Dual Sticks or Point & Click?

Dual Sticks
3 (33.3%)
Point & Click
6 (66.7%)
Other (Explain)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9


Author Topic: DUEL STIX vs. PC Point & Click  (Read 4087 times)


  • Bob-Omg
« on: December 28, 2009, 06:03:57 PM »
I've seen this debate come up quite a few times over the years, and been involved in debates over it, as well. Now, I'd like to know your opinions on it.

As for myself, I am a proponent of dual sticks.

You may argue that it is unnatural, cumbersome, and slow, but I believe the opposite to be true for one main reason: I've shot real firearms before, including pistols, revolvers, shotguns, submachine guns (semi-automatic), and rifles, and a dual stick configuration captures that feeling of handling a real firearm much, much better than pointing and clicking.

With the point & click system, you can unnaturally swing a gun around as fast as you can move the mouse and focus your sights directly at your target(s) with the utmost ease. After shooting real firearms, that's just not how it works. Holding a real firearm fatigues you, of course, especially after holding it for an extended period (sometimes just going through one 15 round magazine can make you need to set the firearm down, depending on its weight and length... and if you're standing up). Applying force to the firearm to acquire multiple targets quickly is especially exhausting and it takes a bit of time to acquire them and take the shot safely and efficiently. Some PC setups make the firearm feel as if it's a plastic NERF toy... as if it weighs about a pound or so and that you can wave it around wildly.

A dual stick configuration captures the "heavy" feeling nicely and transcribes the real handling of a firearm very nicely. I like the slower, more predictable feeling of dual sticks. I can slowly adjust my aim and the screen follows where the firearm is pointing (as if you're aiming down the sights) unlike some PC (or even Wii) setups that angle the barrel of the firearm itself to where your mouse is pointing instead of both the player character and firearm as one unit.

One big thing (that is a bit unrelated to the topic at hand) is using an inverted aiming setup. Many N64 games had an inverted setup, and that's just what I was automatically used to and have used since then. People think I'm crazy for going inverted, but at the same time, I think people who use up/up & down/down aiming are crazy.

I like to use this visualization: Split a firearm in half (length-wise). The buttstock (yes, they're called buttstocks) would represent the right analog stick. Keeping that in mind, if the gun spins on the axis where it was split, pulling the right stick down (the buttstock) would make the opposite end (the barrel) point up, similar to a see-saw/teeter-totter/whatever you like to call those. I'll include an image to help you visualize it:

EDIT: So what are your opinions on the matter at hand and the inversion vs. "normal" debate?

« Last Edit: December 28, 2009, 06:21:07 PM by Trainman »
Formerly quite reasonable.


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2009, 06:45:00 PM »
I'm definitely a keyboard-and-mouse sort of guy. This applies to games in general, not just first-person shooters - I feel more comfortable using a keyboard instead of a controller for most games I play.

What you're saying about some PC setups feeling strange due to the perceived "weight" of the gun being next to nothing makes perfect sense, and it's largely due to players using different sensitivity settings. My mouse, for example, can be set to 400, 800, 1600, or 2000 DPI, and while you'd probably go with 400 or maybe even 800 DPI if you were going for a more realistic feel, you'd want a higher setting if you wanted to be able to turn more quickly. I typically use the 1600 DPI setting.

I'm surprised you're called strange for using an inverted set-up - though I don't use that set-up myself, it's the norm among many players I've talked to.


  • Bob-Omg
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2009, 07:02:44 PM »
Not a single person I know uses inversion which I think is the craziest thing in the world.
Formerly quite reasonable.

« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2009, 07:03:08 PM »
Inverted 4 Life

« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2009, 07:18:02 PM »
Every FPS fan I know prefers inverted aim, and as do I on the rare occasions that I play them. However, claiming that "normal" aim "doesn't make sense" isn't quite fair: It mighten't from the gunman's perspective, but it does from that of the end of the gun or the targeting reticule. Just saying.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Chupperson Weird

  • Not interested.
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2009, 07:18:33 PM »
This is yet another example of Having Fun vs. Overthinking The Universe.
Anyway, I have played about 3 First Person games ever and while Mirror's Edge did decently well with dual analog, I think mouse & keyboard generally better serves the control setup. Keyboards don't have analog walking speed control, though, and that is not so good.
That was a joke.


« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2009, 08:01:05 PM »
With the point & click system, you can unnaturally swing a gun around as fast as you can move the mouse and focus your sights directly at your target(s) with the utmost ease. After shooting real firearms, that's just not how it works.
Grabbing an imaginary badge of authority, I'll start off by stating I've also shot real guns. Realism as a point of judgment is faulty, it isn't the point. Superior accuracy is the goal, despite what you may think, the greatness of the mouse doesn't result in perfect aim, the user still has faults. Why increase this fault by having purposefully clunky control? Anyone who has played with both mouse&keyboard and dual analog sticks an equal amount must agree that the mouse&keyboard are superior. Console gamers who played Half-Life on their friend's computer that one time don't count.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 08:59:26 AM by TEM »


  • Bob-Omg
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2009, 08:25:59 PM »
I think some of you have blown this out of proportion.

@Weegee: I made the diagram to help everyone understand and make a visualization of how inverted aim works for me and how it makes sense to me, not try and prove that inverted aim is superior or that people who understand but disagree with my diagram are just flat-out wrong (@Chupperson: or over-analyze everything).

@TEM: I understand that the end goal is to shoot the guy with great accuracy or whatever and that with a mouse you can point and click quickly to achieve that; however, all I'm saying is that I have a preference for dual sticks over keyboard & mouse just because.... hey! I like it! It suits me better! ...just like a keyboard & mouse probably suits you better than two analog sticks. It's a preference and nothing more than that.
Formerly quite reasonable.


  • 黒松
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2009, 08:47:16 PM »
After playing Team Fortress 2 on the Xbox 360 for a considerable amount of time, I am almost completely convinced that anyone playing the sniper class is either a troll or a complete noob.

I think Dual Analog Sticks are much harder to learn than Point and Clicks, because despite using the former far more than the latter, I still suck at the former. What makes things worse is that each FPS has the analog sticks function differently for each game.

Also, I'm non-inverted. When I want to point my gun UPWARDS I move my mouse/stick UP. Any other way just completely blows a fuse in my mind. (Unless I'm playing Goldeneye or Jet Force Gemini)

Chupperson Weird

  • Not interested.
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2009, 08:51:14 PM »
Trainman, why did you create this thread if not for the stimulating philosophical discussion? Your rebuttal that it "just suits you" after explaining how you think everyone else in the world is wrong is highly confusing.
That was a joke.


  • Bob-Omg
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2009, 05:31:27 AM »
I may have said it's not realistic, Chupperson, but I never said it was wrong.
Formerly quite reasonable.


  • Banned
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2009, 12:40:37 PM »
I actually like this topic very much for the amount of research you put into it.

FPS-wise, I was raised on inverted aim. It's always felt natural to me, and I find it difficut to adjust to non-inverted aim. But when it comes to keyboard+mouse, it's point and click for me. On the other hand, my play styles are fairly different depending on my inputs. On consoles, I strafe and jump a lot more than I do on PC to adjust for slower aim time. On PC, I take more time to aim since I turn the mouse sensitivity up and swivel to face new targets while repositioning myself. Because of this, I generally never even bother using things like sniper rifles on console games (especially in multiplayer), since by the time I aim at the dude's head or other weak point, it's already moved and I just get frustrated.

« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2009, 12:53:44 PM »
Dual stick invert is an advantage because when I have to play non-inverted, like when I can't immediately change the controls or when I switch controllers with someone, aiming still isn't too difficult. I am aware that the control scheme is different, and my brain works hard to ignore my inverted instincts and push up to aim up, but I am able to play the game sufficiently.

