The dead zone on the 360 controller makes it awful for FPS games

I have a 360 and PS3 and love them both, but I buy all FPS games on the PS3 because the 360 controller sucks for FPS games due to its dead zone.

The dead zone is related to the sensitively of the left stick. With the left stick on controllers in FPS games, if you move it a tiny bit, nothing happens (this is the dead zone) and if you move it a little more, it only creates a little movement (and progressively more as you move it further). This is done so that your character doesn't swing around like crazy with just a small movement of the stick.

The problem is that the dead zone on the 360 is way too large, so that you can't make quick, fine movements and are limited to much bigger broad movements.

The PS3 dead zone is much smaller, allowing very quick and fine movements.

The result is that on the 360, FPS games play really noobish for everyone, whereas on the PS3, if you are good, you can really dominate and play well.

The playing field basically gets really levelled out on the 360 as no one can make quick fine movements and be really good compared to others, while on the PS3, if you are really good, you can make quick, fine movements and dominate.

For example, zooming in on a scope attachment, you can precisly get a head shot at a long distance (if you have stable hands and good focus) to an extent that is simply not possible on the 360.

I bet if you take any really good FPS player and have him play online on the 360 and then on the PS3, he/she will do way better on the PS3.

Before anyone gets too upset at this opinion, try playing the same FPS on both systems.

I think this should be getting more attention and reviewers should mention it when reviewing a FPS that is avaialble on both system.

Bu, bu, but... teh triggers!

Nah, I agree, the sticks on the 360 controller, along with every other input save the triggers, are pretty lousy when compared to the ds3.

I'll give you some points for creativity, but that's about it.

I disagree, I find the 360 sticks and triggers to be far superior.locopatho

I agree

this has never been a problem for me. i use the 360 controller on the PC too for racing games and TPS and its excellent.

The dead zones on the dual shock is actually bigger than that of he 360's, lol.

Bu, bu, but... teh triggers!

Nah, I agree, the sticks on the 360 controller, along with every other input save the triggers, are pretty lousy when compared to the ds3.

Pug-Nasty

I have extenders on my 360 analogs & prefer that controller over my PS3 ones.

Never had any kind of problem with the 360 controller for FPS's.

I thought perhaps Dead Zone was a game :o and the 360 controller is teh bestest evah and hope it returns with the next MS console. :P

I haven't use a stock 360 controller for any decent amount of time but the 3rd party 360 controller(hori turbo pad ex2) I use I have to agree on the sticks when it comes to fps the loser sticks of the dualshock 3 and smaller deadzone make it better for precision aiming but when it comes to every other genre i far prefer my 360 controller as everything about the 360 controller design is better the ds3 even the analogs and d-pad is one of the best i've used on the hori the only flaw is the tension of the sticks not being adjustable like the razer 360 controller (Which brings alot of innovations that should be standard in controllers) and the deadzone being to large and besides m/kb is the best control method for fps why play an fps on ps3 if you can play it on the pc? I mean really your entire argument could be applied to fps on pc vs consoles only it would ring true to much much larger degree.

I have extenders on my 360 analogs & prefer that controller over my PS3 ones.

shawn7324

[QUOTE="shawn7324"]

I have extenders on my 360 analogs & prefer that controller over my PS3 ones.

DJ_Headshot

[QUOTE="DJ_Headshot"][QUOTE="shawn7324"]

I have extenders on my 360 analogs & prefer that controller over my PS3 ones.

shawn7324

yeah, i need to get these.

I disagree, I find the 360 sticks and triggers to be far superior.locopatho

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p4712.m570.l1313&_nkw=kontrol+freek&_sacat=See-All-Categories

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dvideogames&field-keywords=kontrol+freek&sprefix=kontrol+freek

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dvideogames&field-keywords=kontrol+freek&sprefix=kontrol+freek

shawn7324

is there a big difference between the $10.99 ones and the $14.99 ones?

I thought perhaps Dead Zone was a game :o and the 360 controller is teh bestest evah and hope it returns with the next MS console. :P

SecretPolice

[QUOTE="shawn7324"]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dvideogames&field-keywords=kontrol+freek&sprefix=kontrol+freek

lazerface216

is there a big difference between the $10.99 ones and the $14.99 ones?

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

I thought perhaps Dead Zone was a game :o and the 360 controller is teh bestest evah and hope it returns with the next MS console. :P

blackace

i've never really noticed dead zones on the 360 controller. I just dont like the inferior battery compartment. the ps3 built in battery is so much better. the wired xbox360 controller seems to be higher quality than the wireless too. but deadzones? never been an issue. my cousin has a ps3 and he likes the 360 controller just as much. It's like coke vs pepsi nowadays. I personally like the triggers on the 360 controller better, but thats really about it.

I agree, but my main problem with the 360 controller is that for me it didn't feel like the stick could move as much either. Maybe i'm wrong but from playing on my friend's 360 it felt like it.

I don't know about FPS, but i do know that the 360controller is awful for figthing games, i couldn't even mark fireballs consintently in SF2 HD.

The 360 controller is clearly designed better, but I don't really like controllers anymore. They feel pretty clunky. I prefer the Wiimote/numchuck.

I disagree, I find the 360 sticks and triggers to be far superior.locopatho

I have a 360 and PS3 and love them both, but I buy all FPS games on the PS3 because the 360 controller sucks for FPS games due to its dead zone.

The dead zone is related to the sensitively of the left stick. With the left stick on controllers in FPS games, if you move it a tiny bit, nothing happens (this is the dead zone) and if you move it a little more, it only creates a little movement (and progressively more as you move it further). This is done so that your character doesn't swing around like crazy with just a small movement of the stick.

