david.dakota Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Just an excuse mate. Analogs have been around for over 10 years, they work perfectly fine. People who say how they are shit now, well they are best to be ignored. I've never said its rubbish- its just something better has come along, and it seems some people can't get used to that fact- maybe they're the ones worth ignoring?
D_prOdigy Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 I can't wait until Natal and the PS3 motion controller make pointer control truly madatory for the FPS. We won't be able to hear what's happening on-screen for the sound of thousands of HD gamers (and 'journalists' for that matter) going round the U-bend.
Zechs Merquise Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 But them working doesn't make them good! And after Wii controls they show up even more as being cumbersome and pretty bad control input for FPS.... Saying we CAN play with them isn't a good argument for saying they're not that bad. Controls improve all the time...and it's happened again with the Wii :P Why go backwards? Exactly I've never said its rubbish- its just something better has come along, and it seems some people can't get used to that fact- maybe they're the ones worth ignoring? More exactly I can't wait until Natal and the PS3 motion controller make pointer control truly madatory for the FPS. We won't be able to hear what's happening on-screen for the sound of thousands of HD gamers (and 'journalists' for that matter) going round the U-bend. It's funny that so many of 'teh hardcore' hate motion control, when the companies that cater for them want to go down that route.
tissuetown Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 But them working doesn't make them good! And after Wii controls they show up even more as being cumbersome and pretty bad control input for FPS.... Saying we CAN play with them isn't a good argument for saying they're not that bad. Controls improve all the time...and it's happened again with the Wii :P Why go backwards? If they truly were so cumbersome then Reggie would have his Halo crowd, no? I mean let's be honest. It's was pretty much hyperbole when people said how they "couldn't go back" to Dual Analogs after playing the Wii. Dual Analogs are fine, which is why all the biggest selling FPS games are not on the Wii. Plus, if you can't adapt to playing on dual analogs, then that is simply not my problem.
mcj metroid Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 It's funny that so many of 'teh hardcore' hate motion control, when the companies that cater for them want to go down that route. its very likely things will be done better when they do though.. games like rts and fps games might actually be made properly for once. who knows
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Dual Analogs are fine, which is why all the biggest selling FPS games are not on the Wii. Plus, if you can't adapt to playing on dual analogs, then that is simply not my problem. Dual Analog/analogue controls are the reason why FPS games are not on the Wii? Classic Controller? GameCube Controller? They both feature two analogue sticks. There are a dozen or so reasons why the "biggest selling FPS games" are not coming to the Wii. I wouldn't class Dual Analogue as one of them.
Emasher Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I don't have anything against Dual Analog. Its a good system, and it works. But Pointer controls just work better. My guess is those who say otherwise are the ones who haven't played a shooter on the Wii since Red Steel. We're not saying that analog controls are hard to use, or bad, but there's no reason we can't like pointer controls better. Its a new system, it works great now, and can only get better over time.
Zechs Merquise Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 If they truly were so cumbersome then Reggie would have his Halo crowd, no? I mean let's be honest. It's was pretty much hyperbole when people said how they "couldn't go back" to Dual Analogs after playing the Wii. Dual Analogs are fine, which is why all the biggest selling FPS games are not on the Wii. Plus, if you can't adapt to playing on dual analogs, then that is simply not my problem. No, the biggest selling FPS games are on the most powerful consoles which also have the best online.
tissuetown Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Dual Analog/analogue controls are the reason why FPS games are not on the Wii? Classic Controller? GameCube Controller? They both feature two analogue sticks. There are a dozen or so reasons why the "biggest selling FPS games" are not coming to the Wii. I wouldn't class Dual Analogue as one of them. I'm merely proving that Dual Analogs are cumbersome/awful/crap or whatever some of you people use to describe. There are fully sponsored MLG tournaments that has games that use them as part of the competition. If they were so poor, this would not be the case.