For someone who plays non-inverted, it would be very difficult to play inverted for any period of time. They're used to non-inverted aiming, and inverted is a drastic change that doesn't make sense in the non-inverted brain.


  • Old Person™
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2009, 01:48:56 PM »
I can see the advantages of point and click, but still prefer duel sticks for 3D games.  The analog sticks seem more natural to me, but that may be more because I grew with hand-held controllers and got most of my first experiences using it on N64.  I also prefer inverted aim.  Again, it feels natural to me. 
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2009, 02:18:44 AM »
My experience with first-person controls was back in the N64 days starting with Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, then going on to others like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. With Turok I learned "move with the C buttons, aim with the control stick". Goldeneye threw me off a little with its default layout being the opposite, but I quickly became accustomed to the Solitaire layout. Good times.

Along comes the GameCube with two control sticks. I don't know what it was, but for the life of me I could never get used to two control sticks at the same time. I end up focusing so much on just walking in a straight line (since walking is now analog) that I can't aim at anything. It was because of this inability to get used to a new control scheme in 10 seconds that turned me off from Timesplitters. Which I'm sure was the Best First Person Shooter Evar if I gave it a chance. That and... I didn't know what to do near the end of the first level. Yeah. Maybe none of the other games I played ever used both sticks at once. Might be a pat your head and rub your tummy sort of thing. The other GameCube shooter I tried was Turok Evolution. Aside from sucking, believe it or not I got lost on the first level. All that ridiculous shrubbery everywhere making it so I can't see where I'm going. It can't bode well for me wanting open environments if I can't handle essentially walking through a corn field. Toppling trees by shooting at them was fun though.

Playing on the PC is different but no panacea either. I'm used to moving the mouse quickly and precisely since I use the computer every single day. So because of that, I go completely berserk when the player moves slowly in a PC first-person shooter. I crank up the mouse sensitivity as high as it will go. That's because I absolutely need to be able to turn 180 degrees with one swipe of the mouse. I've always used a corded mouse, so I'm used to having limited room to move it. The only problem? Multiplayer is useless because the people are absolute experts, do bunny hops, and have an ounce of strategy (me, I just run straight forward while shooting).

The only time I really had fun with PC multiplayer was in Unreal Tournament where I routinely got 1st/2nd/3rd place mainly because I spazzed out so much in my movement (and had sensitivity at max) that I could rely on reflexes to save me rather than strategy. The kills I got were usually with the crosshair a few pixels away from missing. It was such a good feeling to be in a LAN party and then have some other kid stand up and say "okay, who's Raptorian?" (that was my screenname) Nope, I didn't get pummeled, but it was nice to win for once. But I was very easy to beat: just camp out in an area that you have to actually look up to see, and just snipe.

Come to think of it, that's how I won in other games too: quick dodge reflexes and then spam-move counters.

I prefer inverted aiming, again because that's what Turok did. It just makes more sense to me to tilt back to look up, as a bunch of other technology works that way. I get major shock if inverted control is not turned on. But it's still nothing compared to the mess I'm in if I have to use two analog sticks at once. Forget that slow heavy movement is more realistic; I've since learned that simulation games are too boring. I can't fly a plane in Flight Simulator, I always die in Test Drive, hunting games are worthless (I don't want to think about wind speed and distance and curvature of the Earth). I tried one of the Cabellas hunting games (the Arctic adventure one). It wasn't the worst game I ever played, but it was very difficult for me to hit any moving targets unless they were headed straight for me. That one was realistic I guess, you moved and turned slowly, got fatigued easily, had some jerk telling you what you can and can't legally shoot at, dying in two seconds if an animal mauled you. That's just what I want to see in a game, me getting killed by a wolverine.

*looks at a picture of a wolverine* They looked small and puny in the Cabellas game, but I'm sure it could kill me in real life. "The wolverine has a reputation for ferocity and strength out of proportion to its size, with the documented ability to kill prey many times its size." Right. And I thought Tasmanian devils looked dangerous.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2009, 02:21:58 AM by penguinwizard »
You didn't say wot wot.