project

1
Free and Fixed Hand Distance Gamepad Controllers: An
Experimental Evaluation
Matthew Conte
York University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3
mattconte@rogers.com
ABSTRACT
A free-handed and an original fixed hand distance video
game gamepad controller (button input by thumbs)
undergo an experimental evaluation for a group of gamers
and non-gamers. Performance was measured in time
completion of a series of tasks. Both groups were divided
into two subgroups that were assigned order of controller
use. Both groups improved at a similar rate with both
controllers. The gamers completed the experiment 49%
faster and preferred the original design. The non-gamers
improved in performance using either controller after the
other by 26% and 3/4 of them preferred the free-handed
controller. Issues of physical design are examined for
each controller to determine which controller performs
better for and is more preferred by gamers and non-
gamers.
Author Keywords
Gamepad, Video Game, Controller, Nintendo, Gamecube,
Wii, Design
INTRODUCTION
The video game industry is large and ever growing but all
video game controllers today are a result of learning from
effective designs of past controllers. The NES (Nintendo
entertainment system) video game system, released in
1985, was the best-selling gaming console of its time in
North America and Asia [1]. It helped revitalize the US
video game industry following the video game crash of
1983 [2]. It set the standards for today’s video game
consoles from game design (including the internationally
popular Super Mario Brothers which popularized the
platform game genre that introduced elements that were
copied in many subsequent games [3]) to controller
layout.
The NES controller (Figure 1) utilized the cross-shaped
D-pad, designed by Nintendo employee Gunpei Yokoi
and the design has been incorporated in nearly every
major console that followed it and the design earned
Nintendo a Technology and Engineering Emmy Award
[4].
Original Gamepad Controller
The NES controller (Figure 1) was the first to follow the
“gamepad” design of video game controllers. Gamepad
controllers are held by the user’s hands that are always a
fixed distance apart, and input is provided with the
thumbs.
The gamepad design is the most prominent form of video
game controller today and the release of today’s video
game consoles such as the Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and
Nintendo Gamecube (Figure 1) adapted from it and
introduced new design additions that had to support more
complex actions for more advanced games, such as 3D
character movement, another joystick/D-Pad for moving
characters field of view in 3D environments, more
different action buttons, modes, etc. (Figure 1).
Free-Handed Gamepad Controller
The Nintendo Wii video game console, released in
September 14 2006, introduced a new form of controller,
nicknamed the Wiimote (Figure 2) that could be used as a
pointing device and detect motion in three dimensions.
The Wiimote can be attached to another controller called
the Nunchuk (Figure 2) forming a new gamepad design
where the Nunchuk provides the joystick character
movement input and the Wiimote provides actions by
button pressing with the thumbs.
Figure 1: First to current gamepad video game controller designs from left to right:
NES controller || Xbox 360 controller || PS3 Six-Axis controller || Gamecube controller