Daft Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) It's funny that so many of 'teh hardcore' hate motion control, when the companies that cater for them want to go down that route. Yeah, 'teh hardcore'. What are you on about? Just another sweeping generalisation about a group that is so ill defined. If motion controls were offering a serious advantage, in a complete package at this point, then I doubt many people would be complaining. As it is you have the 360 and PS3, consoles which don't have motion controls but instead have vastly better graphics, features, online infrastructure and developer support against the Wii which has motion controls that still are nowhere near perfect with graphics, features and online that pale in so much comparison. The difference is that simple, and for many people their preference is an easy one to decide in the current circumstances. Edited August 24, 2009 by Daft Typo
dwarf Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 I like the Wii controls on WaW, but when I'm playing an FPS on the PS3 I'm not thinking 'damn I couldn't shoot that guy, I wish I had pointer controls'. They're something that may eventually find their way into PS3 FPS and I'll enjoy it if/when that happens, but when you're part of a massive online game that is packed with detail, gameplay objects (turrets, vehicles etc) and brilliant sound, one thing I won't do is get off that game to play a standard affair call of duty that could be achieved on a PS2. I like knowing that a game is with the times and maybe that's something you'd agree with if you spent time playing stuff on other systems. And since when did better controls mean better gameplay? If anything raw power of a machine means more stuff can happen on one screen and one map which means many new things can be accomplished, take MAG for instance. Not that I like the look of that game, it'll probably turn out shit, but it's going somewhere beyond what you're expecting to see this generation. And Zechs, I don't think the PS3 motion controller was made with the intention to satisfy or improve FPS games for 'teh hardcore' or whatever you find funny to call normal gamers. I think it could come out with some cool new stuff but it's probably to cash in on the Wii audience.
Tellyn Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Wii controls, as far as FPS's go, are perfect as long as what you want to shoot is roughly in the centre of your screen. God forbid they're off screen, turning is a nightmare. In most Wii FPS games you can customise the dead zone to your liking.
dazzybee Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Thats the thing Dwarf. Most games play on the PS3 and the occasional time I play on the god awful 360 ( ) I pretty much always wish I was playing it with the wii-mote!! EVERY FPS, Gears, Dead Space, Orange Box, Bioshock etc etc.
dwarf Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) Sorry I didn't understand that post Daz. What I find annoying is that Zechs Merquise completely over-estimates the brilliance of the Wii remote in FPS. I'd rather have the pointer, but 10x better/faster than analogue (he says in the WaW thread)?! I don't even think there's any difference in speed. After playing corruption and WaW what I did find a problem with is the problem with the camera. I've had the boundary box thing on the minimal amount before and whilst this makes turning easier, it does make the camera quite shakey. And no-matter what setting I've tried (they may have fixed this) a problem arises where you go through a doorway but can't see what's to the left or right of you quick enough to shoot someone as quickly as you'd like. I think the reason why this doesn't happen when you use a controller is because the reticule is always centered. With the wii controls you have to aim to the right of the screen, then the camera moves, but it doesn't happen that fast, so once you're through a doorway or going round a corner it's awkward trying to shift at what you're aiming at. If you put the boundary box to minimum there is still a problem because the reticule has to be off to one side. You can probably see what I mean by the general awkwardness in the turns from this Corruption gameplay. Is lock on a viable fix? Edit: just thought about it a bit more, and it's partly because on the fly it's hard to judge your aiming when you're moving and changing the camera angle, because when you aim at something, the camera turns slightly and so it's not infrequent tht you miss your target for a bit, so that's why they resorted to using a general lock on - it fixes the camera. It's great for a campiagn but online not so much. You have to compromise either awkward aiming as I've described or you have to use the general lock on thing, therefore getting crummy Echoes like mutiplayer. Plus it would make sniping overly simple. Edited August 24, 2009 by dwarf
mcj metroid Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 Ok motion control will be fine for fps.. but at the moment... I don't know wii motion control is not suiting it to it's full potential.. in the eary wii ads you saw people demonstarting the wiimote going mental but in reality I find myself stand or sitting like a rigity statue hoping i dont move too much and lose the wiimote connection... thats my opinion anyway.. its early days for motion .
dazzybee Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 DWARF. My comment was in relation to your comment: "I like the Wii controls on WaW, but when I'm playing an FPS on the PS3 I'm not thinking 'damn I couldn't shoot that guy, I wish I had pointer controls'. " I was just saying I DO think this. Not that I wish I could shoot that guy, just that I wish I had pointer controls...
dwarf Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I was saying it more in the way that I wouldn't want the Wii controls so that I would be able to shoot more people, I'd want them because pointing in shooting is a bit more fun/realistic. Do you have any explanation for the turning problem?
