Fact: A mouse is quicker and more accurate than a controller.
My take?
Both are equally viable options for gaming. I've used both (although console much more extensively than PC) and I'm about to build a gaming rig for the first time ever, and honestly? I don't feel a big difference. True, I'm not as used to KB/M as the average PC gamer, but I can see the difference in speed and accuracy and appreciate having it. I don't find playing on consoles to be a huge handicap for 2 reasons: 1) I turn aim-assist off the first chance I get and 2) I ALWAYS max out my sensitivity.
I was playing the BF3 beta on PS3 and my friend who hadn't played much of it yet saw me frantically doing 180s and checking my surroundings. He says, "Where's the quick turn button?" So I said, "What?" "How did you turn around so fast like that?" "Umm, my sensitivity is maxed." To which he replied, "Man, I should probably up my sensitivity."
Is it harder to be accurate at high sensitivity on dual-analog? Absolutely. However, more difficult doesn't mean impossible. I've played FPSs on dual-analog, KB/M, and the Move and had both fun and success with each. In terms of usability it goes KB/M > Move > DS3 for me. That doesn't mean I still don't spend the majority of my time using a controller and enjoying.
The main reason I'm getting a gaming rig is for the games it offers that my platform of choice doesn't (L4D, Amnesia, Cryostasis, etc.) and to see games that I already own or will own on my PS3 in their full glory (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, etc.).
Log in to comment