Poll results: The best way to first-person shoot

Keyboard and mouse is direct position/direction control; you directly control the movements of your character's viewpoint with the movements of your hand/mouse.

Analog stick, however, is velocity control; you control the speed/rate of the change in your character's viewpoint based on the vector force you're tilting the stick with. Arguably, it makes it naturally less responsive than a configuration where mouse is used to aim.

The Wii remote is a mix of both so far; you directly control the aim of your character using a pointer-like crosshair but you're still limited with a velocity-based control scheme when actually changing the direction of your character's viewpoint (bringing the crosshair to the edges of the frustum). The Wii remote for FPSs could have the potential of perhaps being even better than keyboard and mouse if developers would just ditch the stupid velocity-based control scheme on Wii FPSs and make it so that the absolute position change using a Wii remote will simply equate to absolute direction change of your in-game character (basically, the direct movement control scheme you would see in a game using a mouse for aiming).

If by "best" you mean most advantageous in a competitive environment, the Keyboard and Mouse is your answer.

If "best" takes any other definition, the answer becomes subjective. Most realistic, most comfortable and most enjoyable are all preferential and debatable. The turning speed and accuracy of a mouse is not.

To make a long and unnecessary argument short,
If you want WIN, you want MOUSE.
If you want FUN, take your preference.

'Do you think that Gears of War would be a game of the year candidate if it was a PS2 game with crappy graphics even by PS2 standards? Hell no. People who say graphics don't matter probably have never seen GT HD or Gears in HD. It is friken amazing.'

You're absolutely right: GoW wouldn't have been anything if not for it's graphics.

...

Which is why it wasn't that great of a game. Sure, it was alright, but, in essence, it was just eye candy. It got widely hailed as 'excellent' for the same reason Halo did: it was the first thing that the system had that was worth anything. Halo wasn't that great of a game (it did what for FPSs?), but up until that point, the 'box had nothing. Gears is exactly that: the first thing released on the console that said console was built for.

Oh boy...I am SO flamed.

I loathe mice; I prefer trackballs but even with the trackball, I can't find a happy medium between turning slowly to avoid being capped from behind (controller) or too fast where I lose the guy I'm chasing &/or get capped from behind anyway (trackball + keyboard).

Sensai:
Did graphics help propel Gears to the position it is in now? Absolutely. You can't even argue that point. But to say that Gears would be nothing if not for its newfangled graphics engine is blasphemy.
Gears is a damn good game, and the first console shooting game (be it first or third person) in a very long time to feel fresh and exciting to me. The slower, more tactical squad based fighting is a far more intimate and visceral experience than the disconnected, tiresome respawn-and-reload fragfests of the countless Quakes and Halos.

As for your comment about Gears being the first "true" 360 game, mark your opinions as such. I've spent many a quality hour on my 360 with titles like Test Drive: Unlimited and Dead Rising.

Back on Topic:
KB/M wins. It's a fact, not an opinion.

"KB/M" should be renamed to "KB/Pointing Device sans Touchpad"

Im not going to argue about which is better. You can't argue with results, however even if m and k is the most accurate, wii still could be considered more fun,, same goes for consoles. Some may like Wii or consoles because even though your char wont be as skilled you will get a more acurate representation.

The only FPS I still play is Halo on the computer. I still haven't finished Halo 2 because controlling with the pad is so damn slow.

I think we'll get a better sense of it once Microsoft's Live servers start connecting up PCs to 360s.

The only real problem with keyboard setups is that you don't have analogue control of movement speed and direction. This can actually berather annoying in games that require stealth. (you end up with loads of modifier keys).

If someone could work out a "mouse and analogue stick" setup it would rock. But no-one have ever got one of those specialised gmaes keyboards to take off.

Dual analogues have improved immensely as developers have incrementally improved how they work with each game. These days console FPS reviews almost never mention the controls.

But look back a few years and you'll find that most console FPS reviews mention flaws with the aiming and sensitivity. Infact it took about 5 years for developers to perfct controls on dual analogue controllers.

