Keyboard and mouse are losing the FPS market

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm still not sure why they don't just let me plug a mouse/keyboard into the damned console.

Personally, I prefer point/click for shooters and RTS while controllers make third person action platformers, like Assassin's Creed, a lot more enjoyable.

It really comes down to personal preference... I'm not sure why they won't just let us use the tech we have available.

 

[w9496]

Always prefferred an analog contoller to be honest. A lot of the games I play wuldn't function well with a keyboard/mouse combo.

In my favorite shooter for instance, Gears of War 3, Advanced tactics and movements like wallbouncing and advanced strafing would be nearly impossible.

I can definitely see the advantage in RTS games and things like that. No controller has enough free buttons to map all of those command to.

In shooters though, I can perform at the same level a keyboard/mouse player can.

 

[Kingjackl]

Controllers are generally more intuitive than a keyboard, but the mouse is still the most efficient method of looking around in an FPS.

That said, the traditional controller aiming methods are no slouches and once you get the hang of it, it's not hard to play Halo on the Xbox just as well as you would play Half Life on the PC.

 

[CrystalShadow]

In a perfect world, I'd be using a controller-esque analog stick and buttons in my left hand, while using a mouse in my right.

This is why people need to give the Wii Nunchuck a way to hook up with a USB.

Oh, you can hook that up easily enough with a bit of knowledge. (But I guess most people struggle with that).

The actual practical problem is that the Nunchuck only has 2 buttons. So unless you want to map a whole lot of controls to motion based gestures (the nunchuck has an accelerometer) - which isn't a good idea, (and that's coming from someone that likes motion controls), you're going to find that it just isn't that useful given what PC games expect you to do with a keyboard.

Plus, the major advantage of an analog stick is ruined by PC games assuming your movement controls will be handled by a keyboard.

Mimicking binary button presses with an analog stick defeats the purpose of analog control, so all advantage of even doing this gets lost, except in the rare case of a game that lets you map movement to analog control.

Actually, this does bring up an interesting point though, given the standard Wii FPS control scheme sits somewhere between gamepad and mouse/keyboard in terms of accuracy - mostly due to the use of a a relatively accurate onscreen pointer.

But that's neither here nor there.

I've messed around with quite a few odd control schemes with PC games, but they tend to be undermined by the fact that most of them assume keyboard+mouse. Which has implications for what you can do when configuring them, and limit what you can do. (I did have some fun times for a while rigging a space combat sim to work using motion controls though - highly impractical, but definitely fun to experiment with.)

 

[Trippy Turtle]

High sensivity comes always with a cost of precision, precision the controller already lacks in such a manner that about every FPS that uses controllers as their primary control peripheral comes with an inbuild aimbot. And that is not even close to the really small chunk of people who cheat in PC games - a thing that is easily avoided and held under control. I actually think that spinning 9 times a second is way too fucking high due to the fact that you don't need that. You need a balance of precision - the possibility to allign the crosshair to a specific pixel without fighting the sensivity while having enough room and speed to manuever.

I use a sensivity where it takes me about 15cm movement to do a 360° turn. I have over 45cm room for my mouse to move due to this and so I don't have to lift my mouse very often. Since I nearly never have to turn as much that I'd need that time is neglectible.
Okay, you don't place your thumb on the side of it. Yet every time you change movement you need go through more movement until a reaction is forced than you need with a mouse, a device that replicates your change of movement at the same time as you change your movement. It is simple math - the time it takes for the thumbstick to travel from position A to position B (don't forget that only half through the way the change on screen occurs) is greater.

And please, show me a recording of something similiar, especially regarding the fact that the recording I showed is just from a slightly above average TF2 jumper.

Also it is a better alternative to have the majority of the playerbase use aimbots due to them being built in than... having aimbots being a banable offense? You really make no sense.