2
Figure 2: (left) Wiimote + Nunchuk “free-handed”
gamepad controller
(right) Gamecube “fixed hand distance” gamepad
controller
The design is similar to the Gamecube (Figure 2)
controller split in half and each half is used in a “free-
handed” manor, instead of having our hands a fixed
distance away from each other.
Appeal of Free-Handed Design
With the introduction of virtual reality in gaming without
complicated button pressing via the Nintendo Wii, the
video game industry attracted a larger audience and
evangelized non-gamers [5].
The virtual reality abilities of the Wiimote + Nunchuk
combined with the gamepad button layout for more
complex for the Wii helped entertain the audience of
expert gamers as well.
Non-gamers don’t prefer button pressing in games today
because today’s gamepad controllers contain too many
buttons, hence making them difficult to play at first and
hard to learn.
However, due to the remote control like design of the
Wiimote, gamepad button pressing is more intuitive for
non-gamers and the video game industry can attract both
the gamer and non-gamer audience for both virtual reality
and gamepad based games using this new controller
design.
Reduces Wrist Injuries?
The wrist being bent for a prolonged period of time is a
leading cause of carpal tunnel syndrome [6], which is
possible with playing the original gamepad design,
especially while sitting. A common way to play while
sitting involves the users’ knees far apart from each other,
leaning slightly forward, resting their elbows on their
knees and relaxing their wrists so that their hands
“dangle” downward, bending the wrists. The free-handed
design can avoid this by resting the wrists on the knees or
thighs instead, keeping them straight.
Gamers Estimated Performance/Preference
Gamers will be defined as people who currently are or
have recently played the latest video game consoles using
gamepad design controllers and play or played regularly.
The new design may not have significant effects to
performance because this version could be held in a
similar manner of the original design, producing very
little learning effect with an extremely high immediate
transfer of skill. The similar layout of the buttons with
respect to the thumbs acts as the critical invariant for the
original design [7].
Non-Gamers Estimated Performance/Preference
Non-gamers are simply the rest of the population that are
not gamers. Non-gamers don’t likely have recent
experience in using a gamepad controller. Given the more
intuitive remote control like design of the Wiimote, it’s
possible the non-gamer audience will perform better in
button pressing gamepad performance even with the
addition of the Nunchuk.
There is a likely chance that a non-gamer within the
college age (18-25 years old) has indeed played or at least
heard of earlier gamepad controllers, especially the
internationally popular Nintendo NES. As a result,
performance may not vary too much between both
controllers, but they may still prefer the more intuitive
free-handed version.
Controller Evaluation
This paper will evaluate performance and preference in
gaming between the fixed hand distance and free-handed
distance controllers for a group of gamers and non-
gamers. This is to see how well the two groups can
perform using gamepad input and to find a common
preferred gamepad controller design performed optimally
by gamers and non-gamers.
METHOD
Participants
Fourteen participants (4 female, 10 male) were recruited
from a local university campus. Volunteers were asked
for via an e-mail invitation sent through there class’ e-
mail address. Participants were asked to reply if interested
and indicate there availability before their class and if
they currently play or have recently played console based
video games (Playstation, Xbox, Gamecube, etc.) with a
gamepad style controller or not. This experiment
contained 6 gamers (6 male, 0 female) and 8 non-gamers
(4 male, 4 female).
Apparatus
The experiment uses the Nintendo Wii video game
console with the Gamecube controller and the Wiimote +
Nunchuk combination controller.
The game used to evaluate performance was Super Smash
Brothers Brawl (Figure 3) for the Nintendo Wii because it
is currently the only game available that can use both the
Gamecube and the Wiimote + Nunchuk as a gamepad

3
controller. The game does not use virtual reality, only
gamepad input.
A short questionnaire was distributed at the end of the
experiment. Participants were asked to complete the
simple yes/no questionnaire answering 6 questions about
their gender, video game controller playing experience, if
they’re left or right-handed and which controller they
preferred overall.
The screen used was a pull down screen, estimated at 4 x
4 feet, with a display from a projector similar to ones used
in local universities. All participants sat within 15 feet of
the screen.
Procedure
Participants took part in the experiment within their
classroom they were recruited from in a small lecture hall
located in the local university campus. The participants
were scheduled 15 minutes apart accordingly so that no
participant had an audience during the experiment as a
way to nullify any learning effects from watching others
play.
The experiment involved the participant playing, while
seated, a mini-game called “Break the Targets” (Figure 4)
where the user had to move his/her character through a
plat formed environment and break targets by attacking
them. This is the only found part of the game that
provides some measurement of performance for a given
task.
To better adapt to the non-gamer participants, the controls
to be used were the joystick for character movement (left
and right on joystick) and jump (up on joystick) and the A
button for attacking. The participants were told to only
use these controls and no others and were shown how to
use the controls to move, jump and attack in a brief 15-20
second preview using the first controller used in their
group. Participants were allowed to pause the game check
the map of the stage to find the locations of the targets by
pressing the start or + button on the Gamecube or Wii +
Nunchuk controller.
The character used by all participants was Kirby (Figure
3) who is one of the few characters capable of “floating”
by jumping several times in mid-air to reach higher
platforms without using the B button which can be used to
implement special attacks to move to higher places.
Participants played the game in 2 different stages (Figure
4) with 10 targets with the second stage being harder and
hence longer to complete than the first one. They played
stage 1 twice in a row before playing to stage 2 twice in a
row as a means to measure improvements due to practice.
To compensate for potential learning effects due to the
same order of the stages played, both the gamer and non-
gamer group were each split into two different groups,
one that plays with the Gamecube controller first then the
Wiimote + Nunchuk controller and vice versa.
Figure 3: (Left) Super Smash Brothers Brawl
(Right) Kirby
Time completion of the entire experiment for the gamer
group was within 5 minutes, while the non-gamer group
was completed within 10 minutes. Limited time was
available for more trial runs since the lecture hall where
the experiments took place was only available for a
limited time.
Participants then completed the questionnaire after the
experiment.
Design
Performance is measured in terms of time completion of
each Stage using the Controller and Stage as the within-
subjects factors and Group as the between-subjects factor.
Time spent checking the map was not included in
completion time. The experiment for this performance
measure will use a 2 x 4 repeated measures design, for the
gamers and the non-gamers. Results are calculated using
Professor Scott Mackenzie’s Anova Java Program [8].
(i) (ii)
Figure 4: Stage 1 and 2 in “Break the Targets”
(i) Stage 1: Gameplay view of character
(ii) Stage 2: Map of Stage after pressing start or
+ button

