Yeah, now try without any Aim Assist.

That is truly an unpopular opinion. It's also wrong so that's probably why. /s

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.

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.

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.

Show me a professional competitive gamer who plays with a controller. I'll wait.

Serviceable isn't the same as good.

They certainly work. Sure. But a mouse is still objectively superior in terms of speed and precision.

"The control scheme that needs aim assist for fps games is good"

???

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?".

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 :)

Eh, you can't get precision shooting with a controller in a fast-paced fight.

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.

I don't think anybody actually hates on you for using a controller on a computer. Whatever input you like is fine. Have the best experience you want.

The only issue is in competitive games, where everyone has to have the same playing field, nobody with an unfair advantage. Then a controller without aim assistance, put you at a severe disadvantage. Which is why people for cross-play games recommend the keyboard and mouse to be more competitive.

Deluded

OP, if you mean aiming with sticks, consider how they work vs mouse. E.g. while you rotating left and at some momet decide to immediately rotate right, you can do this instantly with a mouse, but you have to go from the "rotating to the left" through "rotating to the left slightly", "don't rotate", "rotate to the right slightly" in order to reach the "rotate to the right" phase. Yes, various games and control schemes can reduce the impact of this lag, but ultimately this lag is unavoidable with sticks, and the mouse scheme doesn't ever need any corrections for the similar situation. It only ever suffers from broken or forced acceleration settings in some games.

Halo 1,2,3 Legendary speed run word record holders use comtrollers (yes, PC). I have not seen this with any other game. It is about how well a game is optimised for controllers. It is hard to land head shots with a controller in Counter Strike, but slightly easy in Battlefield (yes, without aim assist).

Play with the input you like to play, nobody cares.
In highly competitive games, I just wish they would separate ques by input, because aim assist in most games is cranked so high that it's basically an aimbot.

Instantly downvoted for this terrible opinion. Then noticed the sub.