Most innovative Console Manuf, through history?

[akugami]

So the difference lies in the fact that nintendo is also a software company? Theyve made classic, high quality games, but they could just have easily done the same on another platform. Mario 64 would have been just as ground breaking with a dual shock. But thats just one game.

No. If you actually did more than skim my post, the difference is merely transplanting features from a previously different product and using them in new and different ways. I mentioned software because the primary applications of a games console is of course games. By the very nature of games consoles, input methods have to be tightly integrated with the games. With the Xbox, all MS did was transplant features. They're not used in any new way. With Nintendo, some of the input devices may not be new. Some of them have arguably not been used at all on games consoles.

My example was with analogue sticks and how Nintendo used it in a new and completely innovative way even though analogue joystick controllers are not exactly new. My argument was not about the quality of the games. Although if you make an innovative game it usually becomes a classic. Was Mario 64 possible on Sony's PS1? Yes. I don't think anyone can argue it won't be. Would Mario 64 with analogue controllers be just as fun on a Sony console? Yes. I don't think anyone is arguing it won't be. But did anyone at Sony create an analogue controller for use in 3D games prior to the unveiling by Nintendo? No. Just ask Tomb Raider a game that was created almost at the same time as Mario 64 and using a similar camera style to present the 3D world in many ways. It could have been a much better game if created with analogue controllers in mind. Instead it was made with the standard directional pad as main input.

At the same time, an analogue controller as created and unveiled by Nintendo for their N64 console would be just another input method if it was used in a similar way to prior analogue controllers or on prior games. Even a 3D platformer like the original Tomb Raider. The analogue sticks needed a game to showcase why it was innovative. Mario 64 showcased it and gamers were wowed by the nearly limitless direction one could go using the analogue controller in a 3D world. They saw how you could go slow or go fast depending on how hard you pressed the analogue stick.

The way we primarily interface with a game is through the default controller. Nintendo has been at the forefront of creating new genres or re-envisioning older ones. Sometimes these changes need new input methods. That's where most of Nintendo's innovation lies. Creating new input methods for us to interface with games.

Xbox live may have taken features from the PC, but it put them together in an innovative way. Achievements were a brand new idea. Packing in a microphone was a game changer, even if ventrilo existed. PSN is a pale shadow of XBL, and lets not even get started on nintendo online. It took what, 2 years from sony to ship a controller with analog sticks? XBL is still unmatched. Had MS not entered this market, online console gaming would NOT be what it is right now. Nintendo certainly wouldnt have been the one to innovate there, and Sony's PS2 online offering was also a joke. Theyre still just reacting to what MS does.

You can argue Xbox Live might be innovative. There certainly was not quite an online community outside of games specific ones prior to it but online itself isn't innovative. I disagree that an online system that is similar to Xbox Live would not exist. An online system that connects players and where players can meet who play different games isn't innovative as that's been done before. Look up the Xband. Not anywhere as robust as Xbox Live but you can definitely see it as a precursor and at the time Xbox released Xbox Live there was also a growing interest in online connectivity.

 

[reallyscrued]

So the difference lies in the fact that nintendo is also a software company? Theyve made classic, high quality games, but they could just have easily done the same on another platform. Mario 64 would have been just as ground breaking with a dual shock. But thats just one game.

No. The difference is Nintendo designed and implemented a directional pad with their software in mind. And shoulder buttons (or bumpers, or whatever the hell Microsoft calls them), and analog sticks, and etc. They were things that really changed the way people played games, and for the better. Doesn't it strike you as odd that after ridiculing motion controls for so long, that's exactly what Sony and Microsoft are gravitating towards now?

A lot of your points, or all of your points about the 360 is basically a spin-off of PC gaming, please face that. They packaged a kickass gaming PC with a headset and a wireless input device for $299.99 in 2005, except everything is still freaking proprietary. You can't even freely upgrade your HDD even though the actual hardware inside is a plain old 2.5 inch SATA drive.

At least the PS3 allows you to upgrade your internal storage like a capable person, not a dumb consumer.

What was I saying? Oh yeah, stay out of my booze.

EDIT: Damnit, beaten.

One final thought though, BD, it's understandable you like the 360's approach to gaming because you're obviously a techie (this is AT after all) but for me, and I don't know if I can speak for others, but for me the Xbox/360 was more of a backstabbing from Microsoft to the entire PC gaming community rather than an awesome new foray into the world of consoles. They probably set back PC-centric gaming 10 years (if you gamed on the PC during the 90's, you should immediately understand).

