Do FPS fans want to go motion-based direct-aim?

Is lightgun-style motion aiming a major motion selling point for you?

  • Yes; I want thumbstick aim to die a quick death

    Votes: 16 22.2%

  • Maybe; I'm curious, but I'm unconvinced at the moment

    Votes: 35 48.6%

  • No; thumbsticks are fine by me

    Votes: 14 19.4%

  • No; I've already got some cheating peripheral giving me an unfair advantage (:p)

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Don't know why I entered this poll, but I vote none of the above

    Votes: 6 8.3%
  • Total voters
    72
Shifty Geezer

Shifty Geezer

uber-Troll!
Moderator
Legend
Are PS360 gamers, known for their FPS enthusiasm, wanting to ditch the thumbstick aim for virtual guns? I'm curious how much of a selling point this could be for motion, and is it something Kinect should be chasing or if it doesn't matter. Vote now, and let the world know what the future holds! Ogh, that also covers TPSes like Gears and Uncharted.

Edit : I voted 'maybe' as I hope to have other game types than FPS/TPSes to play. It's not my favourtie genre, but if some enticing games require me to aim and shoot ,like The Agency, then Move might be good.
 
I really liked the controls in that crappy Medal of Honor title for the Wii. Crappy game, amazing controls. You had really incredible customization for dead zone and sensitivity. It allowed the closest you can get to a mouse experience on a console, without outright cheating like a guy named Josh.

I'm ok with thumb sticks though. I'd just prefer something more natural, and I think the wiimote style setup could be more versatile with a little more precision. Move should be great for fps games, if they copy the more successful wii fps titles.
 
I am more interested in head tracking so I can poke my head to the side to change the view a bit and peek around corners. I think it could work quite well since people already tend to instinctively move their head when playing anyway. I've even noticed people do this that are just watching someone else play. It would be great if it actually did something. I think it could work well in first person, but I'm not sure how third person would go.
 
I'm still unconvinced, and probably will be until I try it for myself. I'm worried lack of feedback might be a problem, and fatigue after long sessions. And how does turning work? Aiming at the side of the screen? Doesn't that conflict with wanting to shoot an enemy at the side of the screen? Having to reposition the crosshair to make up for the screen turning.
 
In the Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 you configured the dead zone in the middle of the screen. You could make it big, almost to the screen edges, or absolutely miniscule (where I set it). Basically the dead zone is the area of the screen in which you can move the pointer without turning. The further you move out of the dead zone, the faster you turn. If you crank the turning speed up high, you can make very slight movements with the controller, without moving the aimer to the edges of the screen, and turn extremely fast, like you would with a mouse. It works incredibly well, and I found it very easy to get headshots or other pin-point shots.

Unless you're a weakling, you shouldn't have any problem holding a controller for extended periods of time. People who can't hold the controller for an extended period of time should seriously consider some physical activity.

 
Anything is better than analoge sticks for aiming in FPS games so why not? All the shooters I played on the wii are not perfect but its way better than analoge sticks will ever be so for consoles I suppose its the best we will get.
 
I never really got into them enough to say that the Wiimote would be 100% better in all cases than an analogue stick. It appears to be the motion controls on offer aren't really a light gun style like was promised, they were essentially just replacing the thumb with the wrist like you're just got a big air mouse instead. They simply haven't worked as hyped/advertised for me and even so, I won't be rushing to find out as none of the FPS games I am interested in support this technology in the short term.

Btw why was the motion control thread closed Mr Geezer?
 
I think more people would be coordinated, especially new games, at aiming with their wrist rather than moving a thumbstick. It's akin to shooting from the hip with a gun, rather than aiming down the site. Sure, it isn't exactly light-gun style point and shoot, but it's good.
 
Scott_Arm said:
In the Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 you configured the dead zone in the middle of the screen. You could make it big, almost to the screen edges, or absolutely miniscule (where I set it). Basically the dead zone is the area of the screen in which you can move the pointer without turning. The further you move out of the dead zone, the faster you turn. If you crank the turning speed up high, you can make very slight movements with the controller, without moving the aimer to the edges of the screen, and turn extremely fast, like you would with a mouse. It works incredibly well, and I found it very easy to get headshots or other pin-point shots.

