Why are FPS gamers against motion controls?

[starwarsgeek]

It's a combination of several things.

1. Motion Controls were not developed to their best possible performance within the first generation to use them to a note-worthy level.

2. Being a new control scheme, many oompanies not directly associated with Nintendo were not good at designing around the controller during the early years.

3. It's part of Nintendo's evil scheme to bring gaming to the majority.

4. Because certain game critics and comedians say so.

I've yet to play an FPS on the WIi, but I've played other games that use the aiming mechanic. The aiming is good.

In other uses, it adds creative variety (when done well, of course). Super Mario Galaxy 2 uses it as a a joystick and flight sim controller in addition to the wii-nunchuck standard uses. Those levels would be much less interesting if they used a simple control stick.

I see potential. I just don't expect it to be met immediately.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Okay, let's do a little experiment. Stand up and hold your arm straight out. Now keep doing that. It gets tiring after a while, doesn't it? Now, imagine playing a shooter where you have to do that every time you don't want to look off in a random direction. I'm all for motion control in games, but only if it's not a hassle to do nothing.

Okay, let's do a little experiment. Sit down and hold the motion controller with your arm resting on your leg. Now keep doing that, and pivot the controller around with your wrist to aim. Not so tiring anymore, is it? Now it's not as much of a hassle as you thought, you should be all for motion controlled games.[/quote]
Okay, so you're just moving your wrist a little bit while it's resting on your leg. Got a question for you. How is that all that different than just using a controller? So, instead of twiddling two thumbs to look and move, you're twiddling a thumb and twitching a wrist? What's the point? It's like replacing your T.V. with a slightly larger T.V. is it different and better? Probably, but is it worth all the extra money you spent? Of course not.

 

[4RT1LL3RY]

The reason is simple for me, keyboard and mouse is superior in terms of accuracy and response time then a motion control. A lightgun style for an FPS means that you can only be accurate with what is on screen, when a lot of what you do in games is about how you react to stuff on the edges of your screen. I don't like having a lock-on button in FPSs, and thats what Wii games tend to need to play well.

Resident Evil 4 doesn't count because its a 3rd person survival horror game.

I am against motion controls in general, I want more contextual things based on what I do. Not stuff like winking an easy to open a window when I can just as quickly hit 2-keys to do a shortcut.

 

[M4yce]

Anybody ever been to disneyquest, well if you ever have they have this game called Ride the comix. In it you grab your "laser sword," and fight super villans with said sword. Now me being kinda a geek I was all over this in a heartbeat, I mean come on super heroic laser sword battles, who doesn't want some of that action?

Now you would think that this would be some awesome jedi kung fu fighting shit, but what it turned out to be was me holding the "sword" at torso level swinging it back and forth like a retarded lab monkey. Why? Because that's the only thing that worked, anytime I tried to do anything I thought would look cool or be a decent tactic was foiled by lousy response and shitty gameplay.

That's the problem with motion control, it just degrades into someone slapping their thigh for half an hour or banging the remote like a damn hammer. If I play a game with motion control I want it to actually be responsive and fun, not something any of them have been able to pull off. Oh, my bad and nothing that sings, dances, or whatever so those don't count.

 

[boholikeu]

1: With my mouse I can face any general direction about as fast as I can think about it. If I want to look left, right, then forward again with my mouse this takes about as much time as it does to do with my head. I can do this faster than I can comprehend what I'm seeing. This is incredibly valuable as I can get a quick view of my surroundings almost instantly. Analog sticks, d-pads, and bounding boxes will never give me this ability.

Actually, I'd probably agree with you here.

2: It is substantially harder to keep any sort of motion control steady than it is to keep my mouse steady. I'm able stop moving my mouse entirely with no effort. With a motion controller it takes a fair amount of effort to keep it steady.

With all of that said; I'll gladly choose motion controls over dual analog for FPS.

Again, try playing with the controller resting on your leg. This has solved that problem for me.

I'm not talking about Kinect. I'm talking about motion controls in general, particularly those that allow you to point and shoot.

But Kinect is one of the three major motion control systems that allows you to point and shoot. It's hard to ignore. Unless you're just giving up on Kinect because it has no manual input? That'd be fair enough.