Nintendo's new ideas have typically furthered and added complexity to its software (arguably), Microsoft has been focusing on simplifying it.

 

[BD2003]

I don't have to look up xband, I used to have one.

It was a far cry from xbox live, but combined with caller ID, it did give you the opportunity to call back the fucker who disconnected on you. And at least an xbox live game can't be ruined when your mom answers the house phone. Ah, so way ahead of it's time.

In any case, if the question is being framed in such a way that nintendo is the only valid answer, it's not a very interesting question.

All I know is when I look forward, not backwards, I want my next console to be more like a 360, and less like a wii. I don't want a kinect, I don't want a move. I don't think Sony could have made a decent PSN without XBL to copy, and nintendo is still years behind then. Its the innovation that sticks which counts. It doesn't matter if that functionality was on the PC first, MS put it in a console. I hardly even played console games for 10 years until the 360 came around.

Nintendo has the history, but they are not the driving force they used to be, at least not in a way that I care about.

 

[purbeast0]

i'm taking the question in this thread way different than most of the recent posts are.

the question isn't "who did what first" ... it is who was the most innovative.

and to me, that means who made changes that then became the new standard and that same company continued to succeed in their innovative change.

that is why 3DO or CDI did not get the "first to use disc based media" as an innovator, because they were failed consoles.

that is why Nintendo go the "first to bring analog stick" because they made it mainstream and a standard in controllers.

etc.

PC's are totally irrelevant to this thread, i don't even understand why people are bringing them into this discussion.

 

[BD2003]

I was primarily a PC gamers back then. You can call it a backstabbing if you want, but the way I see it, they took a lot of what was great about the PC, and consolified it, and the result was and still is something special. The PC platform has hardly changed, but that was always the problem. The 360 brought in all those PC devs and made them console devs. Consoles had nothing on the PC from 95-05, where the innovation really was IMO with real 3D graphics and online. MS were the first to really capitalize on that and bring that over to the console side, and unified it in such a way that could never happen on the PC.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that after ridiculing motion controls for so long, that's exactly what Sony and Microsoft are gravitating towards now?

Nintendo's new ideas have typically furthered and added complexity to its software (arguably), Microsoft has been focusing on simplifying it.

That only says that motion control is popular enough that Sony and MS decided it would be worth it to develop their own take on it. A lot of the people who ridiculed motion controls on the Wii are not at all interested in the Move or Kinect either - they are products aimed at people who have only recently become interested in video games.

I was at a friend's house last night and some people were playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl on the Wii. What were they using to control it? GameCube controllers, of course. Why? Because traditional controllers are superior for most games.

You may accuse Sony and MS of not innovating, but I can't fault them for taking what works and polishing it. Nintendo deserves credit for going out on a limb and trying things that haven't been successful or even attempted before.

I voted Nintendo in the poll, but my point is that innovative doesn't necessarily mean good. I'm glad Nintendo is innovating, but it doesn't mean I prefer their games and consoles at all.

 

[BD2003]

Right, I took the question to mean innovation in the sense of influential, impact on the future. Shifting paradigms. Not who came up with the quirkiest or most unique ideas, even if they don't stick.

 

[reallyscrued]

I hardly even played console games for 10 years until the 360 came around.

Nintendo has the history, but they are not the driving force they used to be, at least not in a way that I care about.

No offense, but that statement alone makes your opinion pretty much moot.

 

[reallyscrued]

That only says that motion control is popular enough that Sony and MS decided it would be worth it to develop their own take on it. A lot of the people who ridiculed motion controls on the Wii are not at all interested in the Move or Kinect either - they are products aimed at people who have only recently become interested in video games.

I was at a friend's house last night and some people were playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl on the Wii. What were they using to control it? GameCube controllers, of course. Why? Because traditional controllers are superior for most games.

You may accuse Sony and MS of not innovating, but I can't fault them for taking what works and polishing it. Nintendo deserves credit for going out on a limb and trying things that haven't been successful or even attempted before.

I voted Nintendo in the poll, but my point is that innovative doesn't necessarily mean good. I'm glad Nintendo is innovating, but it doesn't mean I prefer their games and consoles at all.

Woosh! That's the sound of how flexible Nintendo really is going right over your head.

