Yeah, I played the N64 version of Rainbow 6, and that game seemed to want me to regularly switch between joystick and D-pad, so I guess some 3rd party developers didn’t get the memo, but you’re not supposed to design games that way. Technically the Sega Saturn had a joystick on one of it’s controllers, but you could also get a D-pad only controller. My friend had that Mario party glove, but we wouldn’t let him use it, since it was an unfair advantage. He had to rip the skin off his hands just like the rest of us.

I just left two long comments about this, but tl;dr, there’s no DualShock without Nintendo inventing this derpy thing first. DualShock was an industry defining design, but they were refining the functionality Nintendo created.

The N64 invented 3D platforming with this controller, which is why Mario 64 puts things like Crash Bandicoot and Laura Croft to shame; they’re creation of the C-buttons allowed for a free moving camera that could be used simultaneously with the joystick, which no one else could do at the time. Here’s an old promotional video for the DualShock where a developer even says, “What I’m really excited about is that we can do this on Sony, we don’t have to go do it on Nintendo.”

Nintendo invented an entirely novel system of inputs to give unprecedented control over a 3D environment. Sony looked at what Nintendo was doing and found a way to simplify those controls, and it was a great design; it’s the template for every modern controller. But criticizing Nintendo for not taking the time to, “reflect or refine,” the design, even though the design was a groundbreaking achievement in game development at a time when there was literally a new dimension being added to games, is ridiculous.

It wasn’t impossible, it just hadn’t been done yet. 3D games were a new concept, and no one was really sure how to implement them. A joystick made the most sense for moving a character through a 3D world, but the D-pad would work better for pretty much every game that had been developed up until that point. The Sega Saturn and the Playstation both prioritized the D-pad; they both launched with D-pad controllers (the Saturn had a joystick-optional controller, but it’s games could be played with the D-pad). The drawback to their designs was camera controls; their games either needed a fixed camera (like Crash Bandicoot) or camera switching (like Laura Croft), where you alternate using the D-pad to, “look,” or, “walk.”

The N64 controller’s design was basically a, “best of both worlds,” senerio. Hold it one way and it was a standard D-pad with 6 buttons. Hold it the other and it’s a joystick controller with a small D-pad (the c-buttons) and three regular buttons (A, B, and the Z-Trigger). That design made Mario 64 the industry standard for 3D platforming; the c-buttons could control a fluid, free moving camera without giving up access to the joystick. It was revolutionary and set a new standard for 3D gaming…for about a year. Then Sony invented the Duelshock controller, which pretty much every modern controller is based on. But for a while, the N64 controller was the only controller capable of fully utilizing the joystick and the D-pad, and years later, it gets ridiculed for being first.

Honestly, I think, “both,” really was the only choice. No one had developed for a joystick-exclusive console since the Atari days. Most third-party developers would have had a tough time porting and adapting their games over to an exclusively joystick layout. The other consoles of that generation, the Saturn and Playstation, both had D-pad only controllers and D-pad/joystick combination controllers; no one went joystick only. The N64 design was imperfect, but it allowed them to launch Mario 64 and Mortal Kombat Trilogy in the same year (and it was a step up from Sega’s crack at it).

I mean, at the time it was designed, “both,” pretty much was the right choice. Without the D-pad a lot of the titles they could reliably develop, like fighting or puzzle games, would have been incredibly difficult to get working well, but without the joystick, they couldn’t launch with titles like Mario 64. It’s easy to look at the PS1 Duelshock controller and assume they were idiots, but original PS1 controller only had a D-pad. The N64 beat the PS1 to the joystick by two years, and while it was much derpier than the Playstation’s solution, it was integrated from day one.

LOL, yeah, you’d kinda have to.

How the hell did you use the Z-trigger?

It’s gotta be Zoomers looking at it with no frame of reference. Anyone who played this at the time would have recognized the layout here; they were taking the SNES controller, adding an extra set of buttons to be more in line with the 6 button layout popularized by Sega, and then sticking a joystick in the middle. Assigning the c-buttons as directional was actually pretty insightful. They work for camera controls on stuff like Mario 64, but they also function as a top-row/bottom-row for strong-attack/light-attack on D-pad fighting games like Mortal Kombat.

The worst has to go to the Phillips CDI. In fairness, this was designed primarily as a remote control, and there was a much better dedicated gaming controller available, but they believed this layout would be adequate for gaming.

It was designed at a transition point between joysticks and the D-pad. Your right hand goes on the right prong for the A, B, and C buttons. Your left hand should be on the center prong when using a game designed for the joystick, or on the left prong when using a game designed for the D-pad. It’s not the most elegant design, but it’s really not that hard to figure out.

Highlander rocks too. Time Bandits as well. He had some interesting, unorthodox choices throughout his career.

In all seriousness though, thank you for the information, but I will still continue to believe that Sean Connery gave up acting because he could no longer figure out what good or bad movies were.

I already told you, I will not hear corrections! Blocked!!!

I agree that he wouldn’t have been right for either part, but I’m sure they still would have been very successful franchises. Also, he probably wouldn’t have gotten either part (definitely not Gandalf), they were just approaching him about it. Producers on Batman (1989) were in talks with Bill Murray and Pierce Brosnan before they moved on to Michael Keaton, but it’s pretty unlikely either one would have made it.

With adult eyes, it’s pretty bad. Also, it’s an adaptation of a much better Alan Moore graphic novel.

I heard this story, not sure if it’s true, but I choose to believe it and will not hear any corrections; apparently, he was approached about Gandalf, but he turned it down because he didn’t really understand it. Then he was approached about Dumbledore, but turned it down because he didn’t really understand it. After seeing how those two franchises turned out, he said, “screw it, I’m taking the next role that I don’t get.” That role was Alan Quartermaine in League of Extraordinary Gentleman. After that movie bombed he retired from acting altogether.

Wonder how they snuck this by Bari Weiss.

I disagree that there is nothing the states could do. They have armed personnel, they have citizens that support them, they have the law on their side. We outnumber them, we have a national guard, we have cops, and we could create militias, blue states not only should physically prevent the feds from marching in and running fixed elections, they have a duty to.

I mean, yeah, if the feds try to seize ballots, this is probably what’s going to have to happen, but please understand where this goes. Feds come in, demand the ballots to look for, “fraud,” local authorities refuse, and there is an armed standoff. Maybe a state calls in the National Gaurd for backup. Trump can then either nationalize that gaurd in response, leading to conflicting orders, and Trump almost certainly invokes the insurrection act, allowing him to send active duty troops into the state. That would be the beginning of the Civil War.

I doubt Trump wants something that messy though. He’ll almost certainly attempt to purge voter rolls wherever he can and suppress the vote with ICE. Dominion voting was also bought out by a Republican election official, so that could be another method to falsify the vote as well. Luckily those methods are imperfect (even Dominion voting requires a physical ballot trail), so we can still overcome that kind of voter suppression.

I mean, if you’re talking about Trump sending in federal agents to seize ballots, then yes, that would be bad and there is very little an individual state could do to stop it without an armed conflict. At that point, ballot stuffing would be a secondary concern over the fact that a second Civil War had broken out. I maintain that the more likely scenario, though, will be Trump sending CBP and ICE goons to stop, “illegals,” from voting, which would be a flimsy pretense for voter suppression. But, “federalizing the elections,” would require upednig Article 1, section 4 of the Constitution, and even with our deeply fucked up court system, I can imagine Trump getting that through in 9 months. Maybe I’m wrong, and a favorable court would allow him to proceed until he got it to the Supreme Court, but I think that’s a stretch.