Yup, pretty much. We're talking about FPS games here, and I really don't see how the kinect would handle the genre.

Okay, so you're just moving your wrist a little bit while it's resting on your leg. Got a question for you. How is that all that different than just using a controller? So, instead of twiddling two thumbs to look and move, you're twiddling a thumb and twitching a wrist? What's the point? It's like replacing your T.V. with a slightly larger T.V. is it different and better? Probably, but is it worth all the extra money you spent? Of course not.

My point in this thread was not that everyone should go buy a wii to play FPS games on. I'm just confused about the backlash against motion controls when in reality they are probably slightly superior to dual analog sticks. FPS gamers should be excited about their introduction to console games, rather than spouting the same arguments we heard 10 years ago when the controller started being used for FPS games.

The reason is simple for me, keyboard and mouse is superior in terms of accuracy and response time then a motion control. A lightgun style for an FPS means that you can only be accurate with what is on screen, when a lot of what you do in games is about how you react to stuff on the edges of your screen.

Can you explain better why a mouse is more accurate for things off screen? They seem to be about the same to me.

I think this has been said a million times, but I'm saying it again:

-I'm a console gamer, but I'll readily admit that a mouse aims slightly better than a controller. The sheer agility I can pull off with a controller, especially in a game like Halo or FEAR or Half-Life 2, offsets this to where it's even in my mind - agility vs precision. The Wii, unfortunately, has neither. Every time you hit the shoot button, you accidentally jerk the remote a bit to the left. Don't believe me? Pay attention to when you play. Use a semi-automatic weapon. This, at least for me, throws my accuracy off by a whole lot.

Actually I have this problem with my mouse, but not the wii controller =) Probably because I keep my mouse sensitivity so high so I can turn faster...

- No great shooters. Metroid Prime 3 is supposed to be a first person

ADVENTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't understand the difference, then shut the fuck up and go play Mario Party again. There's a huge difference in MP3 and Half-Life 2, Halo, CoD, etc. There is a big focus on exploring in the Metroid series, that's what Metroid's been about since its inception. There just aren't any shooters on the Wii that are great that aren't already on other, more familiar, more immersive, controllers and systems. And while they're already better on other control styles, why not enjoy the better graphics, too?

I agree that there are no great shooters, but that doesn't make the control system itself bad. It just makes it underutilized.

 

[presidentjlh]

Because they haven't been done correctly. It's so damn easy to be using the motion control device only to have your Wii controller to point off screen and suddenly you stop turning, resulting in a nice "You Died" screen.

If they could do it right, it may work, but now, it's not worth it.

 

[thedeathscythe]

I find motion controls, at least from what I've played of the wii and the kinect (haven't played move yet) aren't responsive enough or reliable enough for an fps. And fps needs to have tight controls, and I don't feel motion controls allow that just yet. You also have no peripheral vision in an fps, so turning your point of view needs to be completely tight for it to even feel remotely playable for me. With a third person game, you have much more peripheral vision so you can accept some lack of tightness compared to the fps games. So for me, they need tighter controls. I haven't played the new Goldeneye and it may have solved that problem, but Red Steel never felt tight enough for me...

 

[ApeShapeDeity]

Well, there's a really good reason why basically all the games that support motion controllers are trite crap for kids. COS SO ARE MOTION CONTROLLERS!

I'm not saying they don't have their place, but I'm more than happy to wait for them to be... uh, good.

Meanwhile, my kid, now 11 is with me on this.

 

[klasbo]

esports. Motion controls are too slow and too imprecise.

Both these points were already covered a few times in the thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.206841-Why-are-FPS-gamers-against-motion-controls?page=5#9373739
Really, it's simply a myth that motion controls are inherently less accurate and require more effort than conventional methods.

I would like to see you play quake/UT with a wiimote. I think the myth is on your end.
I'm probably one of a super-small minority here with any kind of esports experience, so my point of view will naturally be completely different than many other people - which is fair. You can't do that 0.05s dragshot with any kind of motion control besides a mouse (a mouse is a form of motion control, after all!), not because it requires less movement, but because it requires more time. That 5-frame 180º spin @ 60FPS, is not possible even with the highest sensitivity on any joystick, but it's easy with a mouse.

