One of the editors at Kotaku said he wasn't comfortable with the controls playing an earlier version of the game, but liked them much better at E3. He said there was a learning curve, but that it wasn't unnecessarily difficult or anything. He also said that they changed the ground combat to using the analog sticks, a change he highly supported saying that it felt really akward in an earlier version.

I am pretty sure the majority of the game will use motion sensing, but from what I can tell they have got it up and running pretty well. One of my biggest concerns, which luckily the developers said they have addressed, is whether or not you would be able to change the sensitivity. This ruined the motion-controlling in Motorstorm for me, so I am glad they decided to give the player more choices. Sensitivity can make or break motion controls.

I think classic control system is much more precise. I tried sixaxis features in Motorstorm and I simply don't like it. You can steer with analog sticks (view, movements) and you have 6 buttons left for actions - I think it's more than enough.

If precision is a concern, you should definitely ditch gamepads altogether and get a mouse/keyboard. In every genre where Gamepad users have been allowed to compete against Mouse/Keyboard users, the Gamepad players have been so hilariously outmatched that most companies don't make games that are cross platform anymore for that precise reason (even though Microsoft is trying agressively). Be it First Person Shooters, Real Time Strategy, or any other skill-oriented game, Game pads are profoundly inferior. That's why such an overwhelming portion of professional gaming occurs with PC games, despite the fact that consoles provide a larger player pool.

 IMO, PC's are unnecessarily expensive and dated too quickly.  My roomates drop $1000-2000 every 2 years so they can be up to speed on the latest games.  Albeit they save money by pirating games (although they have to sacrifice multiplayer because of it), I see it as a real hassle to PC game.  People call the PS3 expensive, but it is pretty damn cheap compared to what it costs to keep a PC up to date.  The PC can do many genres better, shooters in quite a number of cases, and RTS's in ALL cases for instance.  But playing with a mouse and keyboard on a big HDTV feels kind of akward, at least for me.  PC gaming just isn't for everyone, and requires a lot of sacrifices.

I think they'll have the option to use classic controls for everything including flying, just as they did with Warhawk.

 Ah, then if expense is your concern, you should definitely get a Wii. You can buy one for half the price of a PS3, and it comes with a game! In addition, the new games are 10 dollars cheaper, so you save money in the long run, as well. 

 Lol, you can't just give the polar extremes and say that those are the best two options.  An up to date PC has the best specs, but is undoubtedly the most expensive.  A Wii is definitely least expensive console, but is also the weakest console, by a considerable margin (anyone see Spiderman or Harry Potter on Wii???).  That doesn't mean the Wii doesn't have advantages in other places, but that is not the issue.  The PS3 or the 360 are somewhere in between, and are good options for a lot of people.  First party publishers are able to do some pretty phenomenal things as well since they often build their own engines, their own tools, and do not rely on stuff like DX 10 (which is fantastic), but it limits the game in some ways because it is not hand-made for that game.

 In any case, every console/computer can do something better than the others, so the point is somewhat moot.

Please. You can't compare Wii to PC. Comparing PC's games to PS3 or X360 is ok though. PS3 provides best possible graphics for $500 also console games are much better than PC's (I don't count FPP shooters and RTS in). 

Sure, you can compare them. Here I go: the PS3 and 360 are technologically inferior already, and that gap will only continue to grow over the next 5 years. 

That's really a myth that won't die.

Some players have a better time with the mouse/keyboard combo, while others are better with a gamepad. Some would say that the gamepad is the best when in close-encounters, while others will be quick to say that the mouse/keyboard is ideal for sniping.

Microsoft themselves even were astonished with the outcome over "Shadowrun," when they had deathmatches between experienced PC players pitted against people who preffered consoles. The PC players kept getting their asses whopped, which they later had to tweak the control scheme for the PC so it wouldn't end up that lop-sided.

It's not that companies are embarresed in bringing their games to consoles, it's just many of them don't feel like stretching current graphics cards to the fullest like many software companies do when they make games for various consoles. Instead, they await that new graphics card to aid them.

Crysis sure looks beautiful, just wondering how many people will be able to play it without any noticeable flaws.