Main > Main Forum
I think I hate leaf switch sticks.....
<< < (8/27) > >>
Donkbaca:
Nope, the hardware guys had wico leaf sticks laying around so they used them in the build.  They horde the good stuff from themselves so that the software folks don't mess it up
CheffoJeffo:

--- Quote from: Donkbaca on February 03, 2012, 12:46:46 pm ---Nope, the hardware guys had wico leaf sticks laying around so they used them in the build.  They horde the good stuff from themselves so that the software folks don't mess it up

--- End quote ---

Reference ?

As I said before, it must have been from all of the previous Williams cabs that used Wico leaf sticks ...
DaveMMR:

--- Quote from: RandyT on February 03, 2012, 12:46:20 pm ---You may wish to note that that title did not use a typical trackball installation.  It was oriented very differently, and programmed specifically to support this orientation, in order to provide a better gaming experience for that particular game.  Your example actually proves he is incorrect.

--- End quote ---

It wasn't THAT special, Randy.  They just installed them at 45 degree angles. They were still just regular Atari trackballs. That'd be like saying the builders who put their outside sticks at angles on 4-player panels are using "special" joysticks.

I don't 100% agree that all games are made without input from the designers and programmers, but I do believe from a money standpoint, there were certainly games who's controls were simplified for cost concerns and not typically for the "ultimate game experience".  

(sorry for all the edits - I keep hitting save before finishing)

2nd edit: Just reread and saw Xiaou2 mentioned the motorized trackballs in his post:

--- Quote --- In fact, Marble Madness creators were originally trying to make a motorized force-feedback trackball set.  Unfortunately, they couldnt get it to work right & ran out of time... so used the standard design instead.
--- End quote ---

I'm not going to argue as to whether it really was a time situation or Atari, as I read it, just basically said it was unfeasible but these companies weren't really known for nurturing their artists ahead of profit so I'm more apt to believe they followed the "simple = cheap" rule.
RandyT:

--- Quote from: DaveMMR on February 03, 2012, 04:23:02 pm ---It wasn't THAT special, Randy.  They just installed them at 45 degree angles. They were still just regular Atari trackballs.

--- End quote ---

Well it was special to the point that, AFAIK, it was the only game in history to have used a trackball in that way, and it was done so to enhance that particular game.  While the trackball itself wasn't that special, the extra effort in the code and what seems to be an ultimate decision to take this mounting approach after finding that it improved the experience, shows that there was much more going on than to just "throw a trackball in there and call it a day".  And that's kind of the point being discussed.


--- Quote ---I don't 100% agree that all games are made without input from the designers and programmers, but I do believe from a money standpoint, there were certainly games who's controls were simplified for cost concerns and not typically for the "ultimate game experience".  

--- End quote ---

There are obviously going to be exceptions to any rule.  However, the controls were (are) where the "rubber meets the road"  in the arcade industry.  For a company to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the programming, hardware design, artwork, cabinet design, production, marketing, etc.. and then make the game play poorly (or at least not as well as it could), to save $40 per unit, which is passed on to the operator, makes absolutely no sense.  It's not only counter-intuitive, but it makes poor economic sense.   A great example is a game like Arkanoid, considered a classic by most.  They could have used a pot based control, as did every one of it's predecessors of the same genre, but they chose to go with not only an optical control, but one which had a very specific feel.  It you want to assert that such decisions were arbitrary, and that the success of the game was accidental, I don't have anything specific to refute that.  I can only state that it was terribly unlikely to have taken that path, based on so many other similar examples.
Donkbaca:
you guys make it seem like there is some huge collaborative effort on each game.  Maybe, but I tend to think like most companies you had an assembly line.  The software guys do the software, the artists do the flyers and marquees and cabinet art and the hardware dudes built the machines.  Any revolution was probably done more as a marketing gimmick and on a whim rather then being the result of careful research to maximize the playability of games.  These companies were churning out 3-4 games a year, they didn't have the time to put in that kind of effort per game
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version