| Mendicate Bias said: Exactly Squillam! I would argue that a aiming with analog sticks takes far more skill than using a mouse. The difficulties of aiming with an analog stick represent a real world scenario far more closely than instantly zeroing in on your opponents head. The fact that you have to train yourself to be able to make small muscle movements and miniscule adjustments makes playing on a controller far more enjoyable to me since you can visibly see an aiming improvement as you play more. Ironically due to the ease of aiming in pc shooters, it's not the aiming that becomes better as a player gets more experienced but a knowledge of how to exploite a map. |
What you've described applies to any input, K&M included. Also, no matter how much you skill up with a gamepad you'll lag the accuracy of a K&M, which is exactly why it is argued to be a better input device.
Sqully's just arguing for fun. Technically a K&M is a better input for the act of aiming - there's no arguement in that it's a measuable fact.
As I said myself though that doesn't equate to gameplay. The main difference I find is that on console's everything is just slower due to the way games seem to be tuned. Unreal Tournamet 3 felt faster than most on a console, but was still slower than PC.
One other difference I note is that on console's the gamepad seems to steer everything to a pretty flat plane - there is very limited use of vertical space, particularly extreme angles for shooting, compared to the best FPS prior to the explosion of FPS on consoles. Of course this may be more design that function - but it's seems odd to me how artificially flat pretty much every console FPS I've played is.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
