See, you can say "I have no problem controlling an RTS or FPS game with a controller" but that claim immediately falls apart when you play against someone who's using a keyboard/mouse and you get destroyed, as this is exactly what happens with FPS games every time the audiences meet (no one has tried with RTS games, but results would be identical).immortalfrieza said:I don't know about everybody else, but I've never had a problem controlling an RTS game with a controller. I use Xpadder with an Xbox360 controller on everything that's possible, including several RTSes like Warcraft, Starcraft, Black and White, (whole series I'm talking about) and few others I can't really think of right now and never had any real issues.Thanatos2k said:He said the gaming controller. You're not going to play an RTS game - any RTS game - with a controller. Controllers are good for one thing, keyboard/mouse another, and joysticks/fightpads/whateverelse another.
I would argue against that. I don't see what the problem is with using controllers in FPS either even as they are. In fact, I find controllers to work better most of the time because mice tend to be too sensitive to aim effectively even with the mouse sensitivity turned way down. All it takes is a slight twitch to throw off one's aim when using a mouse while a control stick won't. It's also simply more comfortable overall to use a controller over a keyboard and mouse anyway.Thanatos2k said:It's the FPS argument again. Controllers will NEVER be as good as a mouse at quickly and precisely pointing at and clicking things. And RTS games are about a whole lot of pointing at very small things and clicking on them, dragging boxes, and targeting enemy things. The only way to "improve" a controller is to change the game itself such that you don't need to do those things that a mouse does best.
You are not playing the best you possibly could be with crippled controls. Also, do you know why a slight twitch doesn't throw off your aim when using a controller? Auto aim features built into the game. You know why they're in there? Because aiming with an analog is horribly imprecise and would be extremely difficult - that's why they put them in there in the first place.
That's the trap with controllers - you don't even know how bad you have it because the game lies to you. On PCs, auto aim is considered hacking and cheating. On consoles - it's a feature!
It's a claim backed up by evidence from the past. A controller based on a neural interface would probably indeed be superior, but they didn't improve upon a console controller/gamepad to get there - it's a fundamentally different input device. In this case, moving your hand is more accurate at pointing at something than pressing a button (dpad) or moving an analog stick to move a cursor to point at something. A quasi-trackpad (somewhere between pushing a button, moving your hand, and moving an analog stick) will still not beat this.Aardvaarkman said:That's a rather extraordinary claim.Thanatos2k said:It's the FPS argument again. Controllers will NEVER be as good as a mouse at quickly and precisely pointing at and clicking things.
So, the mouse is the perfect method of input, and can never be improved on? What if somebody develops a controller based on a neural interface, where you don't even have to move a physical object like a mouse? Surely, one's brain activity directly connected to the computing device will be a lot faster (if properly implemented) than something as crude as a mouse?
I don't think it's a matter of if this is going to happen, but more a question of whether it will happen in 5 years or 10 years.
Pointing with your mind would indeed be faster than moving your hand. Maybe one day we'll get there. Until then, mouse is the best we have.