If you want to see how much technology has changed, you need look no closer than the user experience. Once upon a time, we’d have to sit at a desk to access digital technology, now we access it on the go with mobile devices. However, it’s easy to identify who was an early user of mobile phones versus new users mostly by the way they type with the keyboard: Newer users type with their thumbs.
The increased utilization and dexterity of our hands in the control of devices is tied up in the evolution of video game controllers. The evolution of digital ergonomics can inform us about the decisions of the design of video games in both hardware and software that lead us to the modern layout of controls. To trace this story, we need to look at the changes in the joystick and the button through the years of the electronics industry.
Joysticks are most identified today with arcade games, but they were not all that present in the early electro-mechanical games. Though there were some examples – mostly flight-based games which were modeling airplane sticks – they were mainly not needed because most games did not involve controlling “characters.” The need for axial movement was minimal and most games required physical movement of parts of the cabinet to direct shots and hit targets. Most joysticks were therefore analog, as they were directly maneuvering pieces inside of the game.
Small scale digital electronics were most prominently combined with the joystick in remote control airplanes. These first model plane remote controllers were operated with one hand holding the base and a pinch grip holding the joystick for fine, precision movements. Other models incorporated two sticks placed on either side of the device, which were most logically operated via the hobbyist’s thumbs. This early example of “dual stick” control didn’t necessarily influence controller design, but the RC experience definitely influenced early video games including Pong clones and early consoles.
Full-sized joysticks were first tested on commercial video games with Atari’s Space Race in 1973. The movement was restricted to vertical movement, triggering a digital circuit for exact movements rather than attempting to wrangle analog inputs. Driving games featured forms of analog movement with pedals and wheels, which somewhat limited how many players could be on a singular cabinet. The game Pace Car Pro by Electra Games utilized joysticks for a four-player experience and featured the first instance of a ball-topped joystick in video games.
The main disadvantage of the full-sized joystick was that it occupied the entire hand, restricting the player’s attention to movement as the main method of interaction. Push buttons existed on electro-mechanical games, but often required the player to stop their movement to engage the button. This was different on shooting games which used the conceits of weaponry like triggers on rifles and hat-top buttons on combat flight sticks – such as on Sega’s Missile. The Atari/Kee Games breakout success Tank used two of these joysticks for movement and put the shooting button on top, perfectly positioned to be pressed with the thumb. Though Tank’s specific controls were not widely emulated, it did help to influence the interface of the first massive video game console.
Reportedly, the controller for the Atari VCS was originally designed for the dedicated console version of Tank before being ported to the programmable system. The setup was halfway between remote-control devices and the arcade joystick. Players used their whole hand to grip the joystick while resting the base in their opposite hand. The button was placed as to allow a player to reach their thumb around to press it while keeping the joystick elevated. This form factor – though painful for some – became the de facto standard in subsequent video game input devices. Few would use the same type of rigid joystick to avoid violating Atari’s patents, but the base-with-stick-and-button configuration was the way people played home video games for several years.
The push button had just as many variations as the joystick. For most people, the main point of comparison was the telephone with either solid plastic, rubber, or membrane keys. This helps to explain the likes of the Intellivision controller, with its rather bizarre layout which was difficult to properly handle. The controller did, however, implement an interesting method for movement: a disk which pivoted from a center point in sixteen different directions. While being recessed inside of an enclosed circle was unfortunate for anyone with long fingernails, it was one of the first multi-functional controllers with a thumb-based control.
One other consumer device that people were accustomed to by the late 1970s were handheld calculators. The calculator industry’s influence on video games was immense, but most prominently through the first handheld games. As with most calculators, handheld games did not initially have the expectation of thumb control. The form factors were typically vertically elongated and clustered their controls towards the center, making comfortable thumb play difficult – which was fine for games with simple controls.
Some handhelds through 1978-1979 became more robust, attempting to emulate the range of motions used in arcade games. This was usually achieved via four buttons placed in the cardinal directions, similar to games like Blockade. Tiger Electronics decided to implement the versatility of this control into a small line of handhelds called Playmaker which simulated a variety of sports games. They consolidated this control into a single cross-shaped piece, what they called the “one-button controller” which had an axial tilt similar to the Intellivision controller. As noted by Alex Smith, the Playmaker button was more often shown pressed via a single finger rather than rocked via a thumb – more than likely due to the tabletop nature of the design. However, it was a persistent design which even re-emerged when Tiger revived their handhelds in the mid 80s – modeled after their most persistent partner and rival.
When Nintendo decided to enter the handheld gaming market, their concept was very much dictated by the social environment of Japan. Gunpei Yokoi and Satoru Okada decided to create a game which could fit into a breast pocket of a Japanese school uniform and be hidden from view while it was being played. To accomplish this, they decided on a wide form factor, something which was held on both sides with the thumbs resting on top. The technology, game quality, and social place of the Game & Watch redefined the entire market for handheld games and eventually all dedicated game controllers through their own pivoting T-shaped device.
