Talk:Gamepad

LOL PIPPIN

Why are we using a Pippin controller at the top of this article? (Momus (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Probably because Pippin doesn't have its own section in the article like other more known consoles. --Mika1h (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And besides, it’s GAMEPAD.83.20.44.118 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)W4rb1rd

Famicom recall

It says that, under NES, before the 1984 recall - Famicom controllers used square 'A' and 'B' buttons. Why were they recalled?--213.83.125.225 (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but according to [1] the buttons wore out very quickly. Alphathon^TM (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. It's intresting. :-) --213.83.125.225 (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PS button icons

Regarding the replacement of the PlayStation button icons, there are several reason why it is better the way it is.

1. The linked article (MOS:ICON) states no preference for templates* or character-based layouts over images as icons; it only mentions that they should have alt text for accessibility, which they do.
2. The templates used present an inaccurate version of the icons - the triangle for example is presented as a solid one, which it is not.
3. They are there to demonstrate the icons on the buttons, which technically the templates do not do (they show the buttons, not just the shapes).
4. The rounded button edges etc do not work in all browsers, so show up as squares/rectangles (just try it in Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Safari, Opera, on the PSP browser etc).
5. The characters used are often not present in fonts, so would not display properly for all users (such as those who have set a custom default font, or whose default font does not support such characters). For example, the PSP browser does not display the X character used (shows up as an _), but shows all the images fine since it can display pngs, which is what Wikipedia renders the rescaled svgs as.

*Saying that it is templates is ridiculous anyway - a template could easily use images.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The templates are specially designed to degrade gracefully in less capable browsers, as they're just styled text. Using images as text is discouraged in MOS:ICON at MOS:ICON#Do not use icons in general article prose. But I'm happy to compromise by removing both icons and images and just using text to describe the buttons, which is what we do for every other button described on the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

They degrade far less gracefully than the current ones - if you browser supports images in png format then it works, if not or if the image cannot be accessed (connection problems etc) then the alt text takes over. With the templates, if you have a font that doesn't support the characters used, then a null character is used instead rather than it being replaced by an alt.

As for the "Do not use icons in general article prose" bit, I don't think it is meaning quite what you think it is. What it seems to be referring to is that images (or stylised text for that matter, at least used as the templates were) shouldn't be used as visual representations of the text it accompanies. In this case they are not being used as icons as such as they are not representing, for example "a triangle"; the actual subject in question is the symbol being displayed, so they are not icons representing the symbols, but symbols themselves, just as letters and numbers are (as used on other controllers). If there were decent sized standard characters that could represent all the button labels, then they could be substituted, but as it stands there are not (X is not available to all, O and square are too small and have too much padding and triangle is solid).

Basically what I am saying is that each image in the text is a symbol, not an icon and is used in a similar way to characters from languages which do not have a standard equivalent (or could even be compared to foreign languages such as Japanese when translation are called for).

Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images backs up the idea that they shouldn't be used as substitutes for inline prose. While it is true that is not semantically identical to "green triangle button", the latter would be universally understood to mean the former in a written context and does away with the problems associated with inline images as prose. An image thumbnail is already present right next to the text for illustrative purposes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have less of an issue with swapping them with text than using the templates. That said, the button labels aren't "textual information", i.e. they are not images of text, so I don't think that applies either. Assuming it does for a moment though, I think there is "a good editorial reason for doing otherwise". The section is cluttered as it is (by necessity, but cluttered nonetheless) so adding "a green, hollow triangle, red hollow circle, blue cross and a pink hollow square" would at best make it overly verbose. If a small image can do the job of all that text, then I see no reason not to use it, especially when it gives a more accurate representation of the subject matter than words could (easily and concisely) give.

Also, looking briefly at the reasons given as why it is a bad idea:

• "True text may be colored and decorated with CSS tags and templates, but text in images cannot be." - does not apply since they are presented as they are supposed to be viewed.
• "Images are not searchable" - fair enough.
• "...are slower to download" - slightly, but as presented on the page, they are ~500 bytes, so the difference is negligible.
• "...and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired." - alt text.
• "editors should still consider whether an image of text really adds anything useful." - see above, but also shows that said section does not apply to this case anyway.
• "Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text." - again, they are not "textual information" and the info appears in the alt anyway.

Now, if we could assume that all browsers could view the images and that loading times weren't an issue, I'd say jut leave them out entirely and have them displayed as part of an image of a controller. That is not the case though, as if it were we wouldn't be having this discussion. It needs to degrade to be usable by the visually impaired etc (in which case it shows as it would in the text version), it needs to be concise and it needs to be as accurate as possible. The images as they are fit all three of these criteria. Plain text only fulfils one. Basically, as I see it it's: as it is now > plain text > templates.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Right: in that case, would you mind if I replaced the images with "Square, Circle, Cross (X) and Triangle" (no colours) as a compromise? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems like it would be would be necessarily sacrificing detail. Wouldn't be terrible, but since the only gain would be that it could be searched, I don't really see the point in sacrificing it. Basically, I think the way it is at the moment does a better job of conveying the information than text ever could, which I think is a good enough reason to leave it as it is, especially as there doesn't seem to be anything specific in the MOS that says not to (neither of the linked pages refer to this situation). I won't fight you on it though. Alphathon^TM (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now to see if anyone else chips in. It's not just that it can be searched: it's also more machine-readable. What little illustrative value it has is compensated for my having multiple illustrations accompanying it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Generic image for the lead section

File:Snes control.jpg is used in both the lead and the SNES section. I therefore propose replacing the lead image with the more generic File:Gnome-input-gaming.svg. What do people think? --trevj (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC) (Or alternatively File:Gamepad.svg?) --trevj (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

SNES's six action buttons

It's not easy to immediately check the source since it's a physical book, but this line sounds pretty suspect: "The inclusion of six active buttons was influenced by the popularity of the Street Fighter arcade series, which utilized six buttons.[3]" The original Street Fighter was not a world-changing success, and while Street Fighter II was, it didn't release until months after the Super Famicom. JoshuaJSlone (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is legitimate. Actually, in the book the statement is accredited to Shigeru Miyamoto himself. I would recommend tracking down a copy through a library or some other means. It is quite an interesting read. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dreamcast image

Would there be any objection to replacing the image currently used in this article with this one? The current image is apparently presented in order to highlight the European color scheme, but I think the image I'm proposing is more illustrative of the content of the article (which talks about the VMU). For reference the current image is new as of 2011 when it replaced this image. -Thibbs (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No objections here. Go for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably beneficial to show the VMU so yeah, go right ahead. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. -Thibbs (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You might have already thought of this.

What about the Nintendo Switch? Are they going to add it? 2602:306:374A:8F70:F1:5064:B730:294B (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Analogue joysticks and the PC

I know its sourced and everything so I'm not interested in fighting it, but I thought I should have it stated here, there is absolutely no way that analogue sticks were the predominant way of controlling games on computers, zero, zilch. The flightstick type controllers always were around but were not common at all, computer games were played with digital joysticks or keyboard/mouse.