I'd just like to clear up that an aimbot and aim assist are very different. If you can't even understand that then I don't know why I am bothering with this argument.
Now, if you are petty enough to think twitching your thumb and extra centimeter makes that big of a difference I am sure I could bring in some equally petty calculations about friction and weight on a mouse.
The fact that people made gamepads for PC but nobody bothers making a mouse and keyboard adaption for consoles should really speak for itself here.
I don't watch many videos of people playing games but if you wanted to wait a few days I would be happy to make a Halo montage for you or something.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/sorry-to-say-it-but-keyboard-and-mouse-are-losing-the-fps-market/

and the rebutal

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/18/mouse-keyboard-still-a-major-player-in-fps-market/

so....yeah people say the darndest things somtimes

I dont know about anyone else but I find it...ironic that FPS has become the staple genre of the current gen...on consoles with gamepads...I mean thats just friggen hilarious in a way

personally it kind of irks me a bit because I find gamepads can make games some games damn near unplayable (ok thats hyperbole but still) I mean honestly if you need artifical asstance with aiming your systm is kind of broken.....

that uhh...wasnt too inflamatory was it? I'm just being honest

So because a company that for the last 10 years has stopped porting their games on PC (Bungie) will keep not porting their games on PC,which practically means absolutely nothing changed,the author came up with the theory that PC gaming will die.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Regarding mouse and keyboard in FPS:
I always play FPS with mouse and keyboard. That's the most reasonable thing to do,the most accurate and convenient way to play an FPS. The only thing that would make me use a controller instead,is if the keyboard and mouse controls are MADE TO SUCK ON PURPOSE,because really,you must try hard to break the mouse controls on an FPS.

 

[Waffle_Man]

There seems to be quiet a lot of misinformation on this thread.

The primary difference between a mouse and an analogue stick is that a mouse allows for muscle memory. While the importance of this can't be understated in competitive play, I'd go as far as saying that the majority of people who play with a mouse and keyboard aren't actually good enough to take advantage of it. If you play with an excessively high sensitivity or acceleration turned on, which a shockingly high number of players seem to be doing, you aren't actually that much better off than if you have a controller. Furthermore, if you play stupid, it doesn't matter if you have the best aim in the world. You're going to get blindsided and shot in the back. Case and point: every person killed in this video was probably using a mouse and keyboard, and at least half of the shots could have been easily done with a controller.


While raw adjustments are harder to do, good players using a controller will make smaller adjustments by moving. Incidentally many higher level PC players will do something very similar, simply because moving makes you harder to hit and therefore gives you more time to aim. The skills that actually help you win in a competitive setting, such as positioning, pre-aiming, pre-firing, good timing, and good communication are very much applicable with a controller. Flick shots are not relied on, because they are way too random to be counted on, especially when the enemy is doing everything they can to make sure that they aren't going to have to rely on a flick shot.


Now, keep in mind that certain games will benefit from a keyboard and mouse more than others. Games like quake and tribes tend to rely more on raw adjustments. I will also admit that, despite all of what I have just said, I will still take a mouse over a controller any day, simply because saving myself with a flick shot feels unbelievably awesome.

So, to recap and give a TL;DR version:

The mouse is better, but unless you're a competitive level player, it doesn't make as much of a difference as PC players would like to think.

 

[Griffolion]

Okay, I'll bite.

Joypads on the consoles definitely have the limelight as far as consoles are concerned, due to the popularity of titles like the Call of Duty series.

However, keyboard and mouse will always remain the superior control set for FPS games as far as absolute performance is concerned. You'll never get the precise level of control on a joypad that a mouse will afford when aiming. For me, that's a clinching factor. For others, it doesn't matter. That's fine.

Both are fine, they co-exist perfectly well. Take your pick, and enjoy.

 

[Fumbles]

There seems to be quiet a lot of misinformation on this thread.

The primary difference between a mouse and an analogue stick is that a mouse allows for muscle memory. While the importance of this can't be understated in competitive play, I'd go as far as saying that the majority of people who play with a mouse and keyboard aren't actually good enough to take advantage of it. If you play with an excessively high sensitivity or acceleration turned on, which a shockingly high number of players seem to be doing, you aren't actually that much better off than if you have a controller. Furthermore, if you play stupid, it doesn't matter if you have the best aim in the world. You're going to get blindsided and shot in the back. Case and point: every person killed in this video was probably using a mouse and keyboard, and at least half of the shots could have been easily done with a controller.


