[GD-Design] Revolution Controller design thoughts

[Chris C. <can...@gm...>]

Okay, this is more from a tech view than a design view, but in user
interface land the two have to be pretty close. I'm using the Chaos
Engine thread for inspiration as to points of discussion that people
might need to address.

Suitability for genres

FPS - as shown in the demos they did, apparently the main controller
for view angle and mini-joystick for movement works well.

Platform-er/3rd person - should be fairly similar to FPS, no?

RTS - not traditionally covered in consoles because of the difficulty
of control the lack of mouse gives. I can see how the main controller
angle could be used in place of a mouse to move a selector around the
screen

Racing/Driving - Not sure, but I think main controller held upright
like a joystick would be most intuitive here - tilt forward back for
accelerate/decelerate, right/left for turning. Does the mini-joystick
have a place?

Action/twitch - (a la R-Type or Tetris) intuition here would say the
main controller as a pointing mechanism, dragging the avatar around
the screen to manipulate. But in situations where the avatar changes
(i.e. new piece in Tetris), how do you deal with relative versus
absolute movement? E.g. having to move four pieces in a row to the
right. Do you use a button to 'pick up' before you can drag the
avatar?


General points

It seems that the absolute vs relative control question is the most
relevant - in any situation where the avatar you are controlling
changes, how do you 'reset' the controls. In an absolute system, if
you are all the way at one end of the control axis, do you a) start
the new avatar already turning right, b) start the new avatar centered
(which means you have to turn even more to the right to continue).

In this respect the controller's a bit of a halfway house between a
mouse and a joystick. It has the freedom of movement and intuitive
feel of a mouse, but it has absolute limits like a joystick. I.e.
while you can continually pick up and re-centre a mouse to get
continual movement in one direction, in the Rev controller you can
only turn it so far (before you have to let go and/or contort).

How usable would a system which uses the trigger button (the most
accessible on the controller) to act as an 'engager' be? I.e. relative
motion of the controller is only accepted when the trigger is pressed,
allowing the user to release the button to re-centre the controller
before pressing and moving again. If that is done continually
throughout, I think that the user could get used to pressing to move.
It would be similar to some third person games which use a mouse
button to engage movement, and when not engaged the mouse acts as a
regular pointer.

Right, that's enough blethering for now - discussion, rebuttal?
ChrisC