Why are FPS gamers against motion controls?

[NoNameMcgee]

I am not interested in any kind of motion controls until we have full virtual reality systems!!

Barring that, nothing can beat mouse and keyboard for FPS games. To be honest I find motion controls extremely unimmersive and they do nothing but pull me out of the game I am playing, rather than drawing me in.

 

[harvz]

i hate motion controls.

just imagine an FPS, i believe i would be screaming something like this:
"no, to the left! your other left!!!"... 10 minutes later "why are you shooting at him, he's your ally!!! oh god, why didn't i get this on a proper console/pc"

motion controls are a phase, they will die out soon and they will return eventually, i wont touch them till i got a holodeck in my living room, full stop... period.

 

[Oktanas]

well because you will be able to play only for about 10 mins before your hand starts to hurt.

 

[Yagharek]

Yes, and then you have to be exactly aware of where that point is relative to your controller/pointer. And that would surely vary with your distance and relation to the sensor-meaning it would change on a day to day basis. That just a less accurate version of a mouse that you hold in mid-air. I reckon that'd make reacting quickly and accurately harder.People would probably get used to it, but why bother? I have seen people arguing that it's no worse than a controller, or mouse, but i've not seen a convinving argument for why it's better. So surely the money would be better spent elsewhere?

I also think you'd have to train a very long time to be as accurate with a real gun as on many FPS', in the same amount of time.

Almost every shooting game has something called a "crosshair" to let the player know where they are aiming relative to the controller. It seems the problem was solved before motion controls even existed.

Honestly, have you even played a motion controlled shooter, or are you just trying to argue against them on theoretical grounds?
[/quote]
Crosshairs are great, but once you get used to a game, I find you don't really need them. Honestly, do you spin and aim at someone and then check the crosshairs? I find I don't even look at them, I just line up with where they would normall be(screen centre). For example, there isn't any difference aiming in Harcore and normal on CoD(without actually aiming, just using the reticule/where it would be).

You want the first movement you make to be precise. You turn and look at it by moving you analogue sticks once, and if you're good, don't need to muck around lining up. You do it in one motion. I can't see motion control being able to manage this as well. For one, your slight body movements can throw it(slight hand shaking or whatever).

Also, even if there were absolutely no cons to motion controllers, what are the pros?

They don't need less movement than a controller. They aren't more immersive imo.Why should they be? I wave my hand, and so does the character. Great, but I don't see that as being more immersive. I'm still in my room, waving a controller around. Also, every time it goes wrong, it breaks any immersion. I wave my hand, he does something completely different-immersion gone.

 

[MercurySteam]

It seems to support my theory that a few cruddy control schemes in the beginning tainted people's opinions early on, and very few people have given them a chance since then.

There's a good reason for that. Just because you improve crappy motion controls, it doesn't mean everyone will be willing to take your word for it. Especially FPS veterans. We aren't that stupid.

Honestly? There are that many people complaining about the extra motion of pointing? You guys do realize that you don't have to stand with your arms out-streched like you're at a firing range, don't you? Heck, when I play I usually just rest the remote on my lap/arm/whatever depending on how I'm laying on the couch. My wrist probably moves less than when I use a mouse and keyboard to game.

That may be how you roll, but everyone plays games differently. And I don't think you seem to realise that our generation has specially evolved fingers not arms.

Also, the controllers are precise enough. Say i'm trying to aim at someone whose far away on top of a building. I point my control at him. But the control is big(and even if they got it down to the size of your fingertip this would still be an issue, though not as large of one)-which part of where you're pointing does your character aim? After all, you're aiming for a small target. You can't aim effectively for a small target by using something larger than it.

And yet people somehow do it in real life all the time with actual guns...

Remember boyo, these are games we're playing here.

It's just too unwieldy for those precision headshots.

Funny, people used to say the same of analogue sticks..

May I ask who said that?

I think your biggest problem is that you don't understand why we all think that FPSs are a whole lot worse with motion controls. Here's an example: In CoD when you use sniper rifles your character moves the reticle around and you have to press a button to steady your aim. On the Wii this is the case will all weapons (only it's very hard to 100% steady your aim) as the human hand is quite unsteady by nature. You need your weapons to have a steady aim by DEFAULT otherwise killstreaks and headshots becomes quite tough.

I think the real question here is - do you own a 360 or PS3? Have you played FPS's that require a steady aim?

MY CONCLUSION:

Just out of curiosity, why are so many first-person shooter fans against motion controls?

If you were one of us you'd know the answer to that question.

 

[Delusibeta]

Because PC Console Elitists are less rational and logical then a hybrid of Glen Beck and Richard Dawkins
and can't accept a superior control format as it leads them to admitting being wrong?

Sorry If I'm trolling, I'm just annoyed today.

Fix'd. Ultimately, it all boils down to this. This has been going on for ages, too: observe the people who play FPSes on PCs with the 360 controller.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Because PC Console Elitists are less rational and logical then a hybrid of Glen Beck and Richard Dawkins
and can't accept a superior control format as it leads them to admitting being wrong?

Sorry If I'm trolling, I'm just annoyed today.

Fix'd. Ultimately, it all boils down to this. This has been going on for ages, too: observe the people who play FPSes with the 360 controller.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[PissOffRoth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZQxB1nGAJo

Now everyone wins. Build yourself a dark, circular room and stfu.

