Every time someone brings up a controller vs mouse and keyboard, most of if not all comments will push towards the OP to “switch to mouse and keyboard” because “it’s better!”
In my eyes, the person is already accustomed to controller, they’re used to the sensitivity, and if not it’s a quick change.
If they’re going to get used to mouse and keyboard they need to:
-
find a reasonable mouse
-
find a reasonable mousepad for their situation
-
find out if they’re a wrist aimer or an arm aimer
-
make sure their windows mouse sensitivity is set to 6/11 for some reason otherwise everything else will be messed up
-
find their “optimal sensitivity” many of which tutorials are (subjectively) hard to find (the good ones)
I’m both a controller and mouse and keyboard user but I find it easier to aim with a controller. It feels natural.
Yeah, now try without any Aim Assist.
There sometimes is a gyroscope aim that allows for better precision without the assist. Still aiming with a gamepad is pain, just a bit less if everything is set up perfectly (which is rarely the case)
I can’t stand gyro aim so I can’t speak for that
I love gyro aiming. Comfort and accuracy, plenty accurate enough for single player and coop games.
Yeah the only time I tried that was with Zelda:OoT on the 3DS I think. It worked pretty well if I remember correctly.
Or even better, any cheat mod. Mods are cool if they add to gameplay. But a real player doesn’t need any mods like aim assist, see through walls etc.
If you can’t play without a cheat mod, then you aren’t playing, you’re just being a dick.
Sorry I’m not sure I follow you here. Why are you talking about cheats?
Is this about “PC gamers” using cheat tools in online games? Because there will always be cheaters and the platform/controllers used have nothing to do with it. If people on consoles could use cheat tools, there would be some that do.
They seemed to think that aim assist is a cheat (like it is in some games). Igorant to the fact that it’s built-in where controller is supposed to be used
Why. Why can’t people just have fun as their goal here.
Based on OPs post, I think it’s fair to assume that they aren’t even aware that console games bake-in auto aim. Most console players in general are unaware of that fact.
Nobody is saying don’t have fun, or don’t do what you want. But a lot of times unpopular opinions are unpopular because they’re built on a poor grasp of the topic matter.
In the same way I’ll educate someone on how tax brackets work when they say “my boss told me I’m better off not getting a raise because it’ll bump me into the next tax bracket”, I wouldn’t expect people to just nod and smile when they demonstrate a similarly poor grasp of game input devices.
They don’t care that there is auto aim, their goal is to have fun, not be the best there ever was without crutches. This is why it’s so hard to talk online about anything to do with video games, the nerds make it insufferable. Op can’t talk about this obviously
I think you skimmed my post, and I don’t even think you read the OP post at all.
The point is that the only reason a controller can be better is because they get aim assist. Without it they’re worse in every way, and there are a lot of games that let you use aim assist with a mouse.
So? Who gives a shit?
Why bother throwing a tantrum in the comments if you don’t give a shit?
Having fun IS the goal, but the discussion here is about controller vs KB/M for FPS games. Yes of course you can have fun with both, but let’s not pretend that controllers are as good as KB/M in shooter games because it’s just not true. They are slower, not as precise and require aiming assistance in order to compete with KB/M in multiplayer games.
It’s as good, more good for op, if the goal is to have fun, not be the best.
An ops free to use whichever they like. No judgment. But in the multiplayer cross-play setting, without aim assist they’re going to be at a disadvantage. That’s all
That is truly an unpopular opinion. It’s also wrong so that’s probably why. /s
This sub is so weird. When someone posts an actual unpopular opinion it’s clearly getting downvoted because this has a vote score of just 5 with over 60 comments. What are we looking for here?
deleted by creator
I’m both a controller and mouse and keyboard user but I find it easier to aim with a controller. It feels natural.
This is fine. You can have a preference. The rest of your post, however, is objectively incorrect, or at best misleading.
For example, in order for me, a keyboard and mouse user, to get used to a controller, I would need to:
- Find a reasonable controller
- Find out how I can best grip the controller for my use case
- Make sure the game’s controller sensitivity is set correctly for my use case
See how that’s basically the same arguments you are making against using a K&M?
