You beat me to it, I guess a lot of xbox players didn't realize this? It was only the main topic of discussion every Shadowrun game I got in.Woodsey said:Like I said, handicaps were put in place on the PC version:
"Because of the lack of 'pixel-accuracy' with the Xbox 360 analog thumbstick, the designers have included an aim-assisting technology, which basically interpolates the player's movement and causes the reticle to stay over an enemy player like a weak magnet. In addition, FASA has implemented a feature which causes the cross-hair to expand during quick movements, thus lowering the player's accuracy, making it impossible to quickly turn and maintain accuracy, reducing the potential advantage of playing with a mouse.[7][8] PC players, who have a more sensitive control scheme, are able to turn significantly faster than their controller-using counterparts and would have gained an unfair advantage."
(Wikipedia)
I also remember reading that the crosshairs on the PC version would wobble around slightly.
lol I find it much better than a joystick. Combine that with the mouse accuracy, and you have a much more efficient way of playing any fast paced gameIronic Pirate said:But in fast paced games, console gamers would have a mobility advantage, as WASD isn't all that great for movement...
That would be because the hefty autoaim/stickyaim in the console version makes the most difference in close range, not due to any advantage of the console controller itself.SODAssault said:Well, the way I see it, the PC setup is better suited for marksmanship, while a controller would be far better suited to close-quarters combat (hence, why MW2 on consoles is absolutely LITTERED with knifers and shotgunners, but on the PC port, most engagements I've participated in were at a respectable distance. Yes, I own both. Long-ish story).
Console shooters have Auto-aim. Counterstrike does not. Hitting anything'd be even harder than on consoles.wheeman said:I played counter-strike with an xbox controller today, I played for half an hour and only got 2 kills.was
That's not why you're slower on Consoles. It would be if the position of your curser was the position of the stick around the axis (ignoring spinning over 180 degrees and such). Movement with a thumbstick is capped at a certain speed, the speed at which it goes when it's held farthest left. Most mice can track movements faster than the hand, removing this cap. Switching from aiming left to aiming right on a thumbstick involves moving it from the left to the right, with a range of speeds in both directions in between. A mouse simply involves changing the direction of movement, which is instant. Ontop of that, there is only a small space around which you can move a thumb stick, meaning it's harder to choose precisely the speed and direction of movement, wheras on a mouse, it is far easier and more natural to control this, which is more due to the controller than the appendage controlling it.dochmbi said:It's simply a biological fact that you can get beter motor accuracy with your hand than with your least agile finger, the thumb.
As far as I'm concerned, the two are hardly mutually exclusive, as I'm having a hard time recalling the last time a console game existed without auto-aim. The artificial compensation might as well be integral.CmdrGoob said:That would be because the hefty autoaim/stickyaim in the console version makes the most difference in close range, not due to any advantage of the console controller itself.
What? Why?Ironic Pirate said:But in fast paced games, console gamers would have a mobility advantage, as WASD isn't all that great for movement...
I'd argue rushing is common on consoles as accuracy is less important when the other guy fills 3 quarters of your screen.CmdrGoob said:That would be because the hefty autoaim/stickyaim in the console version makes the most difference in close range, not due to any advantage of the console controller itself.
TWO COPIES!?!11You best be explainin the story, because I'm not a fan of that game and knowing someone has two copies for no good reason makes me mad.SODAssault said:Well, the way I see it, the PC setup is better suited for marksmanship, while a controller would be far better suited to close-quarters combat (hence, why MW2 on consoles is absolutely LITTERED with knifers and shotgunners, but on the PC port, most engagements I've participated in were at a respectable distance. Yes, I own both. Long-ish story).
There's a difference between being an elitist, and having better gaming hardware...Milky_Fresh said:Good job Logan, you feed those elitists.
Uh...Yes it is...Ironic Pirate said:But in fast paced games, console gamers would have a mobility advantage, as WASD isn't all that great for movement...
Yeah, I know what you mean. I always find it amusing when people claim it's just a matter of taste which is better when even the software has to be designed to artificially make up for the deficiency of the controller.SODAssault said:As far as I'm concerned, the two are hardly mutually exclusive, as I'm having a hard time recalling the last time a console game existed without auto-aim. The artificial compensation might as well be integral.CmdrGoob said:That would be because the hefty autoaim/stickyaim in the console version makes the most difference in close range, not due to any advantage of the console controller itself.