So i'd say its far to eary to tell if the Wii will beat the dual analogue setup.. at least give them one generation of games to work out the kinks.

From what I understand Farcry had the best controls.. but the whole rest of the game sucked. COD had some good implementations as well, but some flaws. Red steel just kinda sucked.

However, do controls need to be MORE ACCURATE AND RESPONSIVE to be better? In several games the wiimote actually makes things harder to pull off than pressing a button on a standard controller.. however among cansual reviewers this is seen as a big improvement.

While it is much easier to pull off a Kamehameha by pressing a button or two, its much more immersive and satisfying to pull one off by actually doing the action. And immersiveness is surely what all this rush towards graphical supremacy and real time physics is all about.

John beat me to the punch and makes the most valid point here. "Best" is such a subjective term that the whole poll is totally loaded. If we are talking accuracy, complexity, and speed then K/M wins hands down.

IMO, if we are talking anything K/M wins hands down, but that's subjective. I have played some good dual analog FPS games, but they cannot compare to the freedom and complexity that a K/M combo offers.

I don't want to hack on anybody here but I find it highly improbable that anybody who has regularly played FPS games on both K/M and dual analog would prefer the latter. What would be alot more interesting would be to hear what game developers/creators think about this question.

I voted Mouse Keyboard (M/K) because using current examples the M/K combo is superior.

However the Wii makes this interesting, with things like the Wiizapper -

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/10/e3-the-wii-zapper-prototype-revealed/

or the Joytech Sharp Shooter shotgun -

http://www.infocusdvd.com.au/show_item.php?code=ANWJSSS

Were we can play FPS like we are holding a gun/rifle! Now the Wii may not be the most accurate (compared to a M/K), but playing a FPS like this sure is alot more fun and fresh. I think its the closest thing yet to having a Time Crisis like game with FPS movement. Rumble and Built in speaker add to the 'immersive' FPS experience. I guess we have to wait till there are some really good Wii FPS games that truly showcase Wiis FPS capabilities.

BTW to those that think dual anoalog is better let me ask you this. IF you are playing a PC FPS would you use a gamepad to play it inplace of the M/K?

The keyboard and mouse is faster but I wouldn't say it's more accurate. I know people in Halo 2 that could snipe a hair off your chin. Personally games like Unreal Tournament and Quake give me motion sickness because of their speed. Halo 2 had the speed just right.

12. 'I have to agree with #2 on this one. It is hard to say the Wii controls rock when there isn't a single good FPS on the platform...'

He said that it'd be nice if it had the PS3/360 graphics. Note to everyone: Graphics don't make a good game. Just like water-colors don't make a good painting. It's a style.

please stop saying this wiitarded shit graghics is the reason that i bought a 360 other wise i would keep my old xbox i wanted a wii but all this fucktard viral shit is really starting to put me off on getting one and if graphics didn't matter to niny why didn't they just sell the controller for the game cube? they updated too provide better graphics and power just enough so they could sell the system cheap and still make a profit

Its true, graphics don't make a good game. They're just cool as hell, and can make a good game more interesting. For me personally, I think higher graphical capabilities gives the artists more detail and possibilities to work with, so its not simply, "wow that looks shiny". Some types of graphical styles don't need or benefit from high-end graphics.

And back to the topic of control schemes..

The Dual Analog advantage is the ability to maneuver. The combination of analog movement and aim gives you this ability to circle around the enemy, or travel in an arch (where you can easily adjust the degree) very smoothly. In PC its pretty much all about who can aim faster. The maneuvering is clunky and set at one speed in all directions. You kind of have to learn to tap the, say, A key while moving the mouse slowly and steadily to the left in order to circle an enemy, which still isn't very smooth. In PC, I feel kind of like moving straight back and forward, left and right is the only safe bet, while fancy maneuvering gets you killed.

Oops meant "moving the mouse slowly and steadily to the RIGHT"