4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Gamers
There was no considerable variance by participant. The
longest mean completion time was 45.64 seconds and the
shortest was 31.5 seconds. The grand mean was 38.325
seconds.
Counterbalancing the order of controller use achieved the
expected result for experienced gamers as the Group
effect was not statistically significant (F=1,4 = 0.070, ns).
The means of performance of the Gamecube first and
Wiimote + Nunchuk first groups were respectively 39.08
seconds and 37.56.
The Controller effect (F1,4 = 0.121, ns) also provided no
statistical significance in performance, also as expected.
The means of performance of the Gamecube and Wiimote
+ Nunchuk controller were respectively 38.04 seconds
and 38.6 seconds.
Although improvement of trial completion time due to
practice (Stage effect) was more significant than both the
Controller and Group effect, it’s still not statistically
significant (F3,12 = 5.867, n > 0.05), see figure 5. It’s
naturally expected for someone to get better with practice,
gamer or not. Based on figure 5, there is a slight variance
in performance for Stage 2 Trial 1, but this isn’t
considered significant, especially for only 6 participants.
The grand mean improvement for Stage 1 (improvement
of Trial 2 from Trial 1 in Stage 1) was 14.62% and for
Stage 2 was 20.34%.
These results imply an almost “complete” skill transfer
effect, as assumed with the button layout acting as the
critical invariant [7] since all gamers played with the
Wiimote on the right hand and Nunchuk on the left like
the original gamepad design.
Overall performance between the controllers for the
gamer participants had no significant variance, as
expected. All participants preferred using the original
gasmepad design than the free-handed one.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
S1_T1 S1_T2 S2_T1 S2_T2
Sx_Ty = "Stage x Trial y"
CompTime(sec)
G/W - Gamecube
G/W - Wii
W/G - Gamecube
W/G - Wii
Figure 5: Gamers Time (s) means for Controller
in Group (Gamecube then Wii Group = G/W,
vice versa = W/G)
Invariance in Performance for Gamers
A possible reason no significant variance was found in
performance for the gamer group was because all
participants were male, had experience playing the
Gamecube and the Wiimote + Nunchuk controller and was
right-handed. Since performance had no significant
difference amongst controller use, participants are better
off using either controller for gamepad input, but prefer to
use the controller they’re more experienced with.
Non-Gamers
Unlike the gamer group, there was considerable variance
by participant for the non-gamer group. The longest mean
completion time was 98.65 seconds and the shortest was
46.66 seconds. The grand mean was 68.17 seconds.
Counterbalancing the order of controller use achieved
desired results because the Group effect was not
statistically significant (F1, 6 = 0.004, ns).
One effect that produced the most significant results was
the Stage effect (F3, 18 = 14.964, p < 0.0001). This group
improved in performance by practice more than the gamer
group, as expected since experienced gamers don’t have
much room left to improve. Performance increases were
also similar for both controllers in both groups, see figure
6.
The grand mean improvement for Stage 1 (improvement
of Trial 2 from Trial 1 in Stage 1) was 12.62% and for
Stage 2, 19.08%.
The key difference of results compared to the gamer
group is that there was a significant Controller by Group
effect (F1, 6 = 26.29, p < 0.005). This means that the
performance of a controller was affected by the order it
was played in, see figure 6 for details. Performance
improvement from the first controller used to the second
controller used is very similar for both groups. The
amount of improvement is seen in Table 1 on the next
page.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S1_T1 S1_T2 S2_T1 S2_T2
Sx_Ty = "Stage x Trial y"
CompTime(sec)
G/W - Gamecube
G/W - Wii
W/G - Wii
W/G - Gamecube
Figure 6: Non-Gamers Time (s) means for
Controller in Group (Gamecube then Wii Group
= G/W, vice versa = W/G)

