I know it's not a FPS but the Wii controls on Resident Evil 4 drastically reduced the difficulty level. It was even more apparent in the shooting gallery. Resting your arm on your leg is all you need to do to remove shaking.

Move not as fast and precise as Wiimote for shooters? Really? Which games are you basing that on? I have GoldenEye for Wii and KZ3 and Resistance 3 on PS3. Played all with motion controls and I found the Wiimote far behind the Move for precision. Even in on-rails games like Dead Space Extraction and House of the Dead I find the Move > Wiimote.

Also I found especially in GoldenEye on Wii the camera going bananas because you may aim too wide and not be aiming at the sensor bar. With Move, it's not a problem because it's pretty hard to move outside the PSEye view while sitting. But for on-rails games Wiimote is perfect in that regard because you don't have to make any wide swings while just aiming at the screen.

I agree with Kyliedog, the problem is the half-turning half-aiming system of motion controls setups. Useless for games where you have to turn a lot (especially mid air), but fine for slow-burn corridor trawls.

Because it's a fact.

Just like M+KB being superior is a fact.

immersion ... ???

Not an FPS but......

The abolve should demonstrate that pointing is faster and more precise than analog moving a target.

On the moving while shooting side, hm.... M+KB? :P

If they would only implement a fixed reticule, and moving the pointer control would move the screen, then to center your hand, you should press and hold a button and reposition hand to center, analogously to lifting the mouse and repositioning it to the center of the mousepad. Would take a bit of learning, yes, and I think would work great, but probably not in Quake.

@Baroai @Kyliedog Yes both of you illustrate my point.

Btw guys I wasn't talking about single player mainly, but more about multiplayer (where there's no aim assist). Let me illustrate my point with some video evidence. Here's a video of one of the best Wii COD players I know of playing MW3 on Wii:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asFsZvr9TuE&feature=channel_video_title

As you can see and if you listen to him, with the Wiimote you can only hope to hipfire (spray and pray) to effectively take someone out in close range, while long range ADSing is almost impossible. But even hip-firing he's wasting a lot of bullets as his cross-hairs are moving all over the place. Now look at this guy playing MW3 multiplayer on 360 using normal controller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjZMwjf5zZE&feature=channel_video_title

I chose this video intentionally as it has a good amount of Hip-firing and ADSing. As you can see clearly ADSing with controllers is smooth without any involuntary movements and even when you are hipfiring, your crosshairs stay exactly where you are pointing which makes it much easier to actually hit a guy (god forbid using a shotgun using a Wiimote).

Now both of these guys are pretty skilled and serious gamers, so its strict tactical multiplayer gameplay which I am talking about. A lot of you seem to be saying that you can aim at targets quicker with MC, but you can do so with controllers as well with 10 sensitivity if you can handle it and what good is aiming quicker if you can't be steady with your aiming? Do you really think the first guy could ever replicate the second's efficiency with his given control scheme?

Same reason a kb/mouse is better.

Dual Analog sucks IMO. I've take far longer to get used to it and become a halfway decent player than I did when I played my first FPS on PC or Wii.

DA requires a lot more precise thumb control and is not a natural way to point and shoot something. If Battlefield 3 utilized Move, I'd buy a Move set immediately.

Its just faster to point and shoot and you can very easily shoot in a single spot. In Conduit and the COD I played on my Wii I was constantly getting head shots and quick kills. In BF3 I find myself shooting mid-body most of the time and having to pull trigger longer. Sure there are differences in the game dynamics, but the aiming is far harder with a thumb stick... and slower.

I've always loathed dual-analogues, dating well back before the Wii. I remember being at a friend's LAN party for Halo 2 back in early 2005 and having no idea what i should be doing

It's a dumb system. Goldeneye was better, Metroid Prime was better, something with a damn pointer is better

OP: Probably because they don't play games on PC and think that analogue sticks are the best and only alternative... Wii-mote and Move are probably better than analogue sticks for FPS games but still miles behind the ancient keyboard + mouse combo.