Best Game Controller for Crysis 2 on PC

[michael775]

Don't know what categories to put this under but I am looking for a good PC Game controller For Crysis 2 wondering if you got any suggestions I herd the Xbox 360 controller works on PC is this a good choice.
I have a Logitech Dual Action but its crap it does not work in GTA sanandraes & Bioshock 1 and pinnacle game profiler did not help one bit so I am looking for a controller that is Compatible with %99 of all or most PC games & I here that the Micro$soft Xbox 360 controller works quite well with most games is this true & how good is it rely on PC games or is there something better then it.
Apparently there is allot of people out there with the same problem thanks.

 

[daedalus685]

There is a game forum. There is no crysis 2 yet, who knows what it will support.

Why would one not use a mouse when they can for an FPS though?!?!

Anyway, a 360 controller works fine for the PC.

Developers expect you to sue a mouse and keyboard, support with any extra controller will be sketchy.

 

[rhamutap]

There is a game forum. There is no crysis 2 yet, who knows what it will support.

Why would one not use a mouse when they can for an FPS though?!?!

Anyway, a 360 controller works fine for the PC.

Developers expect you to sue a mouse and keyboard, support with any extra controller will be sketchy.

Technically, you don't know what the developers expect you to use at this point. That statement is pure speculation. It is a good assumption, but you cannot definitively say this at this point in time.

 

[jay2tall]

Best FPS controller = Mouse and Keyboard, even console gamers will agree.

But I have seen people use the 360 remote.

 

[daedalus685]

Technically, you don't know what the developers expect you to use at this point. That statement is pure speculation. It is a good assumption, but you cannot definitively say this at this point in time.

OK, but I know what the developers of every other FPS game ever made on the PC expect me to use...

That was not a specific statement, in general a developer expects you to use the most common controls. Everyone has a mouse and keyboard, just like everyone playing a PS3 has a dual shock.. Nowhere did I say Cryteck expects "x." But every developer ever, expects the most common, the only support you can count on is that of the standard, anything more is a cherry on top, or up to the makers of your add ins.

To expect support for somethnig that is not standard is not logical. They might add support for a controller, the makers of a game pad might include support for it with the drivers, but if one wants a controller that works 100% of the time they need to use a mouse and keyboard.

 

[rhamutap]

"OK, but I know what the developers of every other FPS game ever made on the PC expect me to use... "

Yes, because those games are out already.

But for all we know, Crytek could be developing their own input device to radically change shooters as we know them and doing away with mouse/keyboard.

"To expect support for somethnig that is not standard is not logical. They might add support for a controller, the makers of a game pad might include support for it with the drivers, but if one wants a controller that works 100% of the time they need to use a mouse and keyboard."

It's not 100%

 

[mactronix]

"OK, but I know what the developers of every other FPS game ever made on the PC expect me to use... "

Yes, because those games are out already.

But for all we know, Crytek could be developing their own input device to radically change shooters as we know them and doing away with mouse/keyboard.

"To expect support for somethnig that is not standard is not logical. They might add support for a controller, the makers of a game pad might include support for it with the drivers, but if one wants a controller that works 100% of the time they need to use a mouse and keyboard."

It's not 100%

Stop being a complete arse, daedalus685 made a reasonable statement based on facts and your arguing that hes just being speculative by being speculative yourself
if your confused im refering to this twaddle you posted "But for all we know, Crytek could be developing their own input device to radically change shooters as we know them and doing away with mouse/keyboard."
The default hardware user interface for a PC is a keyboard and mouse, Nothing anyone could introduce will make that change overnight.
Your petulant pickyness isnt helping anyone least of all you, so why not stick to answering the question instead of trying (very badly) to argue a false point.

@Michael775
If you want full support for such a game then a Keyboard and mouse is really the only gauranteed way to get compatability. There are specific Gamer keyboards on the market with programable macros buttons for special moves or combinations such as Crouching and moving while interacting with/using items. Doing this would normally mean pressing multiple buttons on the keyboard, while its not as big an issue as it was some keyboards may throw a wobbley if you try this.
There are even boards with a Game pad type afair that detaches from the side of the main board. I guess this would take some getting used to if you are mainly using Xbox type controlers but its a thought.

Mactronix

 

[daedalus685]

"OK, but I know what the developers of every other FPS game ever made on the PC expect me to use... "

Yes, because those games are out already.

