Scientifical proof that controllers are better than keyboard and mouse

On a controller you have point and middle fingers to control triggers and bumpers, which makes 1 button per digit.
I'll count each thumbstick as two buttons, because you can not only move it, but also press it, and I'll not count power on button, because it's never used in games.
You have two thumbs to control 14 buttons, which makes 7 buttons per digit.
Overall, on a controller you have (7+1)/2 = 4 buttons per digit.

On a generic keyboard there's usually 104 or 105 keys, but some of them, like pause break, win, or fn buttons are almost never used in games, so let's say that there's 100 keys on a keyboard.
You have 5 digits to use a keyboard, which makes 100/5 = 20 buttons per digit.
A mouse usually have two buttons and a wheel (which you can also press, not only scroll), but gaming mouses usually have two additional buttons, so for easier count let's say that mouse has 5 buttons, thus 1 button per digit.
Overall, on a KB+M you have (20+1)/2 = 10.5 buttons per digit.

10.5 is much bigger than 4, which means more buttons per digit, which means less control and comfort.
And such, I've just scientifically proven that controllers are superior for gaming.

Attached: image.png (432x508, 187.51K)

this is an autistic bait thread, but you worked hard to type that up so this is the least I can do for (You)

ROFLMAO TL;DR

Scientist here

can confirm

Damn, let me but a Xbox series x rihjt now

>Scientifical proof that op is a faggot

Attached: IMG_20201006_140911.jpg (663x474, 140.95K)

You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

analog sticks aren't buttons. They're... analog sticks.
Your conclusion is flawed, here's a simple counterpoint:
If less buttons means more control, then it is also correct to assume the atari controller is objectively the best. Because both hands control exactly one button, and stickpad.
Now, try playing any modern game on it.

Yes yes, very good.
However...

Attached: Optimal.jpg (385x301, 11.88K)

OP loves cum AND is retarded

Hi Woolie

There's a reason controller kiddies need irremovable aim assist in all their shooters, pleb

You can click down analog sticks to use as buttons.
That being said OP sucks dicks.

Albert Einstein here, can confirm as always, OP is a tranny.

So to the logical extreme, a controller with 0 buttons would be ideal, because that's 0/10 buttons per digit. More buttons=more control, not less.

But atari controller is ideal for atari games.

Analogue is pretty trash for 9/10 games. Runs the experience outright, especially with all the inefficient menus they have to make for them

(You)

Keyboard is shitposting
Controllers are for gaming

this is actually how they handle FPS game in japanese arcades. Seems like a good system desu.

Attached: Mv8tQua.jpg (3840x2160, 613.88K)

>2+3+2= I cant can't without aim assist bro
>building aim bots into games it l33t bro
>im so good at beating 9yos with aim assist bro promise

Attached: tenor (2).gif (640x360, 667.01K)

If I look at 1,2,3,q,w,e,a,s,d,z,x,c

I have 12 keys. with shift, alt, and control. I now have 36 unique inputs with a single hand. that don't require any movement of my hand.

With a single hand, that doesn't have to make any major movement, I can make twice as many inputs than your controller.

OP is an idiot.

When I play Red Dead 2 I use mouse and keyboard on foot (first person mode in combat) and then use a ds4 for horses/stagecoach.

Idk why but with the few changes I made to the keybinds/settings, controlling horse speed with a keyboard is just impossible.

>mfw realizing i will never have those precious seconds back that i've just wasted reading so much retard

Attached: 1600958166646.jpg (265x190, 6.3K)

Can PCfags at least admit stick > wasd?

why the fuck they count analog stick as 1 button
each axis should be 2 bytes = 2 ^ 16 = 65536 x 4 (rx,ry,lx,ly) = 262144 buttons, plus trigger 1 byte = 2 ^ 8 = 256 x 2 (lt, rt) = 512 buttons
so it's 262144 + 512 + 14 = 262,670 buttons

Damn bro, you got us, PCfags will never recover.
Sick bait bro, here's your (You).

>Can PCfags at least admit stick > wasd?
depends on the game. sometimes the ability to shift between directions faster with wasd helps.

depends on the game, mouse accuracy with wasd is going to shit on analogue in a lot of games

did you really need a scientist to tell you that

the only time you could use a mouse is in fps, mmo's, or point n click adventures

I use a controller for most PC games (aka all that aren't shooters, RTS, or WRPGs), but holy shit this is retarded. This isn't a good argument in favour of controