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

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.

Jason_A

I guess it is easier to just say someone sucks at a game than actually argue with them though

[QUOTE="Jason_A"]

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.

skinny_man_69

I guess it is easier to just say someone sucks at a game than actually argue with them though

I've never had a problem with the dead zone of the 360 controller, or the triggers on the PS3 controller, it's just that the PS3 controller is much more comfortable for short and long periods of any type of gaming. There's a reason the PS3 controller was and still is so revolutionary. paradigm68

Personally have to disagree with that. I can't play the PS3 for more than an hour before my hands start to hurt from holding the controller. Plus I can never hold it in a comfortable position. I am also worse at games when using the DS, that goes for the PS1 and PS2 era as well. Long story short, I think they are terrible, and need to be redesigned, especially the analogue and Dpad placement, this isn't 1996 anymore.

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.

Jason_A

I've never really been a fan of the 360 controller. I really don't know why people love it so much. I don't like the trigger buttons and it feels awkward in my hands, but when it comes down to it, it's just personal preference. I'm pretty sure that if you did a poll of people who have actually used both controllers it would be an even split.

And yet I've never had a problem with them... in any game.

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

I've played CoD games on both systems (CoD4, for example) and have no trouble at all using both controllers and aiming accurately. This supposed "dead zone" you speak of on the 360 controller isn't an issue for me.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

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

DJ_Headshot

I just think the remote and nunchuck combo feels smoother and less restricted.

I like the remote/numchuck combo better in general, but especially in FPSs since I think it's pretty hard to go back to standard control after playing Metroid Prime 3 for awhile.

It's a shame that the Wii has such a terrible selection of FPSs.

TC is correct. DS3 sticks have a much tighter deadzone. Triggers on the DS3 do suck but after using bumpers I'll never go back to any triggers, too much travel/work. In short the 360 sticks are sloppy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WingsofRedemption#p/search/2/MJK2o8MOjqE You may not like him but it's a fair comparison.

If anyone knows of an aftermarket for 360 with a better deadzone let me know.

and yet...the 360 controller is constantly winning polls and high review scores and hell even awards...not so much the dual shock 3 an near 20 year design that hasn't changed in any meaningful way...As well If the ps3 controller is so great for fps's why is it in every single competition between 360 and ps3 users in such games the 360 users win?

I mean didn't battlefield 1943 get its extra map unlocked near a week+ before the ps3 players did?
I read an article on this exact same subject before *I assume you copy and pasted it* that was like 3-4 years ago it was bunk trash then, its brunk trash now that article was filled with so many contridictions it was funny.

when the majority of users, and developers stop saying the 360 controller is the better controller besides the dpad outside of fanboyism and the ones sticking with the dual shock are sticking with it because of fanboysm then well there ya go you get the idea.

TC is correct. DS3 sticks have a much tighter deadzone. Triggers on the DS3 do suck but after using bumpers I'll never go back to any triggers, too much travel/work. In short the 360 sticks are sloppy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/WingsofRedemption#p/search/2/MJK2o8MOjqE You may not like him but it's a fair comparison.

If anyone knows of an aftermarket for 360 with a better deadzone let me know.

^

Baker, you almost remind me of a lem version of that SWAG guy sometimes. :lol: You and Rybe both.

Anyways, which controller is truly better?

[spoiler] Its up to preference :o [/spoiler]

Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over the other gamepad.

Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over the other gamepad.

NeonNinja

Or better yet, just play with what you enjoy and avoid giving a ****.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over the other gamepad.

sandbox3d

Or better yet, just play with what you enjoy and avoid giving a ****.

What if you enjoy all of the controllers, but just realize that there's one definite winner for FPS games? In this case, keyboard and mouse.

[QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over the other gamepad.

NeonNinja

Or better yet, just play with what you enjoy and avoid giving a ****.

What if you enjoy all of the controllers, but just realize that there's one definite winner for FPS games? In this case, keyboard and mouse.

Well of course.

[QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over the other gamepad.

NeonNinja

Or better yet, just play with what you enjoy and avoid giving a ****.

What if you enjoy all of the controllers, but just realize that there's one definite winner for FPS games? In this case, keyboard and mouse.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

Or better yet, just play with what you enjoy and avoid giving a ****.

Strychtic

What if you enjoy all of the controllers, but just realize that there's one definite winner for FPS games? In this case, keyboard and mouse.

