How do people deal with console FPSes over PC ones?

[synobal]

Don't most console shooters have some sort of aim assist?

 

[-Samurai-]

I'm personally surprised by people complaining about how inaccurate the analogue sticks are, I know I can hit a sliver of a head with minimal difficulty and I'm nowhere near the best, my accuracy is pretty high and my reflexes are great but I'm not the best sharpshooter nor the quickest.)

I never understood it either.

On both platforms, a hit is a hit and a miss is a miss. Accuracy and precision are two words that people try to use to defend their platform, when the majority of people using them have no idea what they actually mean.

Accuracy and precision are not boosted or hindered by a mouse or a controller. It's all in the player.

 

[Derek Westlund]

saying you like consoles more because of the controller is a wrong reason to like consoles more since you can get that exact controller for the pc

liking consoles more for the exclusives is a good reason

personally i favor the pc

 

[Macrobstar]

Mouse is way to sensitive, i overshoot what I'm aiming for by miles then i try to compensate and overshoot again

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Once upon a time, I legitimately thought I hated FPS games. I only played CoD4 on my 360 and I can only remember how frustrating it was. Not only were the people complete assholes, but I could never hit anything to save my life, excluding maybe with a rocket launcher. When I played my first FPS on the PC with a keyboard and mouse, it was an eye opening experience. I could point my crosshair towards what I wanted to hit and my bullets would actually make contact! Granted, I'm not claiming to be the best PC gamer ever, but my mind explodes whenever I hear someone say they prefer to play a FPS with a controller. To me, the pinpoint accuracy of a mouse is infinitely superior to whatever little aim you can attain with a controller's right analog stick. Can someone explain to me how people play these types of games with a controller?

Way to be unbiased, OP. Obviously, because you sucked playing a console FPS, it must be because the controls were fundamentally flawed. There's no other explanation! I'm good at driving an automatic, but if I ever get behind the wheel of a stick shift, it's comforting to know that I can blame the controls for being different, instead of my own stupid ass for jumping into a different medium and expecting to be super-skilled from the get-go.

You have all the impartiality of a white supremacist asking how anyone can prefer living as a non-white. Hope that answers your question.

 

[Katana314]

In my opinion, it's not really a matter of preference or anything; often, it's just a different game. If you take a single shooter, like say, Call of Duty: Black Ops, it will be either better on the PC, or better on the console. For most simple aim-and-shoot games, especially realistic war FPS's, it will be the PC.

Then there's the type of game somewhat oriented towards consoles; where movement does not reduce accuracy, the guns have lots of special functions, and aiming precisely from a standstill does not often matter.
One thing you should realize is that the way console gamers tend to aim a sniper rifle at a distant target actually involves moving their character around a bit. Their crosshair is 2 feet left of their target, so rather than tilt the right stick and turn way too far, they just walk their character 2 feet that way and fire. PC gamers actually have a little less precision control over their movement, obviously compensated with their precision aiming. (thus why console-based shooters often don't reduce accuracy while moving)

Obviously, for a game like Uncharted, you still want a controller since so much of the game involves precision movement, not aiming. WASD for a PoP-esque game isn't fun. And heck, I know it doesn't make much sense, but as much as it involves lots of standing-still, aiming, and shooting, I much prefer playing Resident Evil 5 with a controller (and I own it on PC).

For the large majority of FPS's, mouse is the obvious choice, but some games are really designed for controllers in ways most PC gamers don't think of.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

People use aim bots on PC, even more so than console.

People also use Auto-Aim more on console, even more than PC gamers.

This fellow has a point though: every PC game, and every PC gamer uses aim bots. All the time. Without specification; there's an aim bot for every single game out there, and most PC gamers use them. This is mild mannered sarcasm.

But there really needs to be an independent study performed that investigates the actual existence of these things. I'm a PC gamer through and through, and I've played online games from Jedi Outcast and Unreal Tournament to Call of Duty (MW1/2)and Battlefield 2, and I've seen less than ten aimbots in use--most of them I saw in action were in Battlefield 2.

So just about 10 years online FPS gameplay, and with that low a statistic--either it means I'm a really good judge of quality and only go to the best servers that have reliable and attentive admins who deal with aim-bot users, or there really are not as many out there as some console gamers believe.

In truth, the answer is probably both. One way in which the PC Gaming field dominates the console gaming market is a sense of community. With the use of dedicated servers, players have complete control over their server and the people in it. Get a good, mature sort of fellow running a dedicated server, and you've got a good, mature place to enjoy a few digital hours blasting each other away. Get a complete jerk running a server, you'll find it full of jerks in turn. Anywho, I'd write more, but I'd be copying and pasting from a little research paper I'm writing on the weekends, so I'mma close here.

Before I do however, I'd really like to encourage someone at the Escapist to form a study group, who explores various video games, both PC and Console alike, and records their findings in order to put some of these myths, accusations, and general facts out there as proofs rather than wild speculations.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I'm reminded of (very stupid) people asking me how I write with my left hand.