 

[ThisWasAWaste]

I played COD 3 on the wii

so you're basing your opinions on one shitty game with a development team of a whole 2 people (not even joking, they literally ported the ps2 game and added mouse controls) that came out about 3 years ago now?
oh wow...

anyway
i'll be honest, the wii got me into first person shooters
dual analogue for fps' just feels unnatural as i really lightly tap to ever so sligtly aim my reticle pixel perfectly

it destroys immerion and makes me wonder what the fuck im actually doing playing the game
with the wii you aim faster and while you probably cant aim pixel perfectly that's your own fault and kinda realistic

i mean, have you ever tried aiming a rifle in real life? it's not as easy as simply moving it till it lines up with the target and then pulling the trigger to snipe an apple 300 metres away

I was using that as an example.

As to your last point, video games will never perfectly mimic real life because that's not the point. I don't play a video game to practice my rifle aiming abilities, I play it to have fun and relieve stress. Also, many FPSes have ironsight aiming if that's your thing, and most of the time weapons aren't exactly pinpoint accurate.

 

[Katana314]

After all, pointing at the screen obviously allows for more precision than an analog stick

Try going to a rifle range and aiming at a target 1 km away with your rifle.
Now, try doing that with an invisible gun that has zero heft.
Now try doing that in a video game.
Unrealism is better, and easier.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

One big problem is that with motion controls you actually take away some of the player's accuracy. That may sound silly, but the truth is that it's a hell of a lot easier for me to hold a gun steady with a joystick than it would be for me to hold it steady with a motion controll device.

 

[spartan231490]

Just out of curiosity, why are so many first-person shooter fans against motion controls? It seems to me that if there is one hardcore genre that could actually benefit from them it'd be shooters.

After all, pointing at the screen obviously allows for more precision than an analog stick, and when combined with something like the Wii's nunchuck for movement/other commands you have an overall control scheme with as much complexity as traditional controllers.

It's just something that never really made sense to me. True the first FPS out on the Wii did suck, but later games improved very quickly after that. Heck the Conduit was even praised by most reviewers as having one of the best control schemes on a console FPS ever, and yet hardcore shooter fans still call motion controls a "gimmick".

Edit: Just for clarification here I'm talking about "pointing" motion controls over an analogue stick. I'm not talking about full on body controls such as "waggle to throw a grenade" etc. I agree that substituting a button for some motion is pretty silly, but pointing seems much more appropriate for the genre than basically using a miniature joystick (it's also the reason why most hardcore shooter fans prefer a mouse and keyboard over game controllers).

Edit2: Honestly, I can't believe that some of you are pulling the "I play games to relax" card. While I think that's a perfectly acceptable argument against some games being motion controlled, I can assure you that it's possible to play Wii shooters with the same level of exertion as a keyboard and mouse.

Because, motion controlls are buggy, and honestly, i dont' have any problem getting the precision i need from a 360 controller. Also, i played an fps on my roommates wii, and there was at least a 2 second delay between moving where the thing pointed, and having the crosshairs actually move. and no matter how many times we did the wii calibration, the crosshair wasn't even close to where the thing was actually pointing.

 

[AdmiralWolverineLightningbolt]

As to your last point, video games will never perfectly mimic real life because that's not the point. I don't play a video game to practice my rifle aiming abilities, I play it to have fun and relieve stress. Also, many FPSes have ironsight aiming if that's your thing, and most of the time weapons aren't exactly pinpoint accurate.

yeah true, realism isnt needed in games, but then a wiimote's hardly realistic it just adds human error and stops it feeling like you're aiming a robot-controlled turret

and what also isnt needed is tedious flicking of the analogue stick until it lines up
iron sights still require tiny slight movements unless they have auto aim in which case all skill is removed

personally i prefer to point and shoot at what i want to kill and prefer it when the skilled players are the ones with better hand eye coordination rather than the ones with freakishly unnatural thumb muscles
maybe that's just me though

 

[Colodomoko]

When I play an fps I want to be lazy, sitting down and blowing off some steam by shooting something. Let's face it, motion controls are a gimmic, if you like them them good for you, but if your a fan of using an actual controller then don't waste your time and money on natal or whatever.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Lets put it simply. Do you know what kind of motion controls would be awesome? When we can do this:

And do you know what actual motion-controlled FPS' look like? This:

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Give me a motion controlled FPS that actually controls like you're shooting something, I'm all in, thát's immersion. Pointing a remote more akin to a phaser is not even remotely the same thing, if anything it breaks immersion.

 

[Katana314]

Give me a motion controlled FPS that actually controls like you're shooting something, I'm all in, thát's immersion. Pointing a remote more akin to a phaser is not even remotely the same thing, if anything it breaks immersion.

Funny enough, I have just the thing for you! (and it's compatible with all Valve games)
http://home.novint.com/

 

[Delusibeta]

Because PC Console Elitists are less rational and logical then a hybrid of Glen Beck and Richard Dawkins
and can't accept a superior control format as it leads them to admitting being wrong?

Sorry If I'm trolling, I'm just annoyed today.

Fix'd. Ultimately, it all boils down to this. This has been going on for ages, too: observe the people who play FPSes on PCs with the 360 controller.

Thanks for proving my point.

Typo. But still, point.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Give me a motion controlled FPS that actually controls like you're shooting something, I'm all in, thát's immersion. Pointing a remote more akin to a phaser is not even remotely the same thing, if anything it breaks immersion.

Funny enough, I have just the thing for you! (and it's compatible with all Valve games)
http://home.novint.com/

Cool idea, gotta give them that, but you don't actually aim with that thing. As in how you aim a real gun. That's what I want, I don't think we have a shooting range here.