Also, there have been FPS competitions where people with controllers go absolutely demolished by K&M players. When it comes to competitive FPS gaming, K&M has large advantages over controllers. Even some single-player console FPS games have enabled auto-aim by default, and left the setting disabled by default on PC for K&M players, because using a controller is more difficult than a K&M for FPS.
Even some single-player console FPS games have enabled auto-aim by default, and left the setting disabled by default on PC for K&M players, because using a controller is more difficult than a K&M for FPS.
Single player games often have auto-aim when you aim down sight and have multiplayer games have Aim Assist. In COD/Warzone, controller players have an advantage over KB/M due to how strong the aim assist is.
Controllers aren’t good for FPS, they need a handicap.
Mate, chill out. OP said "“If people are used to a controller, they should use that, rather than trying to find a k&m setup that suits them.”
You said “Oh my god, why, then, should I try to find a controller setup that suits me?!?”
I mean, c’mon
OP posted on c/unpopular opinion. I think they are looking for a discussion/debate about their opinion. They can use whatever they feel like using. There is (was?) a Twitch channel that used a fish’s location in its aquarium as an input.
No, I wasn’t looking for a debate, I was just posting my unpopular opinion, you know, like how the sub is meant for?
I don’t care what you use, as long as you have fun. To me, I use both, but I find controller to be easier solely based on the barrier of entry like how I commented elsewhere.
I don’t care about competitiveness, form factor, or anything else everyone seems to assume I care about. I know about aim assist too and I know it works, I know it’s in games that allow players to use controllers, however does it really matter? All I care about is ease of access. If I were to want to play a DM of any games, on mouse and keyboard, I’d have to warm up my hands, or crack my knuckles and loosen them up a bit, practice aim training and everything. On controller, it’s pick up and play.
Based solely on ease of access, I find controllers to be better.
The sub is a public forum meant for discussion. If you want to make a proclamation, buy a billboard. Or pay for a sky-writer. Or stick a sign on your front yard.
If you don’t want a discussion, and just want to be right, don’t declare it publicly or you will get pushback. Especially if you know its an unpopular opinion.
Okay but you don’t need to be competitive to have fun. The basics for controller is if you’re on PlayStation, get a dual sense. Xbox, Xbox controller. Switch, pro controller. Going through the sensitivities for controller is a hell of a lot simpler than going through sensitivities for keyboard and mouse.
The barrier of entry is far lower for controller than it is for keyboard and mouse. If you can’t figure out you need a basic controller for your console, especially considering most times consoles come with controllers anyway, I don’t know what to tell you.
You can’t tell me it’s “objectively wrong” then list inconsistencies like that.
Not to pry, but “having fun” is subjective and therefore there is nothing “wrong”. It is up to the subject to decide or feel that something fun is happening.
You are “subjectively right” but you are also “objectively wrong”.
A clear reason is that Aim Assist was implemented to make the player have fun. K&M do not need this support because you can aim very accurately without previous training.
The barrier of entry, as you call it, is reduced artificially for the controller.
But alas, do what is fun for you. There is nothing to prove to anyone in single player games. I play third person (Souls games) games with controller and FPS (Cyberpunk mainly) with k&m.
People play games with dance pads, or with their feet, or with Guitar Hero instruments, and they have fun doing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s efficient, or optimal, or that those control schemes are “good” for the games they’re using. If your argument is “Controllers are adequate for FPS games”, sure - I don’t think anyone is refuting that point, but that’s not the argument you made - you stated that controllers are good for FPS games, which is a pretty subjective word, but clearly you posted in the right place, because as you can see from all of the replies here, it’s a very unpopular opinion.
Clearly people can play FPS games with controllers. It is an option a lot of people use. However, it’s just the case that an equally skilled player on a controller will lose to a similarly skilled player on M+K. There’ve been numerous attempts at scientific tests to prove this. Here’s one such example. There’s an anecdote that years ago, Microsoft was considering offering cross-platform multiplayer between PC and Xbox, but scrapped the idea when it was discovered that very skilled Halo players using a controller were losing to objectively less skilled players using mouse + keyboard.
The title of your post begins as “Controllers are good for FPS games, especially on PC”.
Now it’s about having fun and a lower barrier of entry, not competitiveness.
It’s fine you prefer controller, but you’re moving the goalposts here. The title and body of your initial post isn’t about having fun, it’s about what is “good for fps games.” K&M is, I’m sorry to tell you, objectively better in that sense.