I can write with my left hand because I'm FUCKING LEFT HANDED.

To me

Key words right here.

Yup, there it is. This seems EXTREMELY obvious to me.

 

[TheLastSamurai14]

All I really play on consoles are JRPGs, fighters, sometimes flight sims (HAWX is a good example of one that was well done), and the occasional keyboard-compatible FPS (all I have really found in that regard are Half-Life and Unreal Tournament 3). So yeah, console FPS games are almost always a no-go for me.

 

[Flutterguy]

I personally don't like FPSs on my computer, I already use it for an MMO, leauge of legends, coming on this site and everything else, I like to be able to lie back and play FPSers on my controller because I grew up playing them that way, its not like it is a dissadvantage when everyone is using a controller as well.

 

[Vindestructable]

the only time I ever noticed a difference was playing star wars battlefront on xbox vs pc. couldn't snipe on xbox.

 

[jprf]

I much prefer using controllers. It's a bit easier to play an fps with a mouse, but in my opinion not as fun.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

I only upgraded my PC a few years back, prior to that I played a good chunk of games on the current gen 360, and pretty much almost entirely on consoles on the previous generation.

Right now I don't have any FPS games installed on my PC (playing a bunch of RPG's right now) and I've been playing a lot of FPS games on my 360 because of friends. Mostly Reach.

Playing an FPS on a console constantly makes me feel like I'm fighting against the controls to get anything done. I'm by no means a bad player, and I generally get a lot of things done when I play Reach.

I have the sensitivity at a modestly high level. Mainly because so I can actually turn in close quarters and not get so disoriented. Watching two people try to fight each other in close quarters is a good example of why I sometimes get frustrated by the controls. If those 2 players dash at each other and accidently overextend their melee attacks past each other. It takes them more than a few seconds to get themselves to look at each other again just to squeeze off another melee attack. And if I'm in that position, it just feels awkward and slow.

Reach is a bonafide console FPS and is tailored to suit the controls of a 360 as best as possible, yet even in this situation the inherent muddiness cannot be shaken.

Unless you play with your sensitivity at maximum, using a joystick. Which I actually did use to in Halo 2, to compensate for the muddiness. Having sensitivity turned high makes you more capable in close combat, and conversely affects your long range ability. Sure I understand you can compensate for the lack of control in this regard by combining movement to do the other half of aiming for you.

I've spent a ton of time on console FPS games to understand how they work and other players get used to them using controls, but in my point of view I always end up having to fight against the game to control myself, even with auto aim. It's just the way I see it.

 

[ultimateownage]

Never had trouble with playing Console ones. I don't play them over PC FPS' though; the controller has it's weak points and it's strong points, and First Person is definitely a weak one.

 

[The Epicosity]

I can't hit anything on a PC, mainly because of WASD being so hard to use and just how awkward it feels to use left and right click to shoot.

 

[The Epicosity]

Also, the auto-aim thing being default everybody talks about isn't in the popular games, or, the ones I have, or else my copies are just special and didn't have auto-aim default, my only game that does is Farcry 2.

 

[Treblaine]

Like I said you're on a completely level playing field with everyone else in the game. Adjust sensitivity to how you like, though for sniping a high sensitivity can be brutal.

Personally I like playing FPS games on both PC and consoles. Can't play Halo: Reach on PC, also can't play Unreal on console.

Doesn't quite follow through because when EVERYONE is slow and imprecise with aiming, that favours those who are ALREADY aimed and sighted in; campers.

This may be more realistic, look at accounts of warfare and you'll find the people who survived are those who picked a good spot with a rifle, got low and shot every enemy they saw advancing. But it doesn't make for a fun game, it gets bogged down into a quagmire of no one wanting to advance.

I just can. I can shoot down birds in red dead redemption without auto aim or dead eye.

But how quickly can you aim? Mouse isn't just more accurate, it is the SPEED the the precision that matters and more than that, the responsiveness. See you can literally in a millisecond reverse direction of a mouse, but with a thumbstick that requires you recentre the stick then try to direct it over in the opposite direction. That may seem subtle but when your opponent darts around unexpectedly you need to respond quickly. PC keyboard even has the advantage here, as though movement is digital with WASD controls you can dart left and right very quickly just by tapping A or D. Circle strafing is easy, just hold D and keep aiming at the target.

As far as aiming, i think the mouse makes it too easy, thus more unrealistic, imo.

it's still easier to aim a gun than use a mouse.

Get a torch and aim at a point on the wall like a clock (it would be better if it was on a stick to rest against shoulder and held with two spaced hands, like a rifle, but this principal is like using a pistol), now quickly aim at your toe then up again at the clock. How quickly can you do that? Do the same switching between pointing PRECISELY at targets 90 degrees apart horizontally. Now try to do the same with a gamepad and a mouse in game.