Want traditional controllers? You got 'em. No bitching, no annoyances, it's there. Fighting games are no doubt better with traditional controllers But play an FPS with the wii-mote (seriously, give it a serious try, play a few hours) and feel the wonders of free aim and tilting the nunchuck lean left and right. It's eerily intuitive. Dual analog really doesn't compare anymore. Don't wanna use the wii-mote? Fine, most of the games can use classic controller pro or the GCN controller.

I'd agree with your point if Nintendo was forcing us to use their new control scheme, but they're not.

On a side note, not all fighting games suck ass with the wii-mote. If you really get a feel for MK:A on the Wii with the wii-mote (takes a little practice to feel out the quirks) its INCREDIBLY fun. My roommate and I stayed up hours on end going through each character and performing special moves in the middle of combat without a hitch. If only the fatalities didn't suck, that game would be one of the great of the 3D MKs.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

i think they all have innovated in their own way, but i'd say nintendo would win it if i had to pick 1 over the other.

Nintendo
- d pad
- analog stick and trigger (n64 controller)
- motion controls (as much as i hate it, they still made it mainstream)

Sony
- dual analog stick
- optical media as primary media

Microsoft
- standardized HDD in consoles (and then made it optional, which is odd)
- xbox live online gaming

Xbox Live came along well after PSN and even the Dreamcast was online before Live was around. And as much as some people want to pretend it's some revolutionary service so they don't feel cheated out of $50 or so every year it just isn't.

Nintendo would be the correct answer here obviously. Beyond what has already been stated they also realized that their franchises needed recognizable stars to headline their games, which is a big reason gaming exploded with the NES. Mario, Link, Samus, and others became the stars of our digital universe and continue to thrive; not unlike a big movie star with one of their franchises.

 

[BD2003]

No offense, but that statement alone makes your opinion pretty much moot.

Which, the part where I was more interested in PC games for a solid decade because the consoles were stagnant and weak compared to the powerful and online PC? Or the part where I don't worship at the shrine of nintendo?

Listen, I've been playing games my whole life. I still have a crate of atari 2600 and 7800 games. I've been there for the whole ride of console gaming. You can disagree, but I know what I'm talking about.

I really wasn't impressed with the ps1 and the n64 from the start. They were too early, and too weak. The very first voodoo card blew them away. Goldeneye was cool if you'd never played action quake. I had an analog joystick on my pc as long as I could remember. I just wasn't impressed by anything that generation had to show. Ooh, the controller could shake...whoopee, games are changed forever. That entire generation is almost unplayable nowadays...we'd have been better served by third, high end 2D generation than the subpar 3D one we were stuck with.

The dreamcast and next subsequent generation brought the tech to a point where the games they made looked decent and finally had a stable frame rate, but they weren't as online as I was used to. Its not like I didn't play console games for a decade, but my heart just wasn't there.

 

[purbeast0]

Xbox Live came along well after PSN and even the Dreamcast was online before Live was around. And as much as some people want to pretend it's some revolutionary service so they don't feel cheated out of $50 or so every year it just isn't.

Nintendo would be the correct answer here obviously. Beyond what has already been stated they also realized that their franchises needed recognizable stars to headline their games, which is a big reason gaming exploded with the NES. Mario, Link, Samus, and others became the stars of our digital universe and continue to thrive; not unlike a big movie star with one of their franchises.

Live isn't just "playing games online" it is a lot more than that, which has now become a standard for all other online services.

oh and since you seem to have missed it above I'll quote it again...

i'm taking the question in this thread way different than most of the recent posts are.

the question isn't "who did what first" ... it is who was the most innovative.

and to me, that means who made changes that then became the new standard and that same company continued to succeed in their innovative change.

that is why 3DO or CDI did not get the "first to use disc based media" as an innovator, because they were failed consoles.

that is why Nintendo go the "first to bring analog stick" because they made it mainstream and a standard in controllers.

etc.

PC's are totally irrelevant to this thread, i don't even understand why people are bringing them into this discussion.

 

[reallyscrued]

Which, the part where I was more interested in PC games for a solid decade because the consoles were stagnant and weak compared to the powerful and online PC? Or the part where I don't worship at the shrine of nintendo?

The first one.

Listen, I've been playing games my whole life. I still have a crate of atari 2600 and 7800 games. I've been there for the whole ride of console gaming. You can disagree, but I know what I'm talking about.