Side note, as for your “lower barrier of entry” for a controller part, you also specified from the beginning, “especially on PC”. If you’re playing on PC specifically, you already have a K&M. A controller is not a lower barrier of entry on that platform, it’s an additional purchase vs. something everyone on that platform would already own.
You’re using a list of inconsistencies to deny why you are “objectively wrong”.
Going through the sensitivities for controller is a hell of a lot simpler than going through sensitivities for keyboard and mouse.
Crank it to max, then dial it back until your shots start to land
What inconsistency did I list?
For single player games, sure. For multiplayer games, you will get absolutely wiped by KB+M players and that will not be fun for you.
Also, if I’m using non standard controls (which for a PC FPS, would include controllers) and I’m getting smoked by people with standard controls no matter how much I get used to them, then my controls are bad.
Changing a sensitivity on a mouse is easier than on a controller and generally allows a more fine tuned setting.
The process of even changing sensitivity is easier, menu navigation on a mouse is simpler, then once at the sensitivity option, I can just type in a number or quickly drag a bar instead of waiting for a number to climb higher or lower. Hell, if the game has a console, I can usually just open that and type in any number I want on the fly.
I mean its objectively incorrect, but having a personal preference is fine.
Games normally give a lot of auto aim these days, so if you want an easier time it makes sense you would prefer a controller.
This guy has a computer but somehow doesnt own a mouse or mousepad yet.
Right? Any kb+mouse will be better than a controller.
When people say mouse and keyboard is “better” than controller, they just mean that the skill ceiling you can reach on M&K is higher than on controller, which is true. At the end of the day, just use what you prefer. I can’t imagine playing CS2 with a controller, and I don’t think Far Cry would be nearly as much fun on mouse and keyboard, there’s different cases for both. But you absolutely won’t be able to stack up to people playing M&K in most competitive shooters, and that’s what people mean when they say M&K is better.
If you mean for casual play, then use whatever you want.
If you mean for competitive play, then until you specify the game, this post is pointless. Lots of competitive Apex Legends and Halo players use controllers, but you would never in a million years catch a professional Counter-Strike or Quake player using a controller.
No sun assist on those yet
Show me a professional competitive gamer who plays with a controller. I’ll wait.
There are lots of Apex Legends and Halo players who do, but there are zero Counter Strike and Quake players who do.
Without specifying which FPS game, OP’s post is kinda pointless.
I could argue that at the time counter strike came out, pc and consoles were very separate and practically no one was using a game pad on pc.
“The control scheme that needs aim assist for fps games is good”
???
Serviceable isn’t the same as good.
They certainly work. Sure. But a mouse is still objectively superior in terms of speed and precision.
Dang! You nailed the unpopular part!
And you managed to explain your stance in a great way, so kudos!
I will say that your reasoning goes both ways though. And it misses a key component.
Once you’re used to m&k play, you’ve got the same muscle memory built up that controller players get on their preferred interface. So, in that regard, neither is inherently better. What you practice most is going to be what ends up working best for an individual, even if there is a definitive superior choice in some quantifiable criteria (this doesn’t just apply to gaming. Look at how much better the design of dvorak layout is vs qwerty, and then look at how few people are willing to retrain to use it).
I will say that the list of things you gave as drawbacks to m&k play aren’t necessarily drawbacks. You listed a great set of things that mean m&k play is highly adaptable. You tweak the controls to what you want, but you have the ability to use what comes out if the box. Controllers don’t have nearly the same degree of customization. Thus, if a controller doesn’t match your needs, you’re fucked if that’s all you can use (which is why some folks can’t play on consoles.
You closed with the statement “… I find it easier to aim with… It feels natural.” That’s a very subjective statement. You’re talking about feeling and your personal take on what is easy/natural.
Which isn’t disagreeing! You’re still dead right that controllers of any given type are a good choice to have for players. Why fix what ain’t broken, if that’s what works for you, just because it’s a different platform? I’m just pointing out some difficulties in the presentation of your opinion.