Kav Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I don't get this turning problem, I don't have a problem with it at all!
Zechs Merquise Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 I was saying it more in the way that I wouldn't want the Wii controls so that I would be able to shoot more people, I'd want them because pointing in shooting is a bit more fun/realistic. Do you have any explanation for the turning problem? Yes, the turning is problem is with you, because you're clearly a retard! The way the Wii remote turns is just like the mouse/keyboard set up on a PC. Simple.
Daft Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Yes, the turning is problem is with you, because you're clearly a retard! The pot calling the kettle black.
Emasher Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 The turning is only really a problem with some of the earlier games. In MoH and The Conduit (once you modify your settings a bit to suit your needs in both games) its fine. I think the problem mainly is people can't be bothered to play with the settings to get them just right. The problem is, one Dead-zone Size, sensitivity ect. isn't right for everyone. My friend was playing MoH:H2 at my house once (so, with my settings), and it was just to sensitive for him, it was jerking around all over the place, but it was perfect for me. And while this is a problem of motion controls in general, I still think its worth playing with your settings (provided you can actually change enough to make a difference *glances at Red Steel*) to get it working properly for you, Motion controls do feel very good if done right.
Nolan Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Yes, the turning is problem is with you, because you're clearly a retard! The way the Wii remote turns is just like the mouse/keyboard set up on a PC. Simple. The two are nothing alike for turning. Most (all) people can't hold their hand/arm completely still while holding the wiimote, which makes turning in a smooth motion harder than a mouse where the mouse is resting (sorry my nephew wanted that) on a solid surface. The other main difference is that the bounding box for a mouse is literally non-existant in most games. A slight move moves the camera, higher sensitivities allow for faster adjustments. Wii pointer controls allow for percision over Analog, but they falter when it comes to turning until you can get use to them. Which will differ from person to person.
tissuetown Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 Yes, the turning is problem is with you, because you're clearly a retard! Wow, you sure showed him.
Guest Captain Falcon Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 The two are nothing alike for turning. Most (all) people can't hold their hand/arm completely still while holding the wiimote, which makes turning in a smooth motion harder than a mouse where the mouse is resting (sorry my nephew wanted that) on a solid surface. The other main difference is that the bounding box for a mouse is literally non-existant in most games. A slight move moves the camera, higher sensitivities allow for faster adjustments. Wii pointer controls allow for percision over Analog, but they falter when it comes to turning until you can get use to them. Which will differ from person to person. Well that part is down to the set up of the individual. If you had the Wii remote held in some kind of mechanical grip that meant movement could been controlled in a highly accurate manner and would be immune to the potential tremors of ones arm then it would be most similar. Of course you would never have that kind of set up, but in theory, it behaves the same - it's just the question of that bounding box. But the bounding box is key and like you say virtually non-existent in most set ups. Whenever you move your aim out of the box to turn the camera, eventually you have to point back into to stop the camera moving. With a mouse, your aim only moves when you move the mouse in a way that registers tracking. You can pick the mouse up and place it where ever and not have it affect your aim and that is what you can't do with the Wii remote - you can't move it and remain looking at the same spot on the screen.
Emasher Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 The bounding box is something the developers create, it could move like a mouse if they made it to do so. The problem is (and this has already been mentioned) that people's arms are too shaky, and so the bounding box is needed to keep the camera from shaking around all the time. I find its a bit more accurate if you hold it in your lap, but I've never seen anyone else do this while playing a Wii game, and they don't seem to listen to me when I suggest it.
Recommended Posts