I really wasn't impressed with the ps1 and the n64 from the start. They were too early, and too weak. The very first voodoo card blew them away. Goldeneye was cool if you'd never played action quake. I had an analog joystick on my pc as long as I could remember. I just wasn't impressed by anything that generation had to show. Ooh, the controller could shake...whoopee, games are changed forever. That entire generation is almost unplayable nowadays...we'd have been better served by third, high end 2D generation than the subpar 3D one we were stuck with.

The dreamcast and next subsequent generation brought the tech to a point where the games they made looked decent and finally had a stable frame rate, but they weren't as online as I was used to. Its not like I didn't play console games for a decade, but my heart just wasn't there.

Okay, well if your history with gaming is as rich as you claim, then I'll admit to have falsely concluded that you don't know what you're talking about. However, to have not appreciated the PS1 and N64 is to overlook a lot. I'd rather not beat a dead horse here; to each his own my man.

 

[smartpatrol]

Nintendo is definitely the most innovative. I honestly don't see how anybody can argue otherwise. I guess what disappoints me is that they are no longer on the cutting edge performance-wise. They used to push the envelope with every hardware generation. Just off the top of my head:

- sprite scaling/rotation abilities on the SNES + real 16-bit color (unlike Genesis) (EDIT: I mean 8-bit color. SNES did 256 colors, Genesis only did 64)
- awesome sound processor on the SNES compared to the competition
- SuperFX chip for 3D polygonal graphics
- RDRAM + SGI graphics chip on the N64
- powerful hardware crammed into a tiny yet well-ventilated space with the Gamecube.
- Flipper GPU with hardware T&L, eDRAM, and S3 texture compression

They definitely have innovated in other ways as well (controller designs). It's just a shame that they decided they'd rather sell cheap, obsolete hardware now.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Want traditional controllers? You got 'em. No bitching, no annoyances, it's there. Fighting games are no doubt better with traditional controllers But play an FPS with the wii-mote (seriously, give it a serious try, play a few hours) and feel the wonders of free aim and tilting the nunchuck lean left and right. It's eerily intuitive. Dual analog really doesn't compare anymore. Don't wanna use the wii-mote? Fine, most of the games can use classic controller pro or the GCN controller.

I'd agree with your point if Nintendo was forcing us to use their new control scheme, but they're not.

Actually I played Metroid Prime 3 for a few hours when I had a Wii, and it was terrible. Definitely worse than dual analog, and I'm a PC gamer first. As bad as the controls were in the earlier Metroid Prime games, they were still better than the Wiimote controls.

I also recall trying to play Twilight Princess and wishing I had gotten the GameCube version so I could use the GameCube controller. Unfortunately, the Wii version doesn't let you use a GCN controller.

I was thankful for the games that did support their old controllers and I have to hand it to Nintendo for having by far the best backwards compatibility ever, with every new system of theirs supporting games from the previous generation. But the Wii's waggle controls are bad if you're not playing party games, and that affects all the games for the system.

 

[BD2003]

Actually I played Metroid Prime 3 for a few hours when I had a Wii, and it was terrible. Definitely worse than dual analog, and I'm a PC gamer first. As bad as the controls were in the earlier Metroid Prime games, they were still better than the Wiimote controls.

I also recall trying to play Twilight Princess and wishing I had gotten the GameCube version so I could use the GameCube controller. Unfortunately, the Wii version doesn't let you use a GCN controller.

I was thankful for the games that did support their old controllers and I have to hand it to Nintendo for having by far the best backwards compatibility ever, with every new system of theirs supporting games from the previous generation. But the Wii's waggle controls are bad if you're not playing party games, and that affects all the games for the system.

Yeah, I mean there was something neat and visceral about the wiimote controls in FPS games, but while it's arguably the most realistic, it's not as precise as a m/kb or even dual sticks. Either you had to drag all the way to the edge to turn in some games, which stunted movement or you had a smaller bounding box and you couldn't aim properly cause the screen kept moving. Ultimately it never kept that promise of being the *best* way to control an FPS game. The control scheme has it's merits but I can't ever say itd be my first choice.

Turning your arm to sideways spray a Mac 10 like a G in red steel was damn fun for a minute though.

 

[CZroe]

We owe Nintendo for analog thumb-sticks, shoulder buttons, D-pad, force feedback, and on and on. Seeing someone mention dual analog in the very first reply only makes me LOL because Sony only tacked it on to their SNES rip-off controller to respond to the N64 and only tacked on a second stick to keep it balanced (was an afterthought and was not designed around it like N64, DC, XBLX, GCN, etc). The same goes for adding dual force feedback motors! Look a bit closer and you'll notice the the original non-analog PSX controller was just an SNES controller with double shoulder button!

