SvennoJ said: It's easier to aim at moving objects. However I can't get used to moving around with it, I always turn too much or too little. I never have that problem with kb+mouse. For on-rails sections it's way better then dual analog, but for running and gunning I prefer dual analog. I played through Killzone 3 with move and it was ok, not great. During my Resistance 3 play through I switched back to dual analog, too much running around and the glowing ball was kind of annoying too in the dark sections. Kinda ironic since I initially bought R3 for move. Luckily the HL2 like campaign did not disappoint. I guess I can get used to it eventually. It took me a while to feel comfortable with dual analog as well. It's just easier to stick to a well known working method for the few times I play an fps nowadays. |
I agree with you completely, but as I said crank up your controller's sensitivity to 10 and see how fast you can aim if you can control the speed. Granted I don't know much about Move compared to Wiimote (I'm imagining they are similar), I would really question if 2 people of relatively similar skill levels were given the option to play a multiplayer (say COD) online, would they choose motion control over dual analogues for a serious game (not messing around) and be able to pull off a good score.
I think it compares similar to Keyboard+Mouse VS controllers, controllers are fun and efficient as we know them, but in a competition between someone using a K+M against another using a controller, the former would whoop the latter all day every day.
@Roma I think you missed the point of the thread. I was looking for an explanation from those who think Motion control is better. I know that everyone has different tastes, I just want to know technical reasons why one prefers MC over controller.