I've practised this with Mouse aim, gamepad aim (with and without FPS Freek) and for real. Gamepad I'm just getting diminished return the more I practice, I CANNOT be as fast or precise as for real though I get darn close with mouse aim.

That's speed, now precision. Draw your name on the wall with the torch, then use a mouse (try with MS paint), then in a console game. I was able to write "John Treblaine" (not my real name) in 15 seconds on my first try. I've been in MW2 for quarter of an hour now trying over and over again, the best I can do is write "JT" in 15 seconds.

You know what is REALLY unrealistic. Aim-assist.

See mouse is far more realistic as it is more related to how we actually aim things as it is a zero-order interaction i.e. point of aim moves proportionally to the input. Thumbstick is inherently not precise enough for zero-order interactions, games like Timesplitters and Perfect dark try it but the fidelity of thumbsticks just is not there.

 

[Raioken18]

I play both on a regular basis, althought if I had a choice I would cut out console FPS all together. (My brother refuses to buy a pc and instead kills about 3 laptops a year n just buys new ones...)

Anyway console games tend to have an auto target feature, where once you move your joystick close to an enemy it will lock onto a specific target. It's pretty evident in Black Ops, Halo, Lost Planet and frankly it takes a lot out of the experience. It's like playing everything in easy mode... And I often just dominate matches then get bored...

PC on the other hand, usually requires pinpoint accuracy, and most gamers like playing that way even if others do not. When I tried to get my brother to play CoD on PC he couldn't get kills, I forced him to play it for a while and to try and get used to the controls but he was frustrated that he "was pointing at the enemies" and not hitting anything, when in reality all he was doing was glancing in the right direction, but not taking the time to properly line up the shots.

I don't think either one is the best medium for FPS gaming, just that each is used by different types of gamer, usually console for the more casual players who couldn't be bothered putting in lots of effort, and the PC gamers who are hardcore and like developing their skills to the limit.

I will also say this, that the keyboard obviously has it's limitations in terms of full 360 degree movement, and if it was up to me I'd replace it, although in terms of functionality in a game environment it allows a set series of manouvres that everyone can do.

The problem with turning the camera quickly with the mouse is solved with the ability to change the sensitivity on the fly, a feature included with most modern gaming mice.

 

[Cridhe]

Like I said you're on a completely level playing field with everyone else in the game. Adjust sensitivity to how you like, though for sniping a high sensitivity can be brutal.

Personally I like playing FPS games on both PC and consoles. Can't play Halo: Reach on PC, also can't play Unreal on console.

Doesn't quite follow through because when EVERYONE is slow and imprecise with aiming, that favours those who are ALREADY aimed and sighted in; campers.

This may be more realistic, look at accounts of warfare and you'll find the people who survived are those who picked a good spot with a rifle, got low and shot every enemy they saw advancing. But it doesn't make for a fun game, it gets bogged down into a quagmire of no one wanting to advance.

I just can. I can shoot down birds in red dead redemption without auto aim or dead eye.

But how quickly can you aim? Mouse isn't just more accurate, it is the SPEED the the precision that matters and more than that, the responsiveness. See you can literally in a millisecond reverse direction of a mouse, but with a thumbstick that requires you recentre the stick then try to direct it over in the opposite direction. That may seem subtle but when your opponent darts around unexpectedly you need to respond quickly. PC keyboard even has the advantage here, as though movement is digital with WASD controls you can dart left and right very quickly just by tapping A or D. Circle strafing is easy, just hold D and keep aiming at the target.

As far as aiming, i think the mouse makes it too easy, thus more unrealistic, imo.

it's still easier to aim a gun than use a mouse.

Get a torch and aim at a point on the wall like a clock (it would be better if it was on a stick to rest against shoulder and held with two spaced hands, like a rifle, but this principal is like using a pistol), now quickly aim at your toe then up again at the clock. How quickly can you do that? Do the same switching between pointing PRECISELY at targets 90 degrees apart horizontally. Now try to do the same with a gamepad and a mouse in game.

I've practised this with Mouse aim, gamepad aim (with and without FPS Freek) and for real. Gamepad I'm just getting diminished return the more I practice, I CANNOT be as fast or precise as for real though I get darn close with mouse aim.

That's speed, now precision. Draw your name on the wall with the torch, then use a mouse (try with MS paint), then in a console game. I was able to write "John Treblaine" (not my real name) in 15 seconds on my first try. I've been in MW2 for quarter of an hour now trying over and over again, the best I can do is write "JT" in 15 seconds.

You know what is REALLY unrealistic. Aim-assist.

See mouse is far more realistic as it is more related to how we actually aim things as it is a zero-order interaction i.e. point of aim moves proportionally to the input. Thumbstick is inherently not precise enough for zero-order interactions, games like Timesplitters and Perfect dark try it but the fidelity of thumbsticks just is not there.

We're talking about video games.