Then you obviously don't use it perfectly fine.

Well at least not by my standard.  To use it perfectly fine you have to be comfortable with it, and be able to play really well online.

If you do both of those things, you wouldn't be complaining?

I use it perfectly fine but it is still extrmely uncomfortable because it is extremely limiting. Just like I can code in Java and C like a wizard, Java is a pile of shit and extremely limiting. Same thing here, the dual analog control scheme is just shit and it was the best solution anyone ever came up with to have shooters on consoles without completely ruining the experience.

It is extremely easy to objectively quantify a control scheme so whether I use it well or not really does not change that quantification.

Play some KZ2 and you will find out. Accuracy is the wrong word, sensitivity is better. Accuracy is basically player skill.

In KZ2 if you play with high sensitivity (like motion controls have) you will miss a lot of your shots.

In KZ2 if you play with motion controls on standard sensitivity (ie you have to move a lot more) you will take too long to get your shot off.

In KZ2 if you use the dualshock with standard sensitivity - perfect.

Yeah, my analog controllers aren't going anywhere, anytime soon.

It really does. So many people hate things because they suck at them or can't use them.

If you could use them well and were therefore playing excellent in all your games, you wouldn't be complaining I think.

You are kidding right? unless by "too precise" you mean that pointer controls get far less aim assist.

And what do you mean by strafing? because as far as I know strafing is walking sideways rather than turning.... which for pointer controls uses the control stick exactly the same as for old controllers.

By precise I mean sensitivity really, how fast the crosshairs move across the screen.

Strafing in KZ2 consists of basically moving but shooting at a certain point, or points at the same time. Since motion controls are more sensitive and erratic, it's gona be harder to keep shooting at the target while moving.

Spoken like a true clueless fanboy, I guess I have no choice but to prove you wrong.

Take this scenario, moving and aiming and this is what happen given each control scheme:

Dual Analog: You have only access to the trigger buttons because your thumbs are taken up and you really cannot press any of the buttons without interrupting the movement or the aiming. Furthermore, aiming is extremely sluggish because you are limited by the analog stick. That is the reason why all games have auto-aim, to offset the horrible precision.

Wii: You have the trigger buttons, as well as whatever is on the top of the controller, in this case 9 buttons, 11 if you count the power and home. Also the aiming is far smoother and far more precise.

KBD&M: You all the buttons on the mouse, so that ranges from 2 to 19 depending on the mouse. As well as any button in the range of WASD, so about 20. Furthermore the mouse rests on a surface so it's far less stressful than a Wiimote, while having the same amount of precision and smoothness.

There you go, quantified explanation of just how shitty dual analog is for controlling FPS.

KZ2 does not have auto-aim 99% of the time, some really good players at that game. I can move and throw a med pack at the same time (involves pressing a button and moving at the same time). So can everyone in the game. One stick is still free, and for most side functions that's all you need at the time. Most directional button presses take about a second, and chances are if you are pressing that directional button in the middle of a firefight, you suck. 

No doubt PC controls are better, but dual-stick is far away from being 'horrible.'

So can everyone that plays the game.

In gamer terms, if you're owning, you're not moaning.

il stick to dual analog for FPS games.

ive got wiiplay and that mini game is pretty difficult to hit all targets, its not a FPS anyway, and cant be compared to similar controls working on a FPS.