing to happen to gaming since Looking Glass went under. "It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras." When the DS first came out, games went crazy trying to support the touchscreen because of the novelty, yes, but well within a year of the system's launch they started to pull back on that and produce games with largely classical controls that only used the accessories for little flourishes and not for main gameplay. Why? Because there are a LOT of games that require physical switch controllers to play correctly. (The same applies to the Wii where they went nuts with motion control and eventually started using that primarily as a flourish for most games, because not all games are a natural fit for motion control).
- chrischen 15y ago
  > With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer. They do almost replicate the joysticks. I never said it's a good replacement. > Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen. You can make similar arguments against the PS3 or Xbox controllers for not having GPS, Touchscreen, or microphone inputs for controllers. Games take advantage of certain controls because they are made available, if they aren't available, you can adapt. For the Wii and DS if they started abandoning the new ways of inputs and controls, it's only because the old style controls are still there. It's hard to change the way controls are designed and adapt to new inputs so obviously they'd stick to the standard controls if they are still there.