Shooters, mouse and keyboard or analogue sticks does it really make a difference?

[Slothy]

But just because one is easier than the other doesn't make it automatically "better" it makes it more convenient but not better. You could argue that a player with 90% accuracy rating in the console based version of Call Of Duty (you pick which version) is simply better than someone with a rating of 90% accuracy on the PC. Especially since the PC players in this thread have conceded that it is easier to use a mouse than it is to use a right analogue stick.

Arguing from a standpoint of accuracy alone is only dealing with a single part of the issue but I'll bite anyway and discuss that before tackling the rest of the debate.

In terms of actual accuracy of the input method, a modern mouse most likely wins. I'm not sure of the sensitivity level of modern analog sticks, but I do recall the dual shock 2 on the PS2 had 256 levels of sensitivity that it could recognize. Considering a human being wouldn't be able to distinguish between that many levels of sensitivity in such a small range of movement, it really doesn't matter if analog sticks are more accurate now, and I'd be willing to bet they aren't much more accurate if they are at all. Any given mouse with a decent dpi these days is going to be able to distinguish between very small movements. Again, a human being wouldn't be able to perceive the difference between individual levels of movement (at least not consciously) but I will bet on a high dpi mouse being more mechanically accurate.

You also have to keep in mind that having a high accuracy in a console game says nothing of the comparison between a mouse and a stick. All it tells us is that this person is very good at not pulling the trigger until they know they're going to hit their opponent. What it doesn't tell us is what their k/d ratio is, how well they do when they're ambushed, flanked, or when someone starts shooting them in the back etc. Even if you can manage a comparable accuracy with an analog stick to that of a decent player with a mouse, the player with the mouse can pull off movements like a complete 180 degree turn in fractions of a second, whereas someone using an analog stick will take a second or more in most games. You can try to combat this by upping the analog sensitivity, but you'll lose fine aim control for smaller movements; something that doesn't happen with a mouse.

As a result, people using a mouse can not only be accurate, but they can be accurate while not sacrificing quick reaction time, which in an FPS means they stand a better chance of surviving an ambush, or an attack from behind.

I feel it's also worth mentioning that pretty much every analog stick I've used aside from a brand new N64 stick has a dead zone right around dead center where you have to move them a noticable amount in order to get any response from them. Some are better than others, and all of them are better than previous generations controllers, but this is another hinderance to fine aiming on a console as compared to using a mouse.

[Bolivar]

I think the mouse will always be better - I don't think there's any getting around that. But console shooters, especially in the last few years with smoother frame rates, have largely diminished the gap.

I think there's some of a feeling difference, like pulling off really great shots while maneuvering two sticks can almost be like an art form, but I feel like PC pulls off that faster paced, exhiliarating feeling a little better.

There's also been a big development lately - the "heavier" shooters like Killzone and Gears of War. Because of the way they deal with movement, I couldn't imagine playing Killzone with a mouse and I heard Gears didn't play out as well as the console version there.

There's also been the development of motion control in shooters, and I don't think they've really touched on the controller vs. mouse gap, i believe they've only added additional experiences. I just don't think they're accurate enough to take away from the mouse - not that they're inaccurate, but almost that they're too accurate and it's easy to go all over the place. I would never leave my online score in Killzone 3 up to the unpredictability of the move, although they put in a TON of options to tweak it, so maybe I just need to mess with that more. It's a different experience, though, and the sniping sections in the KZ3 campaign are bliss with the Move, i'd imagine it'd be the same with a lot of Wii shooters.

[Madame Adequate]

Er, given that controls are intended to be as unnoticeable as possible, and that to facilitate the player taking whatever actions they want to in-game as effortlessly as possible is the point of a control scheme, I would say that easier is better.

[DMKA]

I find a controller/gamepad must easier to play an FPS with than a mouse and keyboard. But that's probably just because I grew up playing console games 90% more than PC games and therefore my brain is far better trained in one department.

Threads like these always make me laugh.

[Mirage]

Analogue sticks can sense like 255 degrees of tilt on each axis (at least thats what the DS3 driver for my PC was detecting when I connected it), and dividing those two cm of movement you can on each axis into 255 levels is obviously going to make everything you do with it require a lot of precision. Mice can however have as high a resolution as 1600 dpi, and you also perform mouse aiming over far more than two cm per axis. This alone clearly shows that it is easier to perform more accurate aiming with a mouse.

I also find the way you aim with a mouse to be more intuitive. To me, it feels more direct, while on a stick it is more like telling the game "start moving aim in x direction at y speed until i stop telling you to".

Even if both methods of input are dependent on each players skill level with that sort of input, I can't imagine a stick user outmaneuvering a kb+mouse user, given the same level of physical aptitude in each player, the same amount of training with their preferred input method, and in a game that doesn't interpolate analogue stick input.

It's sort of like tiers in fighting games. A person playing a mid-tier character can still beat a person playing a high tier character, but chances are the person playing the mid tier character would have been even better with the high tier character, given the same amount of practice. In this case, the laws of physics put KB+mouse on a tier above analogue sticks.

[NorthernChaosGod]

None of you mousers have on Tsquared

Well console shooters are just better. So let's go with that.

yeah if you're a total creep who likes to talk to 12 year olds all day

I forget, what's party chat for?

[kotora]

Analogue sticks can sense like 255 degrees of tilt on each axis (at least thats what the DS3 driver for my PC was detecting when I connected it), and dividing those two cm of movement you can on each axis into 255 levels is obviously going to make everything you do with it require a lot of precision. Mice can however have as high a resolution as 1600 dpi, and you also perform mouse aiming over far more than two cm per axis. This alone clearly shows that it is easier to perform more accurate aiming with a mouse.

Isn't 1600 dpi pretty low? I've seen high end mice with like 5000 dpi.

[escobert]

None of you mousers have on Tsquared

Well console shooters are just better. So let's go with that.

yeah if you're a total creep who likes to talk to 12 year olds all day

I forget, what's party chat for?

Yes, and looking at what he played we wouldn't want to be either. All he was good at was Halo

[nik0tine]

10 years ago I'd have laughed if you told me my average k/d would not only be better than it was then it would be better using a control pad for my games I'd have laughed in your face. These days I can barely remember how it feels to shoot with keyboard and mouse.

Perhaps your k/d ratio on console games is better because your competitors aim is worse due to using an analogue stick?

[VeloZer0]

But just because one is easier than the other doesn't make it automatically "better" it makes it more convenient but not better. You could argue that a player with 90% accuracy rating in the console based version of Call Of Duty (you pick which version) is simply better than someone with a rating of 90% accuracy on the PC.

You just stated that given equal accuracy the console player would be better skilled, ergo given equal skilled players the mouse player would have more accuracy. Isn't that the definition of better?

[NorthernChaosGod]

Yes, and looking at what he played we wouldn't want to be either. All he was good at was Halo

Realistically speaking, being good at one console shooter would give you a pretty good advantage in any of the rest. But that doesn't change the fact that those MLG nerds would slaughter everyone here.

[Mo-Nercy]

I'd argue that our generation of gamers might find a mouse and keyboard much easier and more natural to use for shooters, but I've seen kids who've only really gotten the gaming bug since shooters became big on consoles who move console sticks with more precision than I could ever hope to emulate.

[escobert]

I agree Mo, I grew up playing shooters on a PC. and once they started coming out for consoles besides Golden Eye I never bothered with them since I have always been way more comfortable playing games on a PC (long story short my brothers wouldn't let me play consoles growing up so I had to play PC games)