The problem is that the dead zone on the 360 is way too large, so that you can't make quick, fine movements and are limited to much bigger broad movements.

The PS3 dead zone is much smaller, allowing very quick and fine movements.

The result is that on the 360, FPS games play really noobish for everyone, whereas on the PS3, if you are good, you can really dominate and play well.

The playing field basically gets really levelled out on the 360 as no one can make quick fine movements and be really good compared to others, while on the PS3, if you are really good, you can make quick, fine movements and dominate.

For example, zooming in on a scope attachment, you can precisly get a head shot at a long distance (if you have stable hands and good focus) to an extent that is simply not possible on the 360.

I bet if you take any really good FPS player and have him play online on the 360 and then on the PS3, he/she will do way better on the PS3.

Before anyone gets too upset at this opinion, try playing the same FPS on both systems.

I think this should be getting more attention and reviewers should mention it when reviewing a FPS that is avaialble on both system.

Jason_A

YOu Sir, deserve a big Cigar. I've been thinking of this for months. I used to play PC FPS, and the lame dead zone on the 360 has been driving me nuts!

Imagine a mouse where it lags out for a whole square inch in between moving up/down/left/right; you'd throw said mouse in the bin.

The "dead zone" on the 360 controller is HUGE. Funny though I notice I can't seem to miss on Halo Reach, auto-aim FTL!

Umm.. Isn't it up to the ones making the game what kind of dead zone the game has? I don't think the 360 controller itself has a specific dead zone..

Oh god no! The 360 controller is far better for shooters. (and most other genres) This is my opinion so im stating it like fact. oh yeeeaaaaa!

Point taken, but I still prefer the ergonomic design of the 360 controllers and its triggers over the DS3. However, the bumper buttons on the 360 aren't great, hopefully MS addresses that with the next console design (they a bit flimsy and can break pretty easily. Much prefer DS3's shoulder buttons in comparison).

My favorite controller was the gamecubes, the different sized buttons made more sense because you used certain ones more.

I disagree, imho 360 sticks are perfectly placed with perfect sensitivity along with perfect triggers and perfect overall controller shape and weight making it the best controller ever especially for FPS. As for DS3 ,the sticks are too light, the placement of left stick sucks, the grip of the sticks sucks tooand the triggers are half assed pos making DS3 an awful controller for FPS.

all i will say is lol, a greater dead zone actually allows for finer movements, I.E if you steadily increase pressure on a stick and you immediately begin moving due to a minimal dead zone you will over rotate and be forced into sweeping movements, if you have a slightly larger dead zone you are able to more accurately recognise not only when you begin movement but also when your on target, it's a case of slow is smooth and smooth is fast. surprised no one else has pointed this out.sonny2dap

[QUOTE="Jason_A"]

I have a 360 and PS3 and love them both, but I buy all FPS games on the PS3 because the 360 controller sucks for FPS games due to its dead zone.

The dead zone is related to the sensitively of the left stick. With the left stick on controllers in FPS games, if you move it a tiny bit, nothing happens (this is the dead zone) and if you move it a little more, it only creates a little movement (and progressively more as you move it further). This is done so that your character doesn't swing around like crazy with just a small movement of the stick.

The problem is that the dead zone on the 360 is way too large, so that you can't make quick, fine movements and are limited to much bigger broad movements.

The PS3 dead zone is much smaller, allowing very quick and fine movements.

The result is that on the 360, FPS games play really noobish for everyone, whereas on the PS3, if you are good, you can really dominate and play well.

The playing field basically gets really levelled out on the 360 as no one can make quick fine movements and be really good compared to others, while on the PS3, if you are really good, you can make quick, fine movements and dominate.

For example, zooming in on a scope attachment, you can precisly get a head shot at a long distance (if you have stable hands and good focus) to an extent that is simply not possible on the 360.

I bet if you take any really good FPS player and have him play online on the 360 and then on the PS3, he/she will do way better on the PS3.

Before anyone gets too upset at this opinion, try playing the same FPS on both systems.

I think this should be getting more attention and reviewers should mention it when reviewing a FPS that is avaialble on both system.

hywel69

YOu Sir, deserve a big Cigar. I've been thinking of this for months. I used to play PC FPS, and the lame dead zone on the 360 has been driving me nuts!

Imagine a mouse where it lags out for a whole square inch in between moving up/down/left/right; you'd throw said mouse in the bin.

The "dead zone" on the 360 controller is HUGE. Funny though I notice I can't seem to miss on Halo Reach, auto-aim FTL!

I am the topic poster.

I think that people who just don't get it are people who fall into one of these categories:

1) They have not played FPS games on both systems so they don't realize how bad the 360 controller is for FPS games, or

2) They have played FPS games on both systems but they are not good players and so they can't appreciate the benefits of more fine movement on the PS3

I think that anyone who has played FPS games on both systems and is a good player will definitely agree that the PS3 controller is much better.

[QUOTE="sonny2dap"]all i will say is lol, a greater dead zone actually allows for finer movements, I.E if you steadily increase pressure on a stick and you immediately begin moving due to a minimal dead zone you will over rotate and be forced into sweeping movements, if you have a slightly larger dead zone you are able to more accurately recognise not only when you begin movement but also when your on target, it's a case of slow is smooth and smooth is fast. surprised no one else has pointed this out.Jason_A

The 360 controller is clearly designed better, but I don't really like controllers anymore. They feel pretty clunky. I prefer the Wiimote/numchuck.

GreySeal9

I disagree, I find the 360 sticks and triggers to be far superior.locopatho