I bought it and really tried to use it, but the reality was just too clunky for primary use. It has no dpad, a single crappy convex analog stick, terribly placed ABXY buttons, horrible shoulder buttons, and just a bit too much input lag on the trackpads.
Hard truths.
Why did they feel the need to replace analog controls with these weird, inconsistently responsive, difficult to map touch controls when every other console platform had already demonstrated why that’s a bad idea?
Was the SC innovative, bold and ahead of its time in many ways?
NO. It was kitsch and poorly engineered and obviously not play tested sufficiently before release. It was a hobbyist’s attempt at reinventing the mousetrap that got shoved into a major distribution pipeline when Playstation and Nintendo and XBox had already demonstrated why you don’t build controllers this way ten years earlier.
nagaram@startrek.website 1 day ago
Fully agree. I tried to make the SC work and wrote off a lot of it as “I’m just not used to it”, but it really is asking a lot. In its defence, it was a first run product. The fact that it’s still ass usable and as weird is impressive enough to me. But it’s better as a piece of gaming history than a good product. It was just a good try.
I also agree with the Steam deck controls being actually good. I want the SC2 that’s just a steam deck without the screen or computer.
So I guess the opposite of the steam brick.
I’d gladly pay $100 to have a steam deck like control scheme for my desktop. Rechargeable batteries and a Linux first design would be awesome. I don’t mind just using cables all the time, but I would like better wireless options for Linux gamepads (though to be fair, I haven’t tried connecting a wireless controller to a Linux box in 5 years).