Yes and those pros' ass would get wiped across the floor with actual pro PC gamers. Watching pro console FPS games is like watching a half-assed PC fps and a half-assed RTS (with the trategy and all. Sadly 2 half-asses only make a quarter of an ass, not a whole one.

Also the problem is that it is limiting. Why do you think they removed lean? Because controllers can't handle it. Why do games suddenly let you carry tops of 4 guns? Because a controller can't handle anything more than that. Ultimately,a controller limits what a game can be/is and that's the problem.

As I said, I can shoot my feet and go argue that the special olympics require a whole different set of skills and stuff, doesn't change the fact they are the special olympics. Which is exactly what consolified FPSes are compared to the PC ones.

Depends on the game most of the time i prefer KB and mouse but i prefer halo (any version) on a controller... halo is really the only fps game i really play anymore i mostly use my PC for RTS games and behemoths like crisis!

I would hope so, otherwise they shouldn't be fucking pro pc gamers.  DUH!!  Those same pc gamers would get there asses handed to them without a doubt when they play a console fps.  A pro basketball player is better at basketball than a soccer player is at basketball.  Got anymore obvious statements?

Just because you do not like the game designs associated with a console FPS does not mean they are not good.  Just different tastes.

I don't remember any of the UT games having the ability to lean in them, or Quake, or Tribes, hell any of the big FPS games that started the fucking online fps genre.  Killzone 2 has lean I believe,as does the Rainbow Six games.  So there goes that argument that the controller cannot handle it.  Just because MW2 removed lean it is now a big fucking feature?  What a fucking joke.

What you can do, and maybe this will get rid of your sandy vaginitas, is stop calling console FPS games FPS games.  Call them something else.  This will change nothing in reality, but perhaps it will help ease your mind.

I agree, leaning was not present in the ones you listed because they were actually fast and not limited due to the inability of the control scheme to keep up. However tctical FPSes such, which is what just about all FPSes on a console can be coined as, did have the lean function. Magically that didn't make the transition to the cocntroller, I wonder why....

Console FPS means that it's dumbed dwn even when pitted against the slower, tactical, FPS franchises that the PC had back in the day, like the Delta Force games. What you have now are games which can't be the arcade FPSes because the controller can't handle the speed nor can they be in-depth like the slow, tactical games because the cocntroller can't handle the complexity. Ultimately, from the design view, they are half-assed games not ebing able to get anything down right because of limitations to the controllers.

I know Dragon Age isn't an FPS, but look at the difference in what happens design-wise when something is geared toward a PC control vs a console control scheme. The inferioirty of a controller is painfully obvious.

I think that if there were a game that allowed you to use a M&KB or a gamepad (even with autoaim), and brought the best console gamers and PC gamers together, the PC gamers would wipe the floor with the console gamers. Remember, I'm talking about the best, so I'm assuming that both teams would have the same level of tactics and teamwork. There is just no contest, the PC gamers would be aiming faster and with better accuracy.

That said, I think being "better" takes more than just aiming into account. And for the most part, I now prefer a gamepad. I'm pretty good with a M&KB, and probably just a little above average with a gamepad, but I enjoy playing with a gamepad more. That's one reason I started moving away from PC gaming, lack of good gamepad support in games (I'm annoyed that Mass Effect doesn't support a gamepad on the PC).

For those people arguing that because its harder to aim with a gamepad that makes it inferior well then theres the flip argument, its too easy to aim with a mouse.

For example every single major racing organization from F1 to Nascar introduced ABS systems to their cars and then subsequently banned them. The reason was the ABS systems made braking so easy, something that had previously taken a massive amount of skill to do, that the difference between the best and worse racers diminished greatly. Effectively the skill gap decreased because ABS systems made racing too easy.

I can argue that the learning curve involved with getting good with a gamepad actually increases the skill because KB & M is so user friendly and easy anyone can get good with it.

The fact also remains that a console user only plays against other players with gamepads and the same is true for PC players so putting the two systems head to head is pretty pointless.

Also for the autoaim argument. I think some of you need to go look up the difference between autoaim and magnetism, they are completely different concepts and your getting them mixed up. While some games do offer high autoaim and magnetism the games used in MLG and all professional FPS gaming tournaments offer very little or no autoaim. Just to give one example, but there are plenty more, Halo 3. The sniper has absolutely no autoaim or magnetism and the battlerifle has minimal autoaim at short distances but absolutely no magnetism what so ever.

Yes and that's why they fixed games so that they are fast, fast enough to compensate for easy aiming. The side effect of that is that there is a lot less time to react, think, and re-think and ultimately it comes out to be harder than if it was slower. Meanwhile I can go pee and sing a song while MC does a 180 degree turn using an analog stick.

I also got my argument for aut-aim specifically against Halo and used this as a back up for my argument:

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Auto-Aim

I've already argued with you that speed doesn't equal skill so I'm not going to get into that argument again.

As for the auto-aim argument. I am almost positive that table is from Halo 2. The reason being it does not include very many weapons from Halo 3 but all the weapons from Halo 2. As most people know the auto-aim in Halo 2 was horrendous. I don't know if it was because it was Bungies first major online game and they didn't know how to tune the game for online play or what but for whatever reason Halo 2's onlines had a massive amount of autoaim and magnetism as well as a plethora of other problems. It has by far the weakest skill based multiplayer of the Halo games although it made up for it in other ways. However if you play Halo 3 you can instantly tell that the problems Halo 2 experienced with its online component were all rectified. If you don't believe me try to sweep snipe in Halo 2 then do the same thing in Halo 1 or 3 and see how different it is.

Because of what ou said s why I'm fairly sure that those are Halo 3 stats. 1 or 2 degrees is actually pretty mild, but not a problem where the reticule just sticks for a prolonged time.

As for speed, that's more or less the whole point. Unless you are all about strategym then don't worry the console FPSes half-ass that too. Go play Civ4 or Starcraft for strategy. I can assure you Starcraft requires hell of a lot more speed+strategy than any console FPS. Kinda sad really.

Its huge when your fighting over large distances and that was only for the sniper rifles, the other weapons had much higher degrees of change. Also the battlerifle, the primary skill based weapon is 3 and 6 degrees, very large. Also if its from Halo 3 then why is it missing every single new weapon introduced in Halo 3?

Its called a combination of teamwork, map control, weapon/power-up control and individual skill. I mean did you seriously just compare an RTS to a FPS? Come on Vlad I know your smart so stop with the stupid comparisons.