While raw adjustments are harder to do, good players using a controller will make smaller adjustments by moving. Incidentally many higher level PC players will do something very similar, simply because moving makes you harder to hit and therefore gives you more time to aim. The skills that actually help you win in a competitive setting, such as positioning, pre-aiming, pre-firing, good timing, and good communication are very much applicable with a controller. Flick shots are not relied on, because they are way too random to be counted on, especially when the enemy is doing everything they can to make sure that they aren't going to have to rely on a flick shot.


Now, keep in mind that certain games will benefit from a keyboard and mouse more than others. Games like quake and tribes tend to rely more on raw adjustments. I will also admit that, despite all of what I have just said, I will still take a mouse over a controller any day, simply because saving myself with a flick shot feels unbelievably awesome.

So, to recap and give a TL;DR version:

The mouse is better, but unless you're a competitive level player, it doesn't make as much of a difference as PC players would like to think.

I really agree with you, and thank you for the well thought out post.

I have one gripe with the BF3 PC Controller video though. He was using a shotgun, I mean come on nice spread easy to hit. His movement was fine and all, but I would like to see him play a sniper, or use another gun that requires precision aiming (instead of spread hit/scan) and see how he fares.Might be the same, I'm just saying I think that would be a better test.

But you are right, the only real advantage is in the top competitive players.

P.s as an avid CS player thanks for posting the "aim better vid". I try to teach other players prefiring, some people just don't get it.

 

[Waffle_Man]

I really agree with you, and thank you for the well thought out post.

I have one gripe with the BF3 PC Controller video though. He was using a shotgun, I mean come on nice spread easy to hit. His movement was fine and all, but I would like to see him play a sniper, or use another gun that requires precision aiming (instead of spread hit/scan) and see how he fares.

I realized that some people were going to complain about the whole "using a shotgun" sort of thing, but using an automatic weapon in battlefield doesn't really require all that much precision to be honest, especially not when in such close quarters. Here is another video that the same person did while on a mouse and keyboard. While a number of the shots he makes would require a mouse, there are still a massive number of kills that effectively amount to taking the enemy by surprise and strafing.


I feel I should also reiterate that I do think the mouse is genuinely superior to the controller. The reason I posted this is because I have a large amount of disdain for an attitude among PC gamers that seem to think that they're pro simply by virtue of being able to do a flick shot. If I weren't sold on the merits of the mouse and the extreme precision it offered, I probably wouldn't use all of this

Spoiler

to do a 190 degree turn in CS.

 

[LordLundar]

I still remember an article I read in PC gamer shortly before Halo 2 launched for the PC. The staff from the X-Box office challenged them to a PC match of the first game with the X-Box guys using gamepads while the PC guys used M/K. Lets run the metrics here:

X-Box staff were obsessed with Halo to the point where they could have competed professionally.

PC staff not nearly as focused on the FPS market, let alone with Halo. (most barely touched the game)

It was about as one sided of a match as there was. The X-Box staff never stood a chance.


Now personally I'm a fan of options. To this day Saints Row 3 still has the best control system in place that I've seen. But the argument that gamepad is the superior option compared to a well setup M/K arrangement is laughable at best.

 

[Fumbles]

I really agree with you, and thank you for the well thought out post.

I have one gripe with the BF3 PC Controller video though. He was using a shotgun, I mean come on nice spread easy to hit. His movement was fine and all, but I would like to see him play a sniper, or use another gun that requires precision aiming (instead of spread hit/scan) and see how he fares.

I realized that some people were going to complain about the whole "using a shotgun" sort of thing, but using an automatic weapon in battlefield doesn't really require all that much precision to be honest, especially not when in such close quarters. Here is another video that the same person did while on a mouse and keyboard. While a number of the shots he makes would require a mouse, there are still a massive number of kills that effectively amount to taking the enemy by surprise and strafing.