On a personal note, I wish like hell it was easier to use k&m on consoles. My arthritis makes controllers awkward and inhibit what, how long, and how well I can play. It doesn’t help that I have to get used to whatever console it is when I switch between them. Going from a sony layout to a Nintendo one makes for a good bit of sub-optimal play that’s also below the sub-optimal play I already have from my hands not working right, until I readjust. I don’t play competitively at all, even on a casual level, but FPS games are rarely fun until I’ve done that adjustment, and that time cuts into how long I can play total because it just hurts.
But I’m damn glad PCs allow for controllers for those that prefer them :)
Had a console player join our Tarkov discord. Dude spent a week setting up his controller. Still got his add handed to him continuously until he switched to keyboard and mouse.
Using a controller without aim assist will never make you competitive against keyboard and mouse. Sorry, not sorry.
I’ve had this discussion a few times. It has always ended with me asking “do you have aim assist on?”.
They’re decent, now. But absolute position will never be an ideal fit for controls that change velocity.
Joysticks are relative inputs. Excellent for steering, and other continuous fine movements, over time. But aiming is about landing on a specific target angle. With a mouse, that is one motion, mapped from position to position. With a joystick, you have to accelerate in that direction, wait some specific fraction of a second, and then decelerate. Even letting go of the stick won’t stop at that instant.
Here’s an unpopular opinion:
Shooters shouldn’t require aiming.
Not every FPS needs to be about “aim duels.” Counterstrike and so on will never change, but that model doesn’t have to be universal. Any FPS that’s not explicitly about precision sniping or snap reflexes can instead focus on positioning, situational awareness, and decision-making. If you hear an enemy coming and wait behind a corner… your actual cursor position and button timing does not have to matter. The game can say yeah, you saw that guy’s backside near center-frame for an entire second, of course you shot him.
Being five pixels off from a guy you had dead-to-rights, only to see him whip around and be better at clicking on you, is not a measure of tactical skill. We’ve wildly overvalued that one input as a deciding factor. Just being good at aiming is a dominant strategy.
Famously, one Counterstrike clan joined an America’s Army tournament, having never played America’s Army. They came in second. They had no idea how the objectives worked. They had no strategy. They just bounced into carefully-guarded rooms and clicked on heads. One redditor compared it to fighting the SS in WW2, “due to their culture of extreme violence, their strong nationalistic views, and being off their tits on meth.”
Those magnificent jackasses were only denied first because every other team got together to strategize for the final match. When it takes that kind of meta to deal with people who only understand one part of the game… maybe that part needs adjusting.
Even Counterstrike tries. You have to come to a dead stop to have full accuracy. It’s just implemented in such a 90s way (even now) that players learn to wait exactly umpteen milliseconds before popping someone’s head from five hundred paces.
So picture, as an off-the-cuff proposal, a gigantic circular crosshair. It doesn’t get smaller. It gets brighter. The longer you aim in one direction, standing still, the more likely you are to hit whateverthefuck comes into that region you’re covering. Possibly assigning different face buttons to any target you can plainly see. Gentle motions - the kind joysticks make dead easy - won’t diminish that accuracy by much. Running or whipping around will break it almost instantly. You can still fire, but you’re just throwing lead in that general direction. If you’ve got a shotgun in close quarters, that can be enough, but even keyboard controls can make shotguns work.
America’s Army was hardly a deeply strategic game, it makes sense some people from CS could stomp over most. CS is just the perfect shooter for refining aim, awareness and reaction times, some skills that will translate massively into other shooters, that’s never going to change. Aim won’t take you all the way in some games though, I think Squad would be a good example, if the teams are balanced with people who know how to play then aim isn’t giving you much of an advantage.
I was GE in CSGO, lvl 10 faceit, whatever, but I don’t have the best aim, I just knew what angles to hold, when to mix things up, I could read the game really well and it took me far, when I pick up new shooters I am looking forward to the additional gameplay, not having to relearn some gimped basics because someone decided they wanted grandpa joe on his controller to be able to play at the same level as someone with years of FPS experience.It’s not the mechanics of shooters that are the problem, it’s the trainability of humans. People who enjoy shooters are not going to enjoy a shooter that tries it’s hardest to take the skill out of it.
some skills that will translate massively into other shooters, that’s never going to change.
That is explicitly what I am suggesting could change. It’s optional. Everything is optional. Games can be whatever you want.
To pick one clear example, headshots do not have to matter. Position-based damage is a neat trick ostensibly based in realism. Games do not require realism. It’s not real. Quake 2 deathmatch was no less railgun-friendly just because every player had exactly one hitbox.
