Don't get me started on HeatoN, he's responsible for the months of abuse it took me to learn Counter-Strike when Q3 dried up.

Well, they shouldn't make fun of your Wii either then. All's fair in love and war they say. Carry on.

That was my point, though, the skill ceiling was lowered quite a bit. CS didn't have any real exploits to speak of minus quickscoping.  At least none that were used effectively in high level play.  Still think CS has the highest level of strategy of any shooter.

Ahh, I haven't heard the old exploit argument in a long time, brings back the good old days. 

However I do stand by my 2nd post, the argument you just made (people don't want to spend months mastering the basics of a game--yes strafe jumping is basic) is the exact one used against Nintendo now.  Still can't quite figure out how I went from Q3->CS->Wii but I'll figure it out one day.

PS Thanks for bringing up TRIBES :( I'm going to crawl in bed and cry for a week at the death of that series :(

I can tell you are cornered when you're moving the goalposts around.

Here is the thing, this thread is about interface and not style of game. KB+M has been proven the superior interface, and that's all there is to it. You can preach allyou want about gamer's tastes and about what you peronally think is skill , but this thread is about interface and the discussion is over.

(Also, certain exploits require a lot of skill and are therefore not patched, instead they are integarted into a balanced part of the game like muta-micro. All games have exploits, some hard to do, some easy, some balanced, some broken, it has nothing to do with the interface discussion)

You saw the video, discussion is over.

If having to fucking strafe, jump, and turn in order to compete, then fuck that.  How is that enjoyable?  Sure the Harlem Globe Trotters can do some cool fucking shit in their style of basketball, but they don't allow that shit in professional games.  Why?  Because the game of basketball was designed a certain way and was meant to be played a certain way.  You might watch a video of the Harlem Globe Trotters and think, "Hey these guys are better than NBA players."  But the reality is that they probably are not as good as NBA players when playing the game how it was intended.  What strafe jumping did was FORCE gamers to play in a way that was not intended(or they would get beat by people who did do it), and in a way(in my opinion) that is not as fun.  And that is what gaming is all about, FUN.  No one wants to play against exploiters and glitchers.

EDIT: And you are correct, Tribes was the shit.  Disc duels ftmfw.  mr. stickball's company(Instant Action I believe) is bringing about a web based version of the original.  So keep tuned on that one.

M+K is deffinately superior for fps

Uh, pretty sure if you can strafe jump and rocket jump you have the basics pretty down pat, that's generally the point: the "intended" version of Q3 was too easy. It's a lot easier to aim and control yourself at 10 mph than 50. And the game of basketball changed a lot for the enjoyment of everyone, Kareem Abdul Jabar and Wilt the Stilt caused a lot of rule changes because they dominated so heavy-handed. Think of Vo0 as Wilt Chamberlain, not a Harlem Globetrotter.

And yes, there were a lot of post release patches and mods that opened up those trick jumping avenues even more--so it was embraced. Hell Carmack thought CPMA mod was a great idea, so not only did he not do anything to stop all those sploits with vanilla Q3, he encouraged people to make more!

I think folks need to decide the criteria they're arguing here - i.e. is this a pure mechanical input device comparison devoid from any element of gameplay, preference or trends or is this about what tools work well for what job?

For example, if the latter, then JaggedSAC is correct, both input methods are used with games and experiences tailored to them - i.e. gamepad designed for ease of use while sitting in a chair or the like in front of a TV, with game speed and movement designed for it or sitting at a desk with a K&M playing a game with speed and movement designed for it and it's a bit pointless to argue further.

If the former then the K&M mechanically is more accurate and easier to use to aim/move a reticule accurately (forget in a game, just imagine some sort of screen test with small boxes on the screen you have to highlight in the shortest time) however, while the mouse is superb for the job the keyboard is limiting in design and doesn't fit your hand as well as a gamepad - but nonetheless a gamepad won't match it for speed/timing response in a neutral no gaming sense.

Clearly, as I and others have stated, it you wanted the absolute best movement/aiming mechanical input then you'd need keep the mouse but ditch the keyboard and use something like the Nunchuck instead to get better movement and easier fit to the hand.

In the end, while I understand that mechanically the K&M does have an edge in empirical terms, I think JaggedSAC is correct when he argues that, factoring in game design, environment, etc. it's better to simply see them as two tools that work well for their given environment.

I would like to see a design that combined a Nunchuck with something like a mouse - the Wiimote is no use as while reasonably accurate the thing has too much weight over time to hold and the wobble factor isn't too good.

I disagree about having a nunchuck type tool with a mouse, because you would lose close access to the amount of buttons for hotkeys a keyboard provides.

controller for me,easier movement and i prefer those analog sticks