Recently I have been playing a lot of Resistance 2 mulitplayer and again Rainbow Six Vegas multiplayer on the 360.

One thing that I realized was how much more I loved the dualshock. This was in contrast to how many times I had heard about the superiority of the 360 controller (many times on forums in this site). This led me to find the following article that does a nice job of comparing the two.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/11/22/analysis-ps3-vs-xbox-360-controller-comparison/

Also there is another comparison by Matt Peckam of PC World

http://www.pcworld.com/article/153332/is_the_xbox_360s_thumbstick_in_gears_of_war_2_too_sticky.html/

both these articles talk about a 'deadzone' in the right thumbstick of the controllers:

"The dead zone is an area around the center of the analog stick which allows for the aim to rest without the on screen reticule moving all over the place. After careful analysis of both controllers, the PS3 has a slightly smaller dead zone than the Xbox 360’s gamepad"

Having a smaller dead zone leads to faster target resolution and hence makes the dualshock a better controller for shooters.

Of course it in the end depends on user preference. Also it doesn't take that long to get used to a different controller.

I guess gamers who use both the consoles will notice this more then others.

For me it's the placement of the left thumbstick and the design of the 360 controller that make it the better choice. But if you're used to one over the other then it probably doesn't really matter.

I haven't noticed it at all really. I find the 360 controller slightly more comfortable but I can use either quite easily. One problem I've found with the dualshock is the analogue sticks tend to loosen up after a few weeks/months.

I vastly prefer the 360 pad because it is much more ergonomical, and the sticks and triggers are concave not convex, which makes more of a difference then you'd initially think.

Also, it seems like the 360 controller was designed to make the sticks accessible and comfortable, whereas they were an afterthought on the dualshock. (Don't hate on me for saying this, the original PS controller didn't have them, then they were tacked on later and never moved to a different/better spot.)

I prefer the dualshock, but there is certainly a degree of it being what I am used to

Interesting read. I dont really care what controller I use it only takes a lil time to get used to it and ur good to go. There is one thing that bugs me about the 360 and thats the d pad and for the ps3 its the triggers, my fingers seem to slip off of them im so glad most good FPS use R1 for shooting.

BS

Everyone knows the 360 controller is better for FPS due to the indented analogue stick and the placement of the left ananlogue stick being higher than the right.

Everyone knows the PS3 controller is better for 2d games includings fighters due to its far superior Dpad.

This is a generalisation and not true for *everyone* but most people will find the above statements to be true.

The argument about a smaller dead zone is utter tripe, you get used to sensitivity but you don't get used to an obscenely designed analogue stick. Sorry dude but by nature the deadzone would appear smaller on the PS3 due to the shape of the analogue stick being raised (your thumb is further away from centre of where to stick meets the controller sensors) This is a negative not a positive.

/thread.

Personally I prefer the dualshock, but can appreciate the appeal of the 360 controller. I suppose i was raised with playstation and old habits die hard.

That would agree with how the writer of the article states that the dualshock suffers more wear and tear. However I did notice the extra effort required in targeting with the 360 gamepad which got explained in the explanation regarding the deadzones.

lol did you notice how Matt Peckhan of the PC World actually took a slight dig at gears control being maybe infrerior to Resistance 2?

Not surprising really as Resistance 2 controls like a dream.