But for all we know, Crytek could be developing their own input device to radically change shooters as we know them and doing away with mouse/keyboard.

"To expect support for somethnig that is not standard is not logical. They might add support for a controller, the makers of a game pad might include support for it with the drivers, but if one wants a controller that works 100% of the time they need to use a mouse and keyboard."

It's not 100%

/facepalm

Even if a company made their own controller, they would still have to support basic functions if they expect to sell the game.

You obviously do not understand my point, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt before I assume you are trolling.

I am not claiming to know anything about crysis 2. I am not claiming to know anything about what controllers will support it. But developers, all of them, code for the masses. If you want assured support you need to use what everyone else does. It may very well come with its own input device, but that is irrelevant, it will still support the basics, it has to.

Nothing is 100%... there is a finite probability we could wake up tomorrow with the sky being amber instead of blue, or having all of our particles appear on mars. I do prefer to round up though. While there is some number less than 100% to represent the chances of Crysis 2 releasing for the PC without support for a keyboard and mouse, the delta with 100% would contain so many repeating zeros after the decimal I'd be here all day typing them. I'd much prefer to call it 100% and leave it at that, but if you prefer 99.99999999999999999 and so on then so be it. The chances of it supporting your average game pad are FAR less, and usually up to the makers of said pad, not Crytek.

Why would Crytek waste time coding for a special logitech super pad when they can just support what everyone has used for 15 years and leave it to logitech to add support if they want to? This is how this sort of thing works.

There is no need for this pedantic BS.

 

[rhamutap]

Stop being a complete arse, daedalus685 made a reasonable statement based on facts and your arguing that hes just being speculative by being speculative yourself
if your confused im refering to this twaddle you posted "But for all we know, Crytek could be developing their own input device to radically change shooters as we know them and doing away with mouse/keyboard."
The default hardware user interface for a PC is a keyboard and mouse, Nothing anyone could introduce will make that change overnight.
Your petulant pickyness isnt helping anyone least of all you, so why not stick to answering the question instead of trying (very badly) to argue a false point.

@Michael775
If you want full support for such a game then a Keyboard and mouse is really the only gauranteed way to get compatability. There are specific Gamer keyboards on the market with programable macros buttons for special moves or combinations such as Crouching and moving while interacting with/using items. Doing this would normally mean pressing multiple buttons on the keyboard, while its not as big an issue as it was some keyboards may throw a wobbley if you try this.
There are even boards with a Game pad type afair that detaches from the side of the main board. I guess this would take some getting used to if you are mainly using Xbox type controlers but its a thought.

Mactronix

I'm sorry you think facts turn people into 'arses'.

 

[rhamutap]

It may very well come with its own input device, but that is irrelevant, it will still support the basics, it has to.

It doesn't have to do anything.

 

[daedalus685]

It doesn't have to do anything.

Now I am certain you are a troll, sorry I wasted my time on the likes of you.

It does in fact, have to do things. You see, people in this world want to "sell" things. We can argue all day about how Crysis 2 could be a horse dress up game.. But in a rational society we are interested in rational things. I can say, with as much certainty as is possible in our reality, that Crysis 2 will be made with the intent to make money. Given that alone we can derive many things about it. For instance, I am 100% sure it will not be about styling the hair of pink horses, just as I am 100% certian it will support a mouse...

It is not my fault you do not understand basic uncertainty principals.

Perhaps I was too ahrsh and you are not a troll. It is entirely possible you are just not very bright. Maybe you are a poorly trained relativist who can't accept that things can be assumed to happen a given way until they do, that logic and rationality have no place and are flawed, but that brings me back to the point about not being very bright. Even a brilliant reletavist woudl understand that some things are more likely than others.. and generally know the basics of statistical error representation.

 

[jyjjy]

Crysis 2 = First Person Shooter
So the obvious answer is a keyboard + mouse is a much better choice than any controller. Move on.

 

[wh3resmycar]

so theres interest in crysis once again?

im gonna reinstall crysis:Wars and check how many people're online. lol

 

[rhamutap]

Now I am certain you are a troll, sorry I wasted my time on the likes of you.

