Yeah, I could make this a poll, but I don't want to. This is prompted by the discussion of the Revolution controller, which is supposed to be so revolutionary, it will melt your soul if you look at it (think Arc of the Covenant). Forgive me if any of this sounds like ranting or that I am only bashing a single console (I love and hate them all pretty much equally).
Ok, I am all for innovation, but not at the cost of everything else. I have no idea what the Revolution is going to look like, but why does it have to be any different than the style of the current generation controllers? I study and research user interfaces, including input devices, and the design of the current generation controllers are well laid out and very effective. The X360 controller is similar enough to the Xbox controller. I'm not sure who thought up the batarang idea for the PS3, but even it is of a similar style
My problem isn't just with the controllers, but with how games are being made too. I'm seeing too much emphasis on online functionality; the Live! button on the X360 controllers, Phantasy Star Universe being a online/offline hybrid, etc. Wouldn't you think that Splinter Cell would have sold more copies if they separated the multiplayer aspect into a second game and that both would have been better/longer?
And someone please tell me why we can't have more 2D/sidescrolling games (i.e. shooters and classic Metroid-style adventure) even if they do use 3D polygons? Metroid and Mario lost something for me when they went into the thrid dimension.
Am I alone?