| Reasonable said: K&M is quantifiably 'better' due to the mechanics of the input vs a gamepad for pinpoint accuracy. This has nothing to do with FPS and applies to any input action where it is desirable to rapidly pinpoint something on a screen. Remove the games element, which adds emotion, and consider it like this: if there was a program putting up random, tiny white dots on a black screen, in tests a K&M would allow you to more rapidly select them and select more of them in the same amount of time than a gamepad. It's just an input mechanism which is faster and more accurate for that. Of course, in games where the movement, aiming, etc. can be tuned you can get great control with a gamepad, and if you play on console only you're naturaly going to favour it as it's what you trained yourself with. However a K&M will always be a more accurate input device for 'point and click' which is what you're actually doing at the heart of an FPS, pointing at an area of the screen and clicking to shoot. However, gamepads do have advantages for controlling speed of movement, etc. and in less frenetic moments are arguably more immersive due to this - which is why I prefer titles like Fallout and Oblivion on consoles vs PC (although graphics look better on PC). However, for pure shooters, while consoles are great, and have made playing FPS titles both SP and MP much more affordable (which I think is a good thing) the K&M combination does allow for better accuracy of aiming.
|
So would a direct brain interface be better because all I would have to do was think 'Reasonable headshot'? And then I would get one. How is speed and accuracy making a game 'better'? If all people had to do was 'think' then obviously the gameplay mechanics would have to be adjusted. Like for example its the reason why you pretty much have to aim for a 3 by 6 pixel head representation on the screen and why body shots are so ineffective in games but even more extreme than that.
Tease.
