[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sdnomdE In this hypothetical example, does it matter what differences the games had to begin with?[/quote]Yes. Yes it would, actually. What other things could this game have that would cause it to have a higher skill ceiling than that of Quake/Unreal Tournament/Counter-Strike so much so that even with slower movement speeds/aim assist it has just as much skill as those games?[/quote] I didn't say anything about what games "A" and "B" were, and what interfaces they were being played through, and how much assist either of them had in initial state. For an extremely crude and simplistic example, suppose game A is Quake and game B is Quake slowed down by 1000% and with doubly-large hitboxes. Now suppose that game A has its movement slowed by 10% and has a [i]tiny[/i] bit of magnetism added. Surely you agree that it's quite likely that game A still has a larger skill gap than game B? Yes, it's a [i]very[/i] extreme example, but it's simply to point out that your earlier statement about how all games with assist necessarily have lower skill gaps than all games without assist was a tad absolutist. That's really [i]all[/i] I was trying to say with it. [quote][quote]I've seen no evidence that it's easy for anyone to rise to great heights of controller-use proficiency*.[/quote]I never said it was [i]easy[/i] to reach great heights of proficiency with controllers. All I said is that it's easier. With things such as aim assist and slower movement speeds purposely nerfing the difficulty of the games to seem more playable towards newer users so they will actually buy the product/continue playing, it causes it to be easier (Not saying easy, just easier) to hit the skill ceiling.[/quote] Once again, I stated nothing about whether aim assist and slow movement are being applied or not. I'm talking basic proficiencies here, not basic proficiencies once a mask of slow movement and high assist has been applied. Obviously a game with sufficiently slow movement and sufficiently high assist to have a lower skill gap than a typical M&K-intended game will have a lower skill gap than a typical M&K-intended game. That's a very clear tautology, and not something I want to be caught denying! [quote][quote]*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.[/quote]Actually, with aim assist, it's not hard at all to squeeze precision out of a controller. It's quite easy to pull off headshots on the Xbox Halo games when compared to PC shooters such as Unreal Tournament. Even to someone who is above average in both which I consider myself to be.[/quote] Once again, I was assuming all other things equal in the hypothetical situation. However, you seem to take this into account... //============= [quote]It [i]would[/i] be larger if people moved faster and the aim assist was dropped.[/quote] [b]Ah ha![/b] Then, it seems, we have some sort of common understanding. In and of themselves, with no other qualifiers, we agree that gamepads provide a very high skill gap. We also agree that gamepad-based FPS games are clunky without assistance and hence typically require aim assist and/or reduced movement speeds as compared to M&K games in order to play smoothly. We agree that reducing movement speeds, and adding assist, are both factors with a rendency to reduce the skill gap, and that the stronger they are, the more the skill gap will be reduced. The disagreement we have is around the following question: Can a gamepad-based FPS title have enough of these forms of assistance to play smoothly while retaining a high skill gap for competitive play? Your answer to this seems to be "no"; that despite the innately huge skill gap of gamepads, the amount of assistance that is typically considered sufficient in order to make the game play smoothly is always so high that the skill gap will definitely drop to below that of typical competitive M&K-based games (and usually down to levels which are not suited for competitive play). I, obviously, disagree. That said. Regardless of whether I'm being stubborn, or you're being stubborn, or we're both idiots, or whatever, I believe that it's abundantly clear that neither of us is going to win the other over with our assertions one way or the other. It's always nice when big discussions end conclusively, but if we have neither entirely new thoughts or a large and rigorous numerical study on score gaps and consistencies between different types of games to bring up, I suspect we're getting close to the limit of where this discussion can go. So maybe we should wrap it up soon, rather than forcing it to spiral into us repeating ourselves and getting angry, as internet discussions so often do. //============= However, I would like to bring up one last thing: In addition to skill gap concerns, you seem to dislike assist on principle due to the awkward "hand-holding" aspect of it, as it's a bit like the game is playing itself. So... With respect to that issue, what are your thoughts on aim acceleration in games designed for gamepads? Not magnetism toward enemies, just the natural gumminess that reticles in many games have toward changes in velocity that makes fine-tuned aiming (and, to some extent, compensating for input lag) easier. (Edit: Reach has a lot of this acceleration, whereas Halo 1 has little to none of it. It can be felt by just looking around.) [Edited on 12.30.2011 2:52 AM PST]