Preference is one thing, yes. I can acknowledge that.

But TC is trying to pass off playing with one gamepad as being more skill-based when both essentially do the same thing. Mind you the only FPS I have played with a dualshock 3 is Modern Warfare 2, so my knowledge of shooters on PS3 isn't extensive.

The problem with his stanceis that the KB/M offers more skill-based control, preferences for enjoyment aside.

If its a matter of preference you already play with your favorite method, but as a matter of skill? There's hardly any noticable difference between the two gamepads.

[QUOTE="Strychtic"][QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

What if you enjoy all of the controllers, but just realize that there's one definite winner for FPS games? In this case, keyboard and mouse.

NeonNinja

Preference is one thing, yes. I can acknowledge that.

But TC is trying to pass off playing with one gamepad as being more skill-based when both essentially do the same thing. Mind you the only FPS I have played with a dualshock 3 is Modern Warfare 2, so my knowledge of shooters on PS3 isn't extensive.

The problem with his stanceis that the KB/M offers more skill-based control, preferences for enjoyment aside.

If its a matter of preference you already play with your favorite method, but as a matter of skill? There's hardly any noticable difference between the two gamepads.

No. /thread.tehsystemwarior

Yes. \thread

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="Strychtic"] Some people actually prefer controllers to k/m even though they are inferior. Strychtic

Preference is one thing, yes. I can acknowledge that.

But TC is trying to pass off playing with one gamepad as being more skill-based when both essentially do the same thing. Mind you the only FPS I have played with a dualshock 3 is Modern Warfare 2, so my knowledge of shooters on PS3 isn't extensive.

The problem with his stanceis that the KB/M offers more skill-based control, preferences for enjoyment aside.

If its a matter of preference you already play with your favorite method, but as a matter of skill? There's hardly any noticable difference between the two gamepads.

I never said that you claimed either controller offered more skill. But TC states that on 360 games are noobish for everyone, but on PS3 if you're good you'll dominate. That translates to, one controller is more skill-based. Which I disagree with. Whatever the dead zone is, I'm too lazy to try it right now, it can't be that big of a deal as the TC makes it out to be. But he does state that result is better gaming on PS3 for FPS. Fact of that matter is, they're no different in the long-run and if that anyone brings up skill-based play, the best way to go about it is in fact how I mentioned in my original post.

"Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over another gamepad." Or something along those lines. I'm too lazy to quote too while we're at it. :P

[QUOTE="Strychtic"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Preference is one thing, yes. I can acknowledge that.

But TC is trying to pass off playing with one gamepad as being more skill-based when both essentially do the same thing. Mind you the only FPS I have played with a dualshock 3 is Modern Warfare 2, so my knowledge of shooters on PS3 isn't extensive.

The problem with his stanceis that the KB/M offers more skill-based control, preferences for enjoyment aside.

If its a matter of preference you already play with your favorite method, but as a matter of skill? There's hardly any noticable difference between the two gamepads.

NeonNinja

I never said that you claimed either controller offered more skill. But TC states that on 360 games are noobish for everyone, but on PS3 if you're good you'll dominate. That translates to, one controller is more skill-based. Which I disagree with. Whatever the dead zone is, I'm too lazy to try it right now, it can't be that big of a deal as the TC makes it out to be. But he does state that result is better gaming on PS3 for FPS. Fact of that matter is, they're no different in the long-run and if that anyone brings up skill-based play, the best way to go about it is in fact how I mentioned in my original post.

"Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over another gamepad." Or something along those lines. I'm too lazy to quote too while we're at it. :P

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="Strychtic"]Could be mistaken but I don't believe anyone brought up kb/m before you. I have not said anyone is more skillfull, only that the 360 sticks do infact have a larger deadzone.

Strychtic

I never said that you claimed either controller offered more skill. But TC states that on 360 games are noobish for everyone, but on PS3 if you're good you'll dominate. That translates to, one controller is more skill-based. Which I disagree with. Whatever the dead zone is, I'm too lazy to try it right now, it can't be that big of a deal as the TC makes it out to be. But he does state that result is better gaming on PS3 for FPS. Fact of that matter is, they're no different in the long-run and if that anyone brings up skill-based play, the best way to go about it is in fact how I mentioned in my original post.

"Play with a keyboard and mouse before trying to pass off one gamepad as n00bish over another gamepad." Or something along those lines. I'm too lazy to quote too while we're at it. :P

I agree with that.

