[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx I see that you said game A originally had a larger skill gap. I would like for you to tell me what made game A have a larger skill gap in the first place... If it has slower movement speeds and aim assist then what on Earth would game A still have over game B?[/quote] In this hypothetical example, does it matter what differences the games had to begin with? My point was that a game with assist is not [i]necessarily[/i] going to have a lower skill gap than a very different game without assist. [quote]What I mean is that the harder it is to get used to something the more skill/mastery it takes. It's not a hard concept to grasp. If it's something you can sit down and learn how to proficiently use (Not comfortably, proficiently) in a day then that obviously doesn't have as large of a skill range than something that takes weeks or even months.[/quote] Okay, I agree with this. (At least with what seems to be the idea; I don't like the connotations of the "get used to" in the first sentence, for the reasons I stated before.) But while I agree that it's easy to pick up a controller and use it comfortably, I've seen no evidence that it's easy for anyone to rise to great heights of controller-use proficiency*. [quote]My original point was this: If you put slower movement speeds and aim assist on a game it then decreases the full potential of the game's skill gap, therefore, I don't like competitive games being developed with it. It seems that now you agree with me on that.[/quote] No, I only agreed that it has a tendency to decrease the skill gap. I also argued, however, that it's entirely possible for games operated from gamepad to have high skill gaps*, and that some amount of aim assist can make them more practical and reasonable to play while still maintaining more than sufficiently high skill gaps for competitive play. //============= *Perhaps I should clarify this point that I use in these spots. Consider this: The theoretical performance ceiling of gamepads with respect to shooting in FPS games is almost as high as that of K&M, that ceiling being "perfect aim." However, as it is harder to squeeze precision out of a gamepad, the practical performance floor with a gamepad is actually far lower. Hence, the possible performance [i]range[/i] for users of a gamepad seems to me to be, if anything, far larger than that for users of K&M. And by my earlier point, if this range is sufficiently large, reducing it to make a game playable might result in a range that is still reasonably large. [Edited on 12.29.2011 10:09 PM PST]