It does in fact, have to do things. You see, people in this world want to "sell" things. We can argue all day about how Crysis 2 could be a horse dress up game.. But in a rational society we are interested in rational things. I can say, with as much certainty as is possible in our reality, that Crysis 2 will be made with the intent to make money. Given that alone we can derive many things about it. For instance, I am 100% sure it will not be about styling the hair of pink horses, just as I am 100% certian it will support a mouse...

It is not my fault you do not understand basic uncertainty principals.

Perhaps I was too harsh and you are not a troll. It is entirely possible you are just not very bright. Maybe you are a poorly trained relativist who can't accept that things can be assumed to happen a given way until they do, that logic and rationality have no place and are flawed, but that brings me back to the point about not being very bright. Even a brilliant reletavist woudl understand that some things are more likely than others.. and generally know the basics of statistical error representation.

You speak in a very matter of fact sense, which is fine, but you need to be aware that all of your proclamations are not fact . I was simply stating that you cannot know these things until they happen. There is no way you can even be 100% sure it will not be about styling the hair of pink horses nor 100% certain it will support a mouse. So please accept this and move on.

 

[EXT64]

They could bring about world peace with their next game too I suppose.

 

[rhamutap]

They could bring about world peace with their next game too I suppose.

Not likely, but yes it could bring world peace and there is no way you can be 100% sure it cannot.

 

[jyjjy]

lol
and when you typed the second N in the word cannot it could have caused all the kittens in the world to explode and yet you did it anyway. You sir are a monster.

 

[rhamutap]

What can I say... I live on the edge.

 

[daedalus685]

You speak in a very matter of fact sense, which is fine, but you need to be aware that all of your proclamations are not fact . I was simply stating that you cannot know these things until they happen. There is no way you can even be 100% sure it will not be about styling the hair of pink horses nor 100% certain it will support a mouse. So please accept this and move on.

There is nothing to accept son. I understand that you may not have much education in numbers, but you have to realise that 100% is not the same as 100.00000000000%. To state that something is 100% merely means that it is close. Without stating the precision it is implied that I could in fact mean 99.5% as 100% = 99.5% if one were to round like a sensible individual.

You may believe that the chances of X happening are less than what I think, that is fine, but I do no believe they are certain. I merely believe that within all reason it is a waste of my time to type out that I believe a situation is actually more likely 99.9999999999999% sure (or whatever). It is you, Mr Pedant, which cannot grasp the concept. But maybe you can, and you are just an ass, but I'm game.

I must point out that it is you that speaks in such a matter of fact way. It is obvious that to some degree no one can be certain about anything. Yet rather than accepting rounding you lambast on about how I am wrong. I’d like to know how I could be right, as I have argued with people like you many times before, obviously I cannot be right. I could claim to a billion decimal places how I see the probability of a situation arising, and there are an infinite number I would have to leave out for you to complain about how I can’t know for sure I am right, the actual value might be different.

Let me ask, what is the value of pi? Certainly it is not 3.14, as that is saying it is 3.14000 which is not the same as 3.14159. Do they not teach uncertainty in school anymore?

If you wish to have a real conversation on the lines of "Hey, I think the odds of it supporting a mouse are only 80%." Then do that so I can make more of a fool out of you. But that is not what you were on about; instead you blast nonsense because you fail to grasp simple logic and how numbers are represented. 100% does not mean certain, it just means close to certain. Does the fact that the sky is transparent and not actually truly blue keep you from calling it blue when someone asks? Do you insist on explaining that the particles in the air cause Rayleigh scattering to make it appear as it does? Nothing is what it seems, therefore beauty does not exist?

100 = 99.5
100.0 <> 99.5
100.0 = 99.95

Do we understand now?

I am well and aware that there is no situation one can think of that could not, in theory, have a finite probability placed on it. Thus, the way you argue I can only assume that you absolutely never use 100% in any aspect of your life. As it clearly indicates absolute certainty, and since nothing can be absolutely certain in a seemingly quantum universe the entire term should be stricken from our common knowledge. So from now on everyone must be able to produce at least infinite precision in their numerical representation, if they cannot we have to kick them off the internet, as that is the rational thing to do. In fact, unless one can present a number to infinite precision we should just kill them, lest they fill our heads with the notion that effectively impossible things are actually truly impossible. That would be worse than famine, obviously.