 

[sageoftruth]

One thing I can say from my experience with Metroid Corruption is: It is a lot easier to turn with a thumbstick than it is by pointing a wii mote at the edge of a screen. Sure, we've done it with mice in RTSs but a mouse is much steadier than a wrist.

 

[slipknot4]

I'd never touch a motion control ever. Games are good the way they are at the moment and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Also, it's not precise enough to play with a motion control.

 

[4RT1LL3RY]

@boholikeu

What I mean about edge of field accuracy is that with a light gun style of aiming following something from on screen to off screen is more difficult then with a mouse. With a mouse you aim the same constantly, you need to have your target in the center of the screen to hit it. On a game where you can aim any where at the screen to shot, if you need to move your cursor to the edge of the screen to turn, you can't shoot at the edge. There is the other style that allows you to aim at the screen while using something else to shift the screen, but it is still slower for me then the standard style. I have played FPS that use that style of aiming on the PC before, its very different then a standard FPS.

Motion controls can work for shooters, it will need to use different techniques then those used in today's FPS. If you have ever seen Red Orchestra's system of aiming when firing from the hip, that style can work for slower paced games. Motion Controls can't work for certain styles of fast paced games, Quake and Unreal Tournament were designed for the PC and attempts that have been made to make motion controls just pale in comparison to the original implementation.

The best style of motion control for an FPS is the Novinct Falcon. I got a chance to try one out before and it could work for an FPS pretty well not because of its control style but because of the feedback it provides. Haptic feedback is something that would be far more immersive then motion controls. I don't need generic vibration, I mean something that gives weapons an actual feeling of omph to them.

 

[KuwaSanjuro]

If you're thinking of Kinect I don't think you could play an FPS with Kinect which will make some hardcore FPS players dislike it.

 

[MercurySteam]

Implementation of motion controls can destroy many games. In the case of FPS games it can ruin the entire mechanic of aiming. And don't even get me started on how it would affect multiplayer. Is there any decent FPS with good multiplayer on the Wii?

 

[[.redacted]]

Because as of yet, they are still too imprecise.

The natural movement of the hand is harder to steady than a mouse/analog stick, it's harder to see where you're aiming, and it gets less precise the further you are away.

That, and most people have had practice with the other control systems, and so will be better with them.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

It's just that a motion controlled or one that uses an non-traditional controller is normally either really good, or really bad.

That, and that motion controls are nowadays aimed at non-hardcore gamers, so a good, hardcore motion FPS would be rare, as opposed to a normal one that's most likely to be okay, if not great.

 

[Ickorus]

I think my main problem with it is movement, sure i can aim the gun but it's a real pain in the ass to move places. (This is going on older motion controls, haven't tried the new ones)

There is this one thing in development currently that utilizes a hamster ball thing which allows for easier movement and is also loaded with sensors so you can of course use guns and such in the games too but currently it's glitchy and costs like $3000 if you wanted one.

 

[crepesack]

I played call of duty 3 on the wii and it turned out okay...but the controls were still insensitive and almost maddening at times.

 

[DustyDrB]

I dont think its just FPS fans, I think most people just hate it in general. But personaly, I dont see how motion controls can translate into a FPS without the game being a rail shooter (And I hate rail shooters).

Metroid Prime: corruption pulled it off. Being one of the first console motion controlled first person shooters (wow that's a lot of descriptors), it was pretty damn precise.

- No great shooters. Metroid Prime 3 is supposed to be a first person

ADVENTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't understand the difference, then shut the fuck up and go play Mario Party again. There's a huge difference in MP3 and Half-Life 2, Halo, CoD, etc. There is a big focus on exploring in the Metroid series, that's what Metroid's been about since its inception. There just aren't any shooters on the Wii that are great that aren't already on other, more familiar, more immersive, controllers and systems. And while they're already better on other control styles, why not enjoy the better graphics, too?

The Prime series is an adventure. Absolutely true. But it is also a FPS. There's no way around that fact.