Noticing a trend here? Everything Nindendo does first, Sony doubles up on and tacks it on with minimal effort. The only thing they deserve credit for is analog buttons, which most users never noticed anyway.

We owe Nintendo for even the most basic gamepad standards, like D-pads and shoulder buttons. Nintendo held a trademark on the simple D-Pad for decades (since Game and Watch), forcing people to work around it (sunken/embedded PSX D-pad, square Master System D-pad, Floating circular Genesis/Saturn D-pads, etc).

 

[BD2003]

We owe Nintendo for analog thumb-sticks, shoulder buttons, D-pad, force feedback, and on and on. Seeing someone mention dual analog in the very first reply only makes me LOL because Sony only tacked it on to their SNES rip-off controller to respond to the N64 and only tacked on a second stick to keep it balanced (was an afterthought and was not designed around it like N64, DC, XBLX, GCN, etc). The same goes for adding dual force feedback motors! Look a bit closer and you'll notice the the original non-analog PSX controller was just an SNES controller with double shoulder button!

Noticing a trend here? Everything Nindendo does first, Sony doubles up on and tacks it on with minimal effort. The only thing they deserve credit for is analog buttons, which most users never noticed anyway.

We owe Nintendo for even the most basic gamepad standards, like D-pads and shoulder buttons. Nintendo held a trademark on the simple D-Pad for decades (since Game and Watch), forcing people to work around it (sunken/embedded PSX D-pad, square Master System D-pad, Floating circular Genesis/Saturn D-pads, etc).

Nintendo did not create the d-pad. Intellivision was first there, even before game and watch. All nintendo did was make a cross instead of a disc out of it. And it's not a novel input method anyway, it's just a flat joystick.

Likewise, nintendo did not create the analog joystick in the console space - the atari 5200 had one. In the early 80s. IIRC the vectrex was also analog. Nor did they create the thumbstick - you could attach one to the 7800 dpad, and while digital, it looks almost exactly like an n64 thumbstick.

And while I know of no company before nintendo to have l/r shoulder buttons, they're hardly the first company to have buttons on the top or side of the controller.

They were first to bring force feedback to the home controller, but that still remains a novelty on a d-pad (unlike a racing wheel). One I wouldnt want to get rid of, but a gimmick nonetheless.

So when you peel back the layers, you see that nintendo did not create or innovate most of these ideas. Just popularized them, modified them slightly. They might be the first you remember having a d-pad, but they didn't come up with the idea.

Certainly Sony doesn't deserve the title for anything, but giving nintendo credit for all these things is not quite accurate.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Well?

I nominate Nintendo...
Wii showed the world interactive games involving your body
N64 gave us rumble-pak (now in EVERY controller)

those are just off the top of my head you guys will know more.

The N64's power and default analog joystick also revolutionized gaming to a new 3D game world standard beyond what was predominantly 2D experiences prior to it.

It wasn't until after the N64 came out (and also after they introduced the rumble pack) that Sony introduced the dual shock controller to provide both analog joysticks and rumble feedback.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Nintendo did not create the d-pad. Intellivision was first there, even before game and watch. All nintendo did was make a cross instead of a disc out of it. And it's not a novel input method anyway, it's just a flat joystick.

Likewise, nintendo did not create the analog joystick in the console space - the atari 5200 had one. In the early 80s. IIRC the vectrex was also analog. Nor did they create the thumbstick - you could attach one to the 7800 dpad, and while digital, it looks almost exactly like an n64 thumbstick.

And while I know of no company before nintendo to have l/r shoulder buttons, they're hardly the first company to have buttons on the top or side of the controller.

They were first to bring force feedback to the home controller, but that still remains a novelty on a d-pad (unlike a racing wheel). One I wouldnt want to get rid of, but a gimmick nonetheless.

So when you peel back the layers, you see that nintendo did not create or innovate most of these ideas. Just popularized them, modified them slightly. They might be the first you remember having a d-pad, but they didn't come up with the idea.

