Quantcast
FPS haters due to dual analog control!

Forums - Gaming Discussion - FPS haters due to dual analog control!

Controls are definately a matter of taste and you can, with practice achieve proficiency with any BUT one difference hasn't been talked about. I like a game to be immersive. I don't care much about competition, I want to experience the game, really get into it.

Lets take Call of Duty World at War, here I am and suddenly a pot load of enemy soldier come running at me waving swords and screaming banzia. OK I pick up my trust dual analog and dispatch them with my adroit thumb wiggling and button mashing. Feel real? Not really, I actually feel kind of silly. Oops, here comes the second wave only I will send these to meet their ancestors by wiggling a mouse and typing on a keyboard. Still kind of silly feeling.

Now comes the third wave only this time I'm packing heat. I've got something in my hands that looks and feels like a weapon and I shoot it by pulling a trigger. Now that's immersive. Hell, sometimes I'll duck behind the coach and pop up to give a quick burst. Or I can get more up close and personal by taking up my Perfect Shot which is a very nice pistol and feels good. Even the reloading motion feels right. Not only is it intuitive, fast, accurate, its also a lot more fun.



Around the Network
Grampy said:

Controls are definately a matter of taste and you can, with practice achieve proficiency with any BUT one difference hasn't been talked about. I like a game to be immersive. I don't care much about competition, I want to experience the game, really get into it.

Lets take Call of Duty World at War, here I am and suddenly a pot load of enemy soldier come running at me waving swords and screaming banzia. OK I pick up my trust dual analog and dispatch them with my adroit thumb wiggling and button mashing. Feel real? Not really, I actually feel kind of silly. Oops, here comes the second wave only I will send these to meet their ancestors by wiggling a mouse and typing on a keyboard. Still kind of silly feeling.

Now comes the third wave only this time I'm packing heat. I've got something in my hands that looks and feels like a weapon and I shoot it by pulling a trigger. Now that's immersive. Hell, sometimes I'll duck behind the coach and pop up to give a quick burst. Or I can get more up close and personal by taking up my Perfect Shot which is a very nice pistol and feels good. Even the reloading motion feels right. Not only is it intuitive, fast, accurate, its also a lot more fun.

You could also hold a PS360 controller sideways :D

(You don't need to answer, that was a joke)



Grampy said:

Controls are definately a matter of taste and you can, with practice achieve proficiency with any BUT one difference hasn't been talked about. I like a game to be immersive. I don't care much about competition, I want to experience the game, really get into it.

Lets take Call of Duty World at War, here I am and suddenly a pot load of enemy soldier come running at me waving swords and screaming banzia. OK I pick up my trust dual analog and dispatch them with my adroit thumb wiggling and button mashing. Feel real? Not really, I actually feel kind of silly. Oops, here comes the second wave only I will send these to meet their ancestors by wiggling a mouse and typing on a keyboard. Still kind of silly feeling.

Now comes the third wave only this time I'm packing heat. I've got something in my hands that looks and feels like a weapon and I shoot it by pulling a trigger. Now that's immersive. Hell, sometimes I'll duck behind the coach and pop up to give a quick burst. Or I can get more up close and personal by taking up my Perfect Shot which is a very nice pistol and feels good. Even the reloading motion feels right. Not only is it intuitive, fast, accurate, its also a lot more fun.

So you feel less silly holding a plastic toy gun and ducking behind the couch as if actualy in danger? Anyways if you can be immersed in something like a movie or book where you have no input, I don't see how a video game controler hurts immersion.



Grampy said:

Controls are definately a matter of taste and you can, with practice achieve proficiency with any BUT one difference hasn't been talked about. I like a game to be immersive. I don't care much about competition, I want to experience the game, really get into it.

Lets take Call of Duty World at War, here I am and suddenly a pot load of enemy soldier come running at me waving swords and screaming banzia. OK I pick up my trust dual analog and dispatch them with my adroit thumb wiggling and button mashing. Feel real? Not really, I actually feel kind of silly. Oops, here comes the second wave only I will send these to meet their ancestors by wiggling a mouse and typing on a keyboard. Still kind of silly feeling.

Now comes the third wave only this time I'm packing heat. I've got something in my hands that looks and feels like a weapon and I shoot it by pulling a trigger. Now that's immersive. Hell, sometimes I'll duck behind the coach and pop up to give a quick burst. Or I can get more up close and personal by taking up my Perfect Shot which is a very nice pistol and feels good. Even the reloading motion feels right. Not only is it intuitive, fast, accurate, its also a lot more fun.

It depends on how you play really. For example, when I get into my groove with Ninja Gaiden or a FPS on the consoles I tend to forget about the controller in my hands. Im so practiced at it, its like the controller isn't there at all. However when im playing with the Wii I tend to focus more on the tactile feeling of the controller in my hands and the two different experiences are immersive in different ways.

Its hard to say which I like better, but I can see how more people (in general) would pick the Wiimote over the PS/360 controller.

 



Tease.

I like the controls of CoD:WaW on the Wii. My only complaint is that after 1-2 hours my hand starts to hurt a little from holding/aiming with the remote, but that is probably a sign that I should take a break anyways.