I am looking forward to the additional gameplay, not having to relearn some gimped basics because someone decided they wanted grandpa joe on his controller to be able to play at the same level as someone with years of FPS experience.
Yeah it’d be awful if all he brought was knowing what angles to hold, when to mix things up, how to read the game really well… what?
People who only enjoy shooters because of clicking on heads are spoiled for choice. People who were trained more for strategy and prediction are routinely fucked over by adderall-fueled flick-shots from people who demand every shooter cater to their existing skillset. Usually by insisting that other skills do not exist, since anything short of instagib from across the map “takes the skill out of it.”
I don’t understand where the headshot thing came from? No headshots, high hp is all fine, these are used mechanics in lots of games. What you were suggesting is taking any skill out of the actual shooting from a shooter, correct? And I was trying to explain how that would not appeal to most FPS players.
Then “most FPS players” have ten thousand other choices.
Nevermind that holding an angle is already a matter of skill in shooting that massively reduces the importance of rapid or accurate aim. As is removing the importance of a smaller, harder-to-hit box at the top of the model. If you’re fine with a game not having headshots - if that doesn’t make it an idiot-proof game for babies - then you understand there are skills in shooting beyond clicking the right pixel faster.
I explained that I understand there is more to FPS than ‘shooting beyond clicking the right pixel faster’, what you are failing to understand is that people who can still flick and track better are still going to have a baseline advantage from the start in FPS, that’s the nature of the genre. Taking away skill from that will result in a dead game, people like working to improve and if everyone can aim as well as each other from the start, then the game wont be very appealing to fans of the genre. I already gave you an example of a more strategic shooter, but any shooter when played at a high level becomes less about aim and very strategic. If you think Counter-Strike is just about them fancy flickshots you are horribly misinformed, the strategy in that game goes very deep and game sense carries you insanely far.
There’s games like Overwatch, it’s an FPS, it has your standard guns, but it also has other characters where aim isnt as important, people who dont want to aim can play those characters and still be effective. Will the players with faster aim, reactions, crosshair placement and tracking still come out on top? Yes, of course, because that is what FPS games are about, the shooting.
It sounds like you want to play FPS games at a higher level, but you are not at that level and you are not prepared to put the time or effort in to practice. Or maybe you did, but you never got anywhere… I dont know, but the genre isnt going to change. There’s already lots first-person games out there without guns or the emphasis on shooting for you to enjoy.
‘I’m not saying aim is all there is, I’m just saying aim is all that matters.’
‘If you disagree you must suck at aiming.’
Thanks for demonstrating the problem, at least. You can outright say that once everyone is super-duper good at aiming, high-level play takes it for granted and becomes about strategy… but you cannot imagine a game skipping ahead to that. Or you insist most FPS players would gag. Like if a game had any automatic assistance then it might as well use swords.
Have you looked at console FPS sales, lately? Or in the last fifteen years?
How are Unreal Tournament servers, these days? Full? Millions of people online? How’s Quake Live doing? Because arena shooters were the pinnacle of what you think shooting means, and last I checked they’re stone dead.
You are just completely ignoring all points I make and instead cherry picking words to fit your preconceived notions and then attempting to argue the same point over and over, so this conversation won’t go anywhere, I can’t be bothered going in circles again. I do hope one day you find the game you are looking for.
What are games built more on strategy/ tactics vs accuracy? (Ideally that you can single player)
Arguably any game where “prefiring” is a thing. Rainbow Six: Siege is primarily about not getting shot by someone you didn’t see and not running into an angle someone’s holding.
But Siege is still a game where a noob with an aimbot might ace a team of experts. The near-instant lethality in that game is what allows the second-stupidest kind of aim duel, where you can get the drop on someone, spray bullets around them, and still die when they slooowly turn around and nail you with one shot. (The absolute stupidest kind is where you can land all your shots and they still turn around and kill you first. Lookin’ at you, The Division.)
I mean, I’ve only done the top 2. Idk if I’m wrist or arm aimer, I don’t even know what the 6/11 thing is referring to, aside from making sure mouse acceleration is off I’m all default settings. Default dpi that came with the mouse, could change it, didn’t see a point.