I feel I should also reiterate that I do think the mouse is genuinely superior to the controller. The reason I posted this is because I have a large amount of disdain for an attitude among PC gamers that seem to think that they're pro simply by virtue of being able to do a flick shot. If I weren't sold on the merits of the mouse and the extreme precision it offered, I probably wouldn't use all of this

Spoiler

to do a 190 degree turn in CS.

That is one sweet mouse pad.

As one who is not into BF, thanks for the mention that automatic rifles don't require much precision.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Just some small commentary:

Even though flick shots are not reliable, there are situations where they are the best and only option, having the disandvantage there is still a disadvantage. Examples to that are Scout vs Scout: Either you follow the common tactic of mirroring the opponents movements to line up precise shots from close or you need to twitch aim when he is jumping around you like a maniac because he wants to stall time (And also giving out potshots).

But outside of the small percentage of top players it is quite irrelevant. I'm sure that someone with basic scout knowledge and better control over the controller than I have (not that hard) can rock in TF2 - in the end even the M&K combo can't replace experience and mapknowledge (and teamwork).

My point wasn't that flick shots are never used in competition (they are). Rather, it's that unless you use them as a compliment to smart play, you're going to have your ass handed to you. Hitting a sporadically moving target also has less to do with speed and more to do with prediction and countering with even better movement.

 

[newwiseman]

Since I've replied to countless controller vs keyboard threads, for me the argument always comes down to mouse vs analog stick precision, I'll just leave this here http://trackballcontroller.com/

Spoiler

[img src="http://trackballcontroller.com/images/TBC_pS.jpg"/]

I have one, it was like learning how to play again, I can't recommend it enough.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Since I've replied to countless controller vs keyboard threads, for me the argument always comes down to mouse vs analog stick precision, I'll just leave this here http://trackballcontroller.com/

Spoiler

[img src="http://trackballcontroller.com/images/TBC_pS.jpg"/]

I have one, it was like learning how to play again, I can't recommend it enough.

Trackballs are very very good if you can learn them. Cuts down on the space required too, but requires "reversing" your muscle memory for a mouse, and reallocating it to your thumb.

 

[Kopikatsu]

There's a very good reason why neither XBox 720 nor PS4 are showing any signs (not even rumors) of having optional KB/M support, despite having hardware+software platforms closer to actual PC's than ever before. And you know, us living in 2013 lol.

Both Microsoft and Sony know that if they allowed KB/M support on consoles, mouse-users would DESTROY gamepad users in multiplayer first person shooters to the point of humiliation.

Yesterday I booted Crysis:Warhead campaign, except this time I plugged in my Logitech F310 (gamepad) for giggles - jesus christ it was difficult. With mouse I could simply rain back-to-back headshots due to enemies hardly moving, but with the gamepad I had to nudge the analog sticks constantly to adjust aim...nudge too little and I fell short, nudge too far and I'd keep scrolling past the enemy. It was like trying to aim a real-life howitzer/mortar using XY coordinates. "Holy shit" I thought, "people actually play competitively like this?".

You could hook up a keyboard and mouse to a PS3, and...man. Someone did that for Counter-Strike: Global Offense and posted some videos. They just completely slaughtered everyone without even trying. The favored tactic was to run past the guys, then spin and headshot them because they couldn't turn quickly enough.

 

[Christopher Fisher]

How has this thread been going on for so long!?

Mouse/Keyboard=better for FPS! It's a fucking scientifically verifiable fucking fact. If you're a gamepad player and you think you're badass, I hate to break it to you, but you're not. It's the auto aim. That's all. Go play Counter Strike. Even if you always get top position in CoD or BF3 on consoles, you'll get raped. You'll probably get raped playing the PC version of BF3 or CoD. That's just how it is. Do you see pro-gamers running around with 360 pad at tournaments? No, you don't. End of debate. End of thread. Just because some fucking retard at Bungie (a company known for making shitty FPS games) says something doesn't make it true.

 

[Godhead]

This really is the only image in my mind that can fully explain all the subtle nuances of this claim.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

We all know a mouse is more accurate than an analog stick.

We all know that an analog stick is better than the WASD keys.

So obviously the ideal solution is something like this, used with a mouse