5
Table 1 Non-Gamer Improvements of controller performance
by Grouping
Given an approximate 26% improvement in performance
within as little as 10 minutes of play, the grand
performance mean of the non-gamer group is still less
than that of the gamer group (38.325 sec), about a 49%
difference in overall performance between the gamers and
non-gamers, which is to be expected.
Preference
Although it’s not unanimous as expected, 6 out of 8
participants preferred playing with the free-handed
controller than the other one, 3 from the Wii/Gamecube
group, and 3 from the Gamecube/Wii group.
Reasons for Results
The similarity of increase in performance for both
controllers is likely because the critical invariant, being
the gamepad button layout, is maintained amongst
consecutive controller play resulting in a high skill
transfer [7]. The invariants in both cases were no different
because the non-gamers were observed using both
controllers in a similar manner. The participants were
found sitting with his/her knees close together and their
wrists resting on their knees and the position of the hands
were similar. This might be the participants found it more
comfortable to hold either controller the same way.
More Variance in Overall Results
The results have revealed no significant differences in
performance in either controller for both groups. This is
possibly due to the limited characteristics of the
participants. Characteristics that might provide more
varying results can include left-handed users that can take
advantage of the free-handed controllers left or right hand
adaptable design. The experiment can also be done while
the participants are standing as a way to accommodate for
different ways of holding either controller, thereby
possibly affecting performance.
Game used for Evaluation
The game used for evaluation did not provide any
efficient to evaluate error or any other way to measure
performance. This result couldn’t be helped because the
game used is the only video game available that uses the
two controllers. More ways evaluation and possibly error
detection might be available in future game releases for
the Nintendo Wii in the near future.
CONCLUSION
We’ve evaluated performance of a free-handed and fixed-
hand distance video game gamepad controller amongst a
group of gamers and non-gamers using a basic gamepad
button layout. There were no significant performance
differences in performance between the controllers for
gamers in the Group and Controller factor and 6 out of 6
gamers preferred using the fixed distance over the free-
handed version. The non-gamers improved by 26% in
Controller performance as a result of the Group effect and
6 out of 8 non-gamers preferred using the free-handed
version. Both groups had a similar rate of improvement
for each stage. Given the common improvement rates of
the two groups, either group can easily adapt and improve
using the either style of controller in a short amount of
time (< 10 minutes).
To achieve better results on performance and preference
on a controller for both groups, a larger range of
participant characteristics is ideal for further study and a
means of measuring errors to better evaluate optimal
performance. What have yet to be evaluated are all the
advantages the free-handed gamepad controller has over
the original style including having left-handed
participants and evaluating performance while
participants standing instead of sitting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks to Professor Scott Mackenzie for creating the
Anova Java Program and to the students who volunteered
for this experiment.
REFERENCES
1. GaZZwa. (2006) History of games (part 2).
http://web.archive.org/web/20070704020227/http://w
ww.gamingw.net/articles/74.
2. Consalvo, Mia (2006). http://intl-
nms.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/8/1/117.pdf Console
video games and global corporations: Creating a
hybrid culture. New Media Society 8 (1): 117-137
3. 15 Most Influential Games of All Time
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/15
influential/p6_01.html , 6
4. (2007) National Academy of Television Arts And
Sciences. Outstanding Achievement in
Technical/Engineering Development Awards.
http://www.emmyonline.org/tech/applications/enginee
ring_award_winners_rev6.pdf, 18
5. (2008) www.kiiwii.org Wii poised to dethrone PS2 as
#1 selling console of all time.
Improvement by Group for Non-Gamers
Mean Completion Time (sec)
Group 1st
Controller
2nd
Controller Improvement
Wii/
Gamecube
76.745 60.566 26.7%
Gamecube
/ Wii
75.323 60.048 25.4%

6
6. (2008)
http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/topic/major/hw21
3308/descrip.htm - Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
7. Lintern, I. (1981). An informational perspective on
skill transfer in human-machine systems. Human
Factor, 33, 251-266.
8. Mackenzie, S. (Feb 8, 2007) – ANOVA Java Program
http://www.yorku.ca/mack/RN-Anova.html

project

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to project

project