This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Confirm/Deny: Controllers killed Arena FPS

#11Jprime666Posted 5/2/2014 8:13:13 PM
This topic is good. All the stupid I needed tonight in one place.
---
Indeed! Verily, I say... Ergo!
#12jake-sfPosted 5/2/2014 8:16:02 PM
The precision that a mouse offers isn't just for aiming... I forever will feel like using a controller for a FPS feels like controlling a mech. I never "felt" the character, I just felt like a machine.

You put a mouse on there and the smooth movement makes all the difference.

Suddenly I don't control a slow, clunky body & head but I feel like I control the eyes. The mouse is now linked to my eyes and head, no longer clunky, and I can switch around, see around me, all very, very naturally.

Having more buttons allows even FPS to reach a deeper level of complexity and options if they so desire. The inability for the terrible games of today to use that is irrelevant.

I get it. Controllers are more comfortable.

But for anything with camera & body control, they are FAR better than a controller.

I just don't get how anyone could not see that.

Now I can't say the switch to controllers was the main reason arena FPS died. Its a lot more complicated than that. But its definitely something that doesn't help the trends in FPS that works great for controllers.
---
http://sfjake.zxq.net/
#13Blobs_Posted 5/2/2014 8:24:32 PM(edited)
The controller itself probly didn't kill arena FPS, but the over-simplification/consolfication of FPS games definitely did.

EDIT: i read the posts above me, gg topic derails
---
is haha
#14Arsene-LupinPosted 5/2/2014 8:25:34 PM(edited)
I'm sorry, but this:

"But for anything with camera & body control, they are FAR better than a controller."

...Is just wrong.

For camera control, you have a point--it does offer much greater precision. But here's the thing that makes gamepads superior... the keyboard does NOT offer greater precision, it offers less precision.

Keyboards only offer 4-direction input. That means that you have to either sacrifice a huge amount of precision for camera movement, or character movement. In first person games, where the one (camera) is vastly more important to the experience than the other (character), mice can still claim the upper hand. But any third-person perspective? Absolutely not.
---
"And you see where that can lead you, into what mistakes and absurdities, when you are dealing with a man like Arsene Lupin."
#15jake-sfPosted 5/2/2014 8:33:00 PM
Arsene-Lupin posted...
But any third-person perspective? Absolutely not.


I don't see why not, since the mouse makes up for the most important relative movement. Which works perfectly and feels responsive, more so than sticks IMO.

The only thing you really end up losing is speed control (I do hate games without shift for walk and such, in such case, I think its actually very important to have that).

In some cases if movement really is THAT important, sticks are better, but when are they? You basically need to be playing a platformer for it to be preferable. Something like Mario 64.

In any case, my point being the use of the mouse makes WASD movement far good enough for most purposes.
---
http://sfjake.zxq.net/
#16Pal 080Posted 5/2/2014 8:33:50 PM(edited)
Both have their uses and advantages/disadvantages with specific games or applications

/thread (since it's entirely off topic anyway...)
---
"If we can hit that bulls-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate"
#17CammyApplePosted 5/2/2014 8:48:45 PM
Movement - Analog stick
Aiming and shooting - Mouse

I played Quake on the Dreamcast controller. Movement was the face buttons. Aim was the left stick. Unorthodox but effective enough for an FPS on a machine with one analog stick.

Also why I never figured out why PSP games didn't use that controller setup.
---
Everything's shiny, Cap'n. Not to fret.
Go hardcore with glitter on the floor.
#18ConkerPosted 5/2/2014 9:03:25 PM
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/369548-unreal-tournament

Had one of the best online communities I've ever seen. Says a lot when there were maybe 200 regulars that played and they still catch up over ten yrs later. We all set up clans, were competitive, and loved arena shooters...I had and played the PC version along with 2k3/4, and UT3, but honestly it was just something special on DC.

Of course everyone moves on to different games and systems eventually, but controllers had nothing to do with why they died down. Genres just go through changes for various reasons...consumer interest, marketing, companies closing for other reasons or not adapting their games to fit new trends, subject/licensing, and of course titles that evolve or change the style and catch on.
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#19That1GuyyPosted 5/2/2014 9:16:39 PM
The first big killer-app FPS on consoles was Halo, and until the most recent iteration, it has always kept close to its arena roots, even if it is much slower paced than Unreal and Quake. What killed arena shooters was Call of Duty.
---
Perfection. Where everyone fails.
If you expect nothing you can be happy for everything.
#20kobalobasileusPosted 5/2/2014 10:18:13 PM
I would say that the twitch/spaz gameplay with all the bunny hopping stupidity killed arena FPS. I'd much rather play a game where I can take time to aim or take cover than a game where the entire screen is filled with explosions and players jumping everywhere like idiots.

And, really, arena FPS AREN'T dead. Just look at Team Fortress 2 and Loadout on Steam. Both are very high on the list of games played by time, so they must be popular.