Why are FPS gamers against motion controls?

[Brandon237]

I like small controls, if it makes me tired, it is doing it wrong.

I also want the money to be spent on the actual game. Not on some new control system that I will have to get used to all over again.

 

[ThisWasAWaste]

There are a number of reasons.

First of all is precision, despite what you said motion controls are MUCH less precise. You mention pointing at the screen which you claim would be more accurate. Would you mind telling my how you would move or turn your body in game? At most you might have one thumb stick to use (wii, PS move), which would let you move forward/backward and strafe left/right. Now if your arm movement aims the reticule on the screen, how the bloody hell are you going to turn? I played COD 3 on the wii and how they did this was if you aimed in the far corners of the screen it would turn you, which was a complete PAIN IN THE ASS. It was possible to play, just take 10 seconds every 10 seconds to orient yourself in the direction of a baddie. This greatly slows down the rate of interactivity and does the exact opposite of immersing me in the game - it pulls me right the hell out and frustrates me beyond words.

Second, motion controls are far form perfect at detecting what you want it to do then doing the appropriate thing. I can't count the times I've had to re perform a gesture to try and get a game to do something (in the rare occasions I played a Wii game).

Third, if I come home from a long day of work the LAST thing I want to do is to flail my arms like a retard in-front of my TV. Admittedly, for FPS games it wouldn't be as bad, I could sit with my arms in my lap (unless using KINECT) and move from there (depending on the game) but that is still more that I would like.

I believe Yahtzee put it great in his latest video (E3 2010): Game developers should be focusing on having us making smaller movements not larger ones, shortening the seperation between thought and on screen action. I think current controllers are fine and there's lots of room for innovation inside games for control schemes to improve handling.

However, I do think kinect is an amazing piece of technology... I just don't want it fucking up my gaming experience.

 

[veloper]

Game developers should be focusing on having us making smaller movements not larger ones, shortening the seperation between thought and on screen action.

totally this.

 

[Pielikey]

We can't aim with real firearms!

Plus FPSes demand precise movement and you can't adjust arm-flail sensitivity.

 

[DazBurger]

Game developers should be focusing on having us making smaller movements not larger ones, shortening the seperation between thought and on screen action.

totally this.

Thirded.


Because FPS is largely about concentration on aiming straight, inprovising tactics to get your enemy off-guard and moving such a way that you have optimal cover, but without losing your overview and speed.

Having to wiggle your arms in the middle of everything would just be too much

 

[ultimateownage]

Because, has the wii has showed us, anything other than party games don't work and have no need for motion controls.

 

[Loud Hawk]

Only one I think would work would be Kinetc, if it was used like Track IR to track head movements. That could work and would make console games more immersive.

 

[ilikepie59]

My opinion on the Wii:
I don't like the motion controls, but I do like pointing at the screen to aim.
I really enjoyed Metroid Prime 3

 

[Jedoro]

People already go crazy about games training people to kill. Imagine the political shitstorm if shooters were motion-controlled, making innocent little children pretend to hold a rifle in Call of Duty, or even GTA (though it's not an FPS).

Anti-gaming nutjobs would lose their shit if this was done.

Also, for the above reasons, like

it's tiring, and you can't frag for three hours if youhave to stand.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Because PC 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.

 

[psychic psycho]

I don't understand people complaining about having to wave their arms. All you really need to do is move your wrist.

I don't usually play FPS games on consoles but if I had a choice I'd definitely choose pointing controls over dual analog sticks. I played Metroid Prime 3 and the controls work wonderfully. It's not really a good example because the weapons are projectiles and aren't hitscan. The game does use lock-on aim; however I could easily play it without the lock-on. Some fights are impossible though because Samus can't do Jump-dodge without using the lock-on.

Overall, I think pointer controls are much better than dual analog sticks but worse than the mouse.

Motion controls are a different though. I don't need a throwing motion for a grenade, or melee I'd much rather use a button.

 

[AdmiralWolverineLightningbolt]

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

 

[Woodsey]

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".

Have you played an FPS on the Wii?

It's way too sluggish compared to a mouse, and is too inaccurate as well.

 

[HK_01]

I'm not an FPS gamer, yet I'm against motion controls.

 

[Crayzor]

The way forward is needing less movement to input commands, not more. Motion controls damage immersion because you have to wave your arms around all the time. I want the transition of my thoughts into action in the game to be as subtle as possible.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Most FPS gamers are also PC gamers. And nothing can make a PC gamer to play an FPS game with anything except a keyboard and a gaming mouse. Also motion controllers are stupid. I play games to relax not exercise. That's what running and gym is for.

 

[Summerstorm]

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.

IF IT would WORK, sure. I am not against motion control. But they really have to make an EXACT and not-lagging one for me to try. The Wii is good and all for something like a tactic game or something. But i need FAST and exact control for a fighting game or a shooter. The damn wi-fi crap with ONE sensor not even a meter long is just crap. Why don't they do it RIGHT?

Rant over.

 

[silversnake4133]

Well, mostly because the people whom actually play FPSes probably suck at precision shooting IRL. Or (going on stereotypes) the kinds of people that usually play FPSes are too twitchy and impatient to accurately hold the motion control stick, then fire and actually hit what they were aiming at. (Speaking from experience) Not only that, but the sensitivity of the motion controllers are quite lack-luster, especially when the batteries are running low and you're too involved in your game to notice.

So, no motion controllers should stick to the casual games that family oriented parents buy for their whiney kids to shut them up for a few months. FPSes should stick to the traditional controller or a mouse and a keyboard. Afterall, they are 10x more precise than a laser contained within a wireless control stick held in the shaky hands of a teenager anyday.

 

[MrNickster]

Using the Wii is my favourite way to play FPS games. Red Steel 2, The Conduit and CoD: Reflex all control brilliantly and beat analog sticks hands down every time. I've used the mouse and keyboard set-up to play Soldier of Fortune and I didn't think much of it. It hurt my hands to all buggery and the mouse was not this amazing aiming tool of the Gods that PC gamers made it out to be.

I'm all for Motion controls for FPS's, provided they're done right as far as controls go-The Conduit is a good example of controls. I am however, a minority it seems.