Around the Network

 

I see most of this thread is more about "which is a better game?" than actually be "which control setup is better?". We need to put the three controls in equal ground to see the advantages and disadvantages of each

I thought that a good comparison could be CoD:WaW but because the Wii version has the lowest end of the stick in features (not graphics) it's not a good point.

Let's say we have a generic FPS called "Generix", a new IP. This game is multiplatforms and all versions are EXACTLY the same (graphics is the only difference). So let's put the three methods under analysis:

1. Mouse+Keyboard: The control of choice with the highest flexibility

Pros:(Mouse)

  • Pixel perfect accuracy
  • Quick response and fast aiming
  • Highest sensitivity

Cons:(Keyboard):

  • The best way cto control your character movements is with "WASD" keys and often newcommers get confused and press keys that don't do a think.
  • Too much buttons to get what you want and often you become an easy target when you look for the right one
  • Requires too much practice on working with the keys in order to be a really good player

2. Dual Analog: Translation from PC to consoles

Pros:

  • Buttons are accesible, and always on reach.
  • More firndly than Keyboard+Mouse (meybe it's casual compared to PC)
  • You can be more away from the screen

Cons:

  • the aiming is the slowest. If you miss, the best strategy is to go away than try to take another shot
  • It's very good in open spaces but in closed corridors has a disadvantage controlling your character

3. Wii Remote+Nunchuk

Pros:

  • The easiest controls. Pick up and play.
  • The most intuitive of all
  • allow for more interactive actions

Cons:

  • The developer's troubles with game design.
  • is not 1:1(WM+ not taken here)
  • a bit of delay between player and character action

All three are good. But none is the Absolute Number 1. Some are easier, some are more accurate. It depends on the player's patience and skills



the_bloodwalker said:

 

1. Mouse+Keyboard: The control of choice with the highest flexibility

Pros:(Mouse)

  • Pixel perfect accuracy
  • Quick response and fast aiming
  • Highest sensitivity

Cons:(Keyboard):

  • The best way cto control your character movements is with "WASD" keys and often newcommers get confused and press keys that don't do a think. Screw the newcomers
  • Too much buttons to get what you want and often you become an easy target when you look for the right one Screw the newcomers
  • Requires too much practice on working with the keys in order to be a really good player Screw the newcomers.

2. Dual Analog: Translation from PC to consoles

Pros:

  • Buttons are accesible, and always on reach.
  • More firndly than Keyboard+Mouse (meybe it's casual compared to PC)
  • You can be more away from the screen

Cons:

  • the aiming is the slowest. If you miss, the best strategy is to go away than try to take another shot
  • It's very good in open spaces but in closed corridors has a disadvantage controlling your character

3. Wii Remote+Nunchuk

Pros:

  • The easiest controls. Pick up and play.
  • The most intuitive of all
  • allow for more interactive actions

Cons:

  • The developer's troubles with game design.
  • is not 1:1(WM+ not taken here) Shouldn't this be a con for all 3? 1:1 isn't required for FPS, more fun though.
  • a bit of delay between player and character action

All three are good. But none is the Absolute Number 1. Some are easier, some are more accurate. It depends on the player's patience and skills

So M/KB is the most accurate, dual analog is friendly and Wii-mote is accurate, immersive and friendly.

 

 



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:

So M/KB is the most accurate, dual analog is friendly and Wii-mote is accurate, intuitive and friendly.

 

 

 

Yes, but all comes with a price. None of the three methods is perfect. Both three proved to be quite good for playing FPS, the rerst is up to preference



sanadawarrior said:
Grampy said:

Controls are definately a matter of taste and you can, with practice achieve proficiency with any BUT one difference hasn't been talked about. I like a game to be immersive. I don't care much about competition, I want to experience the game, really get into it.

Lets take Call of Duty World at War, here I am and suddenly a pot load of enemy soldier come running at me waving swords and screaming banzia. OK I pick up my trust dual analog and dispatch them with my adroit thumb wiggling and button mashing. Feel real? Not really, I actually feel kind of silly. Oops, here comes the second wave only I will send these to meet their ancestors by wiggling a mouse and typing on a keyboard. Still kind of silly feeling.

Now comes the third wave only this time I'm packing heat. I've got something in my hands that looks and feels like a weapon and I shoot it by pulling a trigger. Now that's immersive. Hell, sometimes I'll duck behind the coach and pop up to give a quick burst. Or I can get more up close and personal by taking up my Perfect Shot which is a very nice pistol and feels good. Even the reloading motion feels right. Not only is it intuitive, fast, accurate, its also a lot more fun.

So you feel less silly holding a plastic toy gun and ducking behind the couch as if actualy in danger? Anyways if you can be immersed in something like a movie or book where you have no input, I don't see how a video game controler hurts immersion.

It's also kinda hard to argue the immersive you get the more realistic sound and graphics of the HD versions.



Muhammad Ali must have alot of accounts on video game forums, cuz I always see people complain that Wii controls are not accurate enough. Which makes no sense if you can play with dual sticks how the hell can't you play with the remote?

Even Red Steel controlled better than any regular fps I played before it.

I hope Wii controls become standard so all the cry babies can move on to PC.