Certainly Sony doesn't deserve the title for anything, but giving nintendo credit for all these things is not quite accurate.

yes they do deserve the credit, you have to draw the line somewhere, at the very lease Nintendo was the first one to put all the pieces together to make such features a mainstay of modern console gaming

Nintendo had motion controls way back with the Power Glove, and if history was different and it was Sony who first introduced successful motion controls with the PS3 instead of Nintendo with the Wii we wouldn't credit Nintendo with motion control innovation because of the Power Glove because that product was not successful and failed to catch on.

 

[BD2003]

yes they do deserve the credit, you have to draw the line somewhere, at the very lease Nintendo was the first one to put all the pieces together to make such features a mainstay of modern console gaming

Nintendo had the Power Glove, and if history was different and it was Sony who first introduced successful motion controls with the PS3 we wouldn't credit Nintendo with motion control innovation because of the Power Glove.

There's a huge difference between a power glove and a wiimote. There's a very small difference between the intellivision disc and the d-pad.

Like I said, they get credit for popularizing them, and making high quality iterations of these controls. Their first party controllers up until the dual shock were unmatched. But they did not come up with these ideas. That's just factually incorrect.

It's like giving Microsoft credit for the GUI. They made a particularly good one that took the world by storm, but it's NOT their idea.

 

[BenSkywalker]

- The first HD console
- Standard wireless controllers

My 360 didn't come with wireless controllers, they were not default, they only came in certain packages and the WaveBird was also included in certain GC packages. The PS3/Wii are the first consoles that had standard wireless controllers.

- Standard voice chat in all games, mic packed in

Again, no mic, and no voice chat included with my 360. I could buy an extra mic and pay for XBox Live and then have those things, but spending an extra $100 has never been considerd 'packed in'.

- In game OS access

Atari had this on certain models in the 70s.

- Bite sized, low price, digitally distributed games - XBLA

Famicom and Genesis both had comparable services(although not in the US or Europe for the NES)

- Indie games

Seriously? Until the late 80s most game developers were indies.

 

[BD2003]

Seems like the takeaway is that console gaming just isn't a very innovative space. Nearly everything in it had been done in some shape form or fashion on the PC or the arcade first. Seems like you could point to a precursor of just about everything that's successful nowadays to some earlier tech in the pc or console that was half assed or way ahead of it's time.

I still think the only truly innovative tech nintendo has brought out that I hadn't seen at all anywhere before is the accelerometer/motion controls of the wiimote. I guess you could throw the virtual boy in as well. Throughout history they've always seemed to me as a conservative company that made high quality games and hardware. I'd even go as far as to call them my favorite. But in the end their experiments always seem to end up as failures to be perfected by someone else, just as they do to others.

 

[gorcorps]

We owe Nintendo for analog thumb-sticks, shoulder buttons, D-pad, force feedback, and on and on. Seeing someone mention dual analog in the very first reply only makes me LOL because Sony only tacked it on to their SNES rip-off controller to respond to the N64 and only tacked on a second stick to keep it balanced (was an afterthought and was not designed around it like N64, DC, XBLX, GCN, etc). The same goes for adding dual force feedback motors! Look a bit closer and you'll notice the the original non-analog PSX controller was just an SNES controller with double shoulder button!

Noticing a trend here? Everything Nindendo does first, Sony doubles up on and tacks it on with minimal effort. The only thing they deserve credit for is analog buttons, which most users never noticed anyway.

We owe Nintendo for even the most basic gamepad standards, like D-pads and shoulder buttons. Nintendo held a trademark on the simple D-Pad for decades (since Game and Watch), forcing people to work around it (sunken/embedded PSX D-pad, square Master System D-pad, Floating circular Genesis/Saturn D-pads, etc).

The fact that you put the N64 controller design above the dualshock design discredits everything you say. The N64 controller had some nice features not seen before, but it was a horrendous... uncomfortable... TERRIBLE design. Sony took all the buttons the N64 had and put them all in easy to reach locations in a comfortable to play position. You didn't have to switch hand positions to use the d-pad vs. stick like on the N64.

I remember playing Ape Escape with dual sticks, and it was fantastic. Absolutely 100% designed for that kind of controller from the ground up. Not sure what you mean about Sony not designing it properly, but it sounds like you're just a sony hater. Up until the 360 controller Sony had (IMO) the best controller.

 

[BD2003]

Also, I find that those little embedded ridges at the base of the stick that forces it into one of the 8 directions is a really poor design. Every nintendo analog stick (other than the yellow GC C stick IIRC) has that stupid, restrictive design.