Unless you're a weakling, you shouldn't have any problem holding a controller for extended periods of time. People who can't hold the controller for an extended period of time should seriously consider some physical activity.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

But does it work aswell with games that don't rely on looking down the sights? Where things like circle strafing are more important, following moving targets.
 
I chose maybe. I tried CoD on Wii and it took some getting used to. I only spent an hour or so playing, but I was still better with thumb sticks. I'd imagine that the Move is more accurate, though.
 
Why can't motion FPS games keep the crosshair fixed in the center and turn the camera based on the wand's movement, like a true mouse/kb fps?
 
No; I've already got some cheating peripheral giving me an unfair advantage :)razz:)
Click to expand...

Oh my, someone voted for this?! A travesty I tell you, a travesty! For the sake of humanity and all things good and proper make it stop! Burn him! BURN HIM!!! (Note: That really hurt. Hurt I tell you. I am not going to spills Robert's and Scott's SpartanII virtualblood during match making firefight!).

That said I am all for alternative new controls--I thought a Wii-mote/chuck with refinements could work wonders, especially with a camera for lean/peak and melee. I could imagine opening new opportunities for punching, kicking (!), even jumping.

It just has to control well.

I haven't tried many Wii games but my experience this past weekend sucked to be honest. And Kinect, right now, seems completely trash for a shooter.

Move could be onto something with the Move/Chuck/Camera, but SOCOM looked trashy at E3 IMO. I would rather do Gears controls than the trash I saw there (Gears controls GREAT with a pad, very simple).

Anyhow, I found the solution that works awesome THIS gen. I need to do my article on it... the best FPS controls ever exist without giving an advantage or wobbling thumbs (which today I am having terrible fits).
 
djskribbles said:
+1. I think that's why it felt awkward when I played CoD on Wii.
Click to expand...

If you did that the game would be VERY shaky. The best approach, conceptually without trying various methods, would be a small bounding box with the center 25% of the screen for fine aim and anything outside that moves the camera rotation in increasing speeds the further you point to the edge.
 
Joshua Luna said:
If you did that the game would be VERY shaky. The best approach, conceptually without trying various methods, would be a small bounding box with the center 25% of the screen for fine aim and anything outside that moves the camera rotation in increasing speeds the further you point to the edge.
Click to expand...
Or you could have a dead zone...I wouldn't want my shaking hands to bounce the crosshair around the 25% bounded area...
 
Scott_Arm said:
In the Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 you configured the dead zone in the middle of the screen. You could make it big, almost to the screen edges, or absolutely miniscule (where I set it). Basically the dead zone is the area of the screen in which you can move the pointer without turning. The further you move out of the dead zone, the faster you turn. If you crank the turning speed up high, you can make very slight movements with the controller, without moving the aimer to the edges of the screen, and turn extremely fast, like you would with a mouse. It works incredibly well, and I found it very easy to get headshots or other pin-point shots.

Unless you're a weakling, you shouldn't have any problem holding a controller for extended periods of time. People who can't hold the controller for an extended period of time should seriously consider some physical activity.

Click to expand...

That looks exactly what I was talking about!
 
corduroygt said:
Why can't motion FPS games keep the crosshair fixed in the center and turn the camera based on the wand's movement, like a true mouse/kb fps?
Click to expand...
Example : The object you want to shoot is 2cm up and right from the centre crosshair. You move your Wagglestick to point at this object, so your Wagglestick is targeted 2cm up and right from centre. The object now moves into the centre of the screen. However, you're pointing 2cms up and right, so the object scrolls down-left. Now you react, chasing back to the moving object, and constantly chasing it around the screen.

Proper aiming requires the reticule to be where you are pointing. You see it, you shoot it. However, limits in controller inputs mean we also have to map player rotation somehow, and so the Wagglestick takes on dual roles. If you can't point and shoot at your target directly as in SOCOM, then I certainly won't be interested in playing shooters with waggles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top