What is fact? I could just as easily come up with some rediculous situation for absolutely any fact you give me nomatter how unrealistic, to show how you are therefor not sure. Must we also avoid ever using the word fact? Even in math, as our understanding that 2+2=4 is based only on our acceptance that we use a particular number base, and is only a set of rules we created to try to explain the universe. It is only a fact on paper, in the confines of pure number theory which is, afterall, just a model. So I suppose that a fact is something that only ever exists in the confines of a pre determined model? You best be careful using that term too, the thought police are out in force.

 

[daedalus685]

Not likely, but yes it could bring world peace and there is no way you can be 100% sure it cannot.

Actually I can be. I am without any shadow of doubt 100% sure that Crysis 2 will not bring about world peace.

I may not be 100.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% sure, but can we see how annoying that would become if we did away with approximation?

Percent is not an integer remember, this is not a math test were there are only 100 equal marks and the step below 100 is 99. Probability has no such quantizations (at least not for a LOT of zeros) yet you seem to assume as such.

 

[jyjjy]

But we can't be 100% sure you aren't just a giant squid randomly attacking the keyboard with your tentacles and the results happened to be that last post. So how can we take what you have to say seriously?

 

[daedalus685]

But we can't be 100% sure you aren't just a giant squid randomly attacking the keyboard with your tentacles and the results happened to be that last post. So how can we take what you have to say seriously?

It is comforting to know that not everyone inhabits the same planet as rhamutap.

 

[rhamutap]

Actually I can be. I am without any shadow of doubt 100% sure that Crysis 2 will not bring about world peace.

I may not be 100.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% sure, but can we see how annoying that would become if we did away with approximation?

Percent is not an integer remember, this is not a math test were there are only 100 equal marks and the step below 100 is 99. Probability has no such quantizations (at least not for a LOT of zeros) yet you seem to assume as such.

Then we will have to agree to disagree because there is no way you can be 100% sure that Crysis 2 will not bring about world peace.

There is nothing wrong with saying 99%. It is commonly accepted, doesn't sound as absolutist, and you don't have to worry about semantics.

 

[daedalus685]

Then we will have to agree to disagree because there is no way you can be 100% sure that Crysis 2 will not bring about world peace.

There is nothing wrong with saying 99%. It is commonly accepted, doesn't sound as absolutist, and you don't have to worry about semantics.

If you understood how uncertainty worked you would see that stating 100% is the same as 99.999999. I am not 99% sure that crysis will not bring world peace; I am far surer than that. How would you have me round?

Is it your contention that all rounding should be rounded down? I could hear arguments for the reason to do that, but I'd never do it myself. I am so sure that Crysis will not bring world peace it would be a waste of everyone’s time for me to include all of the digits in the delta between my certainty and true integer 100.

As I stated before, a percent in this case is not an integer. 100% as a probability is not the same as stating 100 clear units out of 100, that level of certainty has to be shown through precision. Since I never used a decimal place there is no implied precision in my number beyond give or take something less than 1.

If I were to say that I believe that crysis is 99% sure to not bring about world peace I am implying that I think that were crysis to be made only 100 times it is likely that one of them did bring about world peace. That is a ridiculous statement. It is not up to me for someone like you to understand scientific uncertainty, but just because you do not is in no way an indication that you are correct.

We are not arguing semantics here; you are simply incorrect in your understanding of what is meant by a value such as 100. If we were argueing semantics we would be talking about the difference between formal precision and implied precision, all that is going on is I am talking to a wall about a topic. You were arguing in order to be pedantic and nitpicky, and your assumption was wrong. Whether you thought I meant 100.00000000000....% when I said 100% does not matter, that is not how values are represented. You cannot state that we are arguing semantics when the two values represent totally different levels of precision. They are not the same, in any respect. You tried to be an ass by pulling the relativism card in order to get a response, and you did, I fed the troll. Nothing is absolute just a sure as the sky seems blue; to call attention to it in the first place makes you "an arse". To argue about the numbers based on your limited knowledge of what they actually represents and repeatedly betray you ignorance makes you a fool.

I think you definitely need to learn more about the school of thought on the philosophy of reality, and why even a pure relativist would cringe at your assertions. You might also want to pick up a physics text book and learn about accuracy and precision.

 

[rhamutap]

As long as you admit you are rounding up, that is fine. I just didn't want you inferring there was no room for error, which is implied when you say 100%. XD