Eh, most games use a good bit of auto-aim which has a much bigger impact on levelling out aiming. Skill in most FPS's (At least on consoles) has a lot more to do with quick reflexes, spotting enemies, and character placement.

What we have is someone copy and pasting an article from years ago it didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
The proof is in the pudding many people prefer the 360 controller for fps games.
P.S: the only reason the ps3 controller uses the bumpers for shooting in alot of games is because the triggers on the dualshock 3 completely blow.

nope...thanks to the triggers and resistance you get when moving with the sticks i get a better sense of movement/firing...it's comfortable. (360 controller)

Exact opposite for me. 360 sticks are superior to the DS3. Triggers make it even better.

I prefer the 360 controller for FPS games. The stick location on the Dual Shock has always bugged me.

My only issue is that after a while they can become uncalibrated resulting in a slow turn speed one way and a fast one the other or movement even when you aren't touching the stick. Also the jack port is lousy and the d-pad is ****.

the only reason the ps3 controller uses the bumpers for shooting in alot of games is because the triggers on the dualshock 3 completely blow.

WilliamRLBaker

Deadzone is somewhat allowed by developers, on PS3 on CoD games and BF2 the deadzones are very similar but on GT5 there is virtually no deadzone, i think a few people will agree that very subtle movements are registered on GT5. So i'm led to believe the deadzone is down to developer implementation of the controller inputs.JohnF111

Yeah, I can't play anything but Halo on 360 very comfortably. I really don't understand why the DS3 sticks are supposed to be worse, since the minute I started playing BC2 on PS3 I noticed how much better and more precise they felt.

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

I am the topic poster.

I just found this article comparing the two controllers:http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/11/22/analysis-ps3-vs-xbox-360-controller-comparison/

The article specifically discusses deadzone when discussing FPS games - here is an excerpt of that section:

In PC gaming the mouse offers near zero 'dead zone.' A dead zone is the area where the mouse or analog stick sits a rest and does not register any movement. An easy way of understanding this is if there was no dead zone in a controller's analog stick, the reticule (or aim) would constantly move around the screen.

The dead zone is an area around the center of the analog stick which allows for the aim to rest without the on screen reticule moving all over the place. After careful analysis of both controllers, the PS3 has a slightly smaller dead zone than the Xbox 360′s gamepad.

This means that the Xbox 360′s gamepad has a larger dead zone, or area where little to no movement is registered. The PS3′s DS3 has a smaller dead zone, meaning that it takes less effort to register a movement using the analog stick. The PS3′s analog stick is also noticeably loose compared to that of the Xbox 360′s analog stick, which offers a bit of resistance.

So, you may be asking – what does the size of the dead zone have to do with anything?

The simple answer is precision. With a larger dead zone it takes more effort and motion to make a movement. Coupled along with higher resistance or friction to the analog stick, it can lead to over compensation for gamers. Also sloppy aiming occurs due to greater motion required to achieve a movement.

Since the PS3′s DS3 has a smaller dead zone the analog stick is much more responsive. Also, with the analog stick being looser, it is more akin to a mouse's movement.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/11/22/analysis-ps3-vs-xbox-360-controller-comparison/

I've noticed the same thing.

but isn't the Xbox 360 the indisputed "shooter console"?

but isn't the Xbox 360 the indisputed "shooter console"?

TheKing012

I actually just picked up the Arkham City controller for the ps3, which uses the 360 layout. Took some getting use to, but I think it functions just as well as the ps3 controller. I wouldn't use it for fighters, but it still feels good. Speaking of...anything pick up that Arkham controller? Pretty sweet.

Edit: One thing that I have noticed, is that you really have to stretch your thumb from the stick to the dpad. Much easier and comfortable on the ps3 controller.

The only FPS game I played on my wired 360 controller is Bioshock on the PC. It's great. No problems, not even with the D-pad.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]I disagree, I find the 360 sticks and triggers to be far superior.onewiththegame

I agree

Me, too. I prefer the 360controller for everything except the DPad.

360 controller is awful...the L1 and R1 (yes im aware thats not their names) are simply lousy. and dont even get me started on the dpad

On paper the PS3 controller has some nice goodies

It's just a shame it doesn't actually fit the hands like a glove as the 360 controller does.

The 360 controller is far better to use for most games.