The D-pad was again shaped by a need to conform to an industrial design vision. The dual-screen Game & Watch needed to be able to close to keep a similar profile to the original models, causing issues with a multi-directional controller as in Donkey Kong. Whether or not it was drawn from any previous sources, Yokoi’s invention was a marvelous piece of engineering which conformed to the needs of discrete control while also solving the issues of the Intellivision and Playmaker controllers. It was a perfect way to engage the primary thumb without calling on it to be too dexterous. When it was adopted into the Family Computer, it both expanded and shaped the types of games which would dominate consoles thereafter. It was a huge step for input ergonomics – “Nintendo thumb” not withstanding – also creating a perfect compact input for the later Game Boy.
Evolving the format was the follow-up console, the Super Famicom. A project led by none other than Shigeru Miyamoto, the design took criticisms of the Family Computer controller to heart to create a more complex and comfortable design. The slanted indicators of the face buttons were specifically built with the concept of holding one button while pressing another, assisted by the rounded edges. This was enhanced by giving a meaning to the index finger rests with the L and R buttons, involving the hand yet further in complex, multi-button inputs. Super Famicom’s complexity was initially criticized, but eventually it set a standard in game controllers forever thereafter.
For the final stage, we return to where we started. Analog joysticks were a difficult fit for games, primarily due to the limited amount of difference in motion low-resolution games could portray. Consoles like the Videobrain had games which were hamstrung by their choice of controller – chiefly because they didn’t self-center. This was also infamously a problem with Atari’s 5200, where most games didn’t even attempt to make use of the functionality. Centering joysticks did eventually enter the fray on computers – both Atari-style sticks and traditional flight sticks – but they remained under-utilized due to the expectation of digital joysticks and were still cumbersome to use as pinch or hand grip devices.
Thumb-fit analog sticks started emerging in the later part of the 1980s, during a time when the controller peripheral market for consoles was exploding. Input devices like the NES Max and the Quickshot Chimera 2 applied the concept to console games, but they were abstracting digital inputs rather than providing new experiences. The (somewhat overdesigned) XE-1 AP controller on the other hand specifically replicated some of the gradation of movement seen in computer flight sticks. The device was promoted specifically for use with After Burner II, with integration for the analog movement by Sega. It was even designed in a semi-ergonomic manner with shoulder buttons – though it was too bulky to actually use the entire controller in the same way as the Super Famicom.
The joystick concept remained present not so much through video games, but through multimedia devices. This was primarily a function of the PC-adjacent interface which put a bit focus on selecting individual elements on a multimedia page. Philips’ CD-i had a myriad of control options, one of which called the “Thumbstick” – featuring just that. The FroxSystem had a similar device called the FroxWand. This didn’t result in many meaningful changes beyond the remote emulation of a mouse, though the thumbstick controller was specifically recommended by some CD-i games. It took the next technological revolution – 3D graphics – to provide the impetus for the new controller design.
Nintendo’s Ultra 64 project prioritized analog movement as vital to the 3D experience early in its development. Early versions of the controller were actually a modified Super Nintendo pad with a grafted stick on top, but eventually Nintendo’s R&D3 team designed the final form factor for the Nintendo 64. Often maligned for its asymmetrical design (insert “three hands” memes here), the controller was in part meant to account for the uncertain future of input priority with its three different grips. It also forced users to accommodate to using their thumb on the joystick as the primarily movement input. As most games wound up using the middle and right of the controller, the tucked away Z trigger became a central feature in control layout. Shooters would take particular advantage of its triangular trigger shape which had a gradually sloped design, giving some extra weight to the pressing of the button.
The solidification of this design came with Sony’s Dual Analog controller – and later DualShock. Having taken a less radical shift in the Super Nintendo controller design, Sony did not take advantage of analog inputs right away. They instead provided themselves some extra room to add axial movement just below the basic controls. The standardized way Sony designed their controller made the switch from digital movement and constant button presses to primary movement and auxiliary control rather natural. Buttons became almost secondary to the thumbsticks and the dual triggers – neither of which were prominent in the 8-bit era. Though it took time for the standard to be adopted, by the PlayStation 2, console games were irrevocably altered by this change in input.
Zooming in on the transition of input devices from military to gameplay applications is an interesting exercise to look at the influence of video games through. It shows both the diverse influences and the many paths that were tried and rejected on the way to modern design. The chaotic nature, dead-ends, and parallel evolutions of digital technology puts into sharp focus why the things that won ultimately did. Was it inevitability or just the best thing that we settled on? How early is anything that catches on evident to those who are paying attention? Mostly, it’s just another tale wrapped up in video game history.
The History of How We Play 
