I prefer the traditional controller in PES, more efficient individual player moves, makes the game less tactic, more fun.

IR for me. Though i still like the 360 controller..the wiimote is just faster responding and more accurate then a dual analog controller.

IR is my fav for FPS's. My brains understand it more cause its more like how a gun and my hands think.

Natureal.

After playing Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 in 2007, there was no doubt in my mind that when IR controls are done properly they are better than dual analogy. Of course that is my opinion but it's hard to go back with that form of precision.

IR IMO is more accurate and responsive than Dual-Analog.

IR if well implemented is superior to Dual Analogue in most genres, especially Wii also has an analogue stick and enough buttons to cover some functions of DA.

The only genre i can think of that is better of with DA is Fighting.

Racing: I love Mario Kart while using Wheel (yes maybe you cannot be as competetive but its awesome fun)
Shooters: RE4 Wii is one of the Best Games Ever
Platformers: SMG? I know its a bit of waggle but i actually prefer waggle to pressing A
Action/Adventure, it worked great in Zelda, Madworld, No More Heroes, WM+ should work awesome in new Zelda
RPG: Not much use, but again it could help with interface, just look at PC WRPG's much easier to select stuff
RTS: Obvious

But of course that just my taste, but i really think that motion is basically a step forward.

@ Werekitten, silentmac & PearlJam,

I think you're getting into a very grey area in the discussion of control and game design. PearlJam, you've talked about the many actions involved in games like Halo and Gears of War, besides aiming. Werekitten, you've talked about the lack of buttons on the Wii remote, and the interference in aiming arising from gesture control.

To me, each of these things highlights the importance of good game design in overcoming controller limitations. I'm not much of a FPS player, so forgive me if what I'm saying is wrong, but I was under the impression that Halo was such a huge success because it overcame many of the limitations of dual analogue control through intelligent game design choices: subtle auto-aim, gameplay focussed more on movement than aiming, automatic health recovery, etc. The button layout and analogue movement capacity of a traditional gamepad, was used compensate for the lack of precision in aiming. The game design choices highlighted the positives of dual analogue, especially where it was better than mouse and keyboard (i.e. button placement), and compensated for the negatives (e.g. auto-aim and, in many games, a 'quick 180' button).

In the same way, I think that a truly great Wii FPS would circumvent all the shortcomings you've talked about, and focus heavily on precision shooting and simplified control (i.e. the things the Wiimote does better than dual analogues ever can). The lack of buttons on the Wiimote only matters if you make design choices that require buttons. The four buttons (c,Z,A,B) should be enough to design a good, complex game, provided developers think hard enough about how to design gameplay around the controller, rather than start with a fixed idea of what the game should be, and shoehorn it onto the Wii.

@docr
I could have signed your post myself. I sort of did, actually, as in previous posts about controls in FPS games I've myself brought out the issue of gameplay design and feel and how they relate to the controls beyond the mechanical accuracy of aim.
I agree entirely, anyway.

excellent post docr.

A friend of mine who only plays PC FPS games played The Conduit with me the other day and loved. Here's the thing, I had to tone down the sensitivity of the controls because he couldn't play it otherwise.

After all the talk on these forums of how PC gamers like the Wii because of precise controls, I was shocked.. He enjoyed the game though and liked that the cursor wasn't always centered even though it was different to what he was used to.