Andrew Park is GameSpot's senior editor in charge of PC games. If your aim is good enough, shoot him an e-mail at andrew@gamespot.com.

he DS has certainly made a believer out of me, and if the buzz surrounding a game like Nintendogs is any indication, it's a system with plenty of appeal--and not just for people you think of as big fans of games. What seems to make the DS worth owning is all the unique games and experiences it offers--the innovative hardware is what makes it all possible. Now, Nintendo's working on another gaming system with a rather unique controller and way to play. It's easy to look askance at the Revolution controller and its peripherals, wrinkle your nose, and perhaps dismiss it all as just another weird gimmick. Easy enough--but after my experience with the DS, I'm holding off judgment until I get my hands on the thing and developers start to seriously have fun with it. There's plenty of room in the game industry for new sorts of awesome.

In this game, your enemies will be nimble, heavily armed, and smart enough to use team tactics and the environment to their advantage.

You know what else would be new and/or "awesome"? A control setup for first- or third-person shooters on consoles that isn't terrible. Or, a collective decision on the part of the game industry to stop making console shooters. Either way is fine by me.

If you read this site regularly, you probably know that I've been fortunate enough to play preview versions of the highly anticipated PC shooter F.E.A.R.. You've probably also seen that I'm a great fan of Resident Evil 4 for the GameCube. Yes, Resident Evil 4 isn't a traditional fast-paced shooter, and F.E.A.R. is much more kinetic than an average action shooter, since it features not only shooting, but also moving melee in the form of leaping and sliding kicks. But both are action games that use aiming and shooting as primary game mechanics, and they can be compared for the sake of this discussion.

(Before you read any further, please be advised that this article contains a few spoilers.)

In this game, sometimes your toughest enemy is the hunk of plastic and metal in your hands.

So why is it that the toughest gun battles in F.E.A.R. seem like they pit you against challenging enemies with challenging tactics, while in some of the toughest fights in Resident Evil 4, you seem to be fighting the control scheme? Keep in mind that Resident Evil 4 is the most highly evolved game in the entire series and is, for the most part, a joy to play for both fans of the series and nonfans alike. Yet, even though it's possible to get used to that otherwise excellent game's control scheme and even become skilled at aiming and dodging, certain parts of the game are still extremely frustrating--not because they're difficult, but because the control scheme really starts to show its weaknesses. Consider the battle sequences against (spoiler) "El Gigante," the lumbering giant who likes to uproot trees and swing them like a club at Leon, which are supposed to compose a classic battle of David versus Goliath.

The smaller, faster Leon, who is capable of leaping out of two-story windows and landing unharmed, and of plucking giant insects out of the air with acrobatic leaping kicks, is supposed to run circles around this huge brute (and the best way to dispatch him actually involves using a context-sensitive attack that shows off his greater speed). But controlling this highly skilled operative, crack shot, and martial artist feels just as ungainly as the slow-moving giant in those close quarters. This is frustrating--not because it's too difficult (it isn't), but because the control scheme is too slow to reflect what should be a battle of lightning-fast dodging and weaving.

So what? you say. Resident Evil 4 isn't really a fast-paced console shooter, like Halo 2 or the recent Far Cry: Instincts. Yet even the most recent, most evolved console shooters are still using a control scheme that was popularized in a four-year-old game--using one stick to move and the other to aim, and the trigger buttons to fire (and/or instantly use melee attacks or even throw grenades where applicable, rather than swapping your weapon out to use them). And many games still use aim assisting that slows your reticule slightly when you hover over your targets, so you'll have a slightly easier time drawing a bead on them. Is it because no one can think of any better way to use console controllers, or is the problem with the fundamental design of the controllers themselves? Either way, it just doesn't cut it. Trying to use a thumbstick to gently coax your sights onto a tiny target off in the distance is just as clunky in a fast-paced shooter like Halo as it is in a more deliberate game like Resident Evil 4, and in both cases, it really detracts from the experience when you find yourself fighting the controls as hard as (or harder than) you're fighting your enemies. And that's a shame, considering how great both games otherwise are.

Could this be the solution to making console shooters work...or just a great way to strain your elbow?

Is the new Nintendo Revolution controller, which can apparently function like a laser pointer, the answer? Not having had a chance to try it myself, I don't know for sure, though I have to think that trying to hold the controller like a remote control and swinging it in front of yourself for a prolonged period of time would give you a serious case of tennis elbow.

Either way, first-person shooters made their mark on the world of games on computers, and they've been shoehorned onto consoles with limited success for so long that the strain is really starting to show. And when this happens to an otherwise superlative game like Resident Evil 4, it really seems like a crime. Nintendo has already made bold moves in innovative hardware design with the unusual DS handheld--maybe this principle of function following form is something that others can learn from, assuming it works in the long run.