uber said:
that is such a non sequitur. it is a purely subjective statement that people make. some like it some don't. but to say that one is more suited to a specific type of game is ludicrous. |
I wish I could say it was subjective, but the PS3 controller's button placement is exactly why I buy fighters on it. The only way I'd buy a fighter for the 360 is if I bought an arcade pad (and I don't have one, but I do have a PS3). The only fighters playable on the 360 with its god forsaken directional pad are SC 4 and soon Tekken 6. Those games don't primarily rely on clock-wise and quarter circles like say SF4 does.
Shooters fixate the players eyes to the middle of the screen, (which is why reports have said teens and young adults have become better drivers from FPS) where the thumbsticks controll the XY axis. Shooters today carry the Y (crosshaire/head/gun/waist) axis on the left thumbstick while the x moves the player (fullbody movement foward, back, left, right. This doesn't control sight at all. Last of all it has an actual trigger, which is like a gun trigger for less resistance. The PS3 controller is actually dead weight because while playing KZ2 the control scheme forces you to stretch your index finger to press R1 and also control the left and right thumbsticks. The 360 controller allows you to rest your hands on the trigger anticipating attack instead of having to constantly stretch. If there was a machine for stress patterns while holding a controller KZ2 and the PS3 controller would have a higher rate than the 360 (especially with racers).