K+M > Wiimote+Chuck > Dual Analog

K+M best accuracy, simple motion
Wiimote Combo, great accuracy, good motion
Dual Analog, good motion, awful accuracy that they have to handicap it

I'm pretty happy with the Wiimote combo myself. I find while the accuracy is reduced. It's more closer to real life. Guns have weight and have to be held, Wiimote(though light) helps to have a steady hand. I find you have to follow shoot with the Wiimote. Police reports that short range gun fights have only 10-20% to hit a target. Mouse accuracy blows this rating out of the water. Mouse accuracy makes the game more fun in regards to hitting. Wiimote shooting has style.

*unfortunetly I read this in the Vancouver Sun or Province early this year. I haven't found an internet report to validate the accuracy percentage. So woes is me on evidence this time.

There's a reason all us PC based FPS player would love to go toe-to-toe with console players using gamepads... and it's not a pretty one!

"PC gamers" can already play console gamers, ironically only on a console that supports mouse and keyboard controls, specifically on a game that supports mouse and keyboard controls, which by my count is exactly one (UTIII).

Of course, everyone one else playing through PSN can also play with M/kb controls which is why there's an option to exclude playing with those using them.

The only way to "cheat" is to use something like the FragFX online, which works with most console FPS games and gives you the all important advantage of mouse aiming.

Of course any real PC gamer shouldn't be looking for the best way to find ways to gain an unfair advantage (cheat) but instead polish their skills so they can hang with the best PC players on equal ground, assuming they highly take pride in their game skills.

It's like PC gamers who frequent console sites like this one so they can feel smug about being able to build or own a PC that has more graphics processing power than a console, whereas if they really cared that much about the technicalities of the hardware, they would be posting on an overclockers' site instead where everyone is striving to gain the most performance out of any hardware set up they have available.

Last time I played UTIII (about amonth aafter release and I never looked back) you could not play PS3 people when you were on the PC. Moslty beause PSN and Gamespy are incompatible.

That 10-20% hit rate could have been pulled out of anywhere, but it's probably not too far from the truth.

Considering the relatively low number of shootings, even in the most gun happy states of good ol' gun happy USA, taking from those the number of shootings commited by untrained/unskilled shooters, the only way you'd be likely to see anyone get hit is to fire off an entire mag. Also figure that most of those shooting probably took place at night, with low light/visibility and it's not easy to see how most of these shooters were probably pointing, rather than aiming.

But comparing aiming with a mouse and shooting with a shoulder fired centerfire weapon, let along a centerfire handgun, is comparable to comparing using a guitar hero controller with playing a real guitar.

I've always preferred light gun games in the past, much like Wii shooters of today with the addition of character movement, but the lack of blast and recoil make them both ridiculously easy to hit with compaired to real fire arms.

Anyway, games are hardly substitutes for reality. An all nighter playing the most intense FPS games still doesn't compare to an hour at the range; it's just cheaper and allows you do to all the crazy things few shooters ever do in a safe, consequence free virtual environment.

You misunderstand; you have to play console players ON a PS3 through the PSN. Hell, you can't even play XBL players on UTIII since they're both closed network environments.

You just get to use your m/kb input devices against players who mainly only play FPS with pads. 

Why would any PC player want to play against players on the PSN anyway? It's a console environment.

That's what I was wondering too....

Edited this post out. Didn't realise there were four pages of discussion.

Anyway, my take without reading the rest of this topic is that the mouse is so much more sensitive and speedy than an analog stick I can handle using purely digital controls for the movement.

Yeah this has been a heated debate for a long time. I agree that I don't get it to a point. I realize that purist have the point that FPS were started on PC platform so thats where they stick to it. To me it depens on the game. Quake III PC version wasy outshined the consoles. On the other hand Turok Dinosaur Hunter for PC just felt like someone's Idea of a sick joke. I've argued since 7th grade that Keyboard and mouse couldn't compete with the N64 control for Turok (not all games). So to me its dependant on the software and that saying one in general is better than the other is ignorant.

A lot of it really just depends upon the individual game in question.

Facts are, a lot of PC games ported from a console environment just don't work as well, even if you're playing on a premium hardware set up. Sometimes the roughness of the transition is taken out with game pad support, but even then, it don't always feel as sharp as the original console version.

And vice versa, many PC games ported to PC/console hybrids like the 360 and PS3 lose something as well when switching to a game pad. I'd actually support more keyboard and mouse compatibility for these games although it goes against the idea of consoles being simpler to play with.

I've still yet to hear any convincing arguments that a keyboard is an ideal "controller"; mainly just personal preferences and biases.

(or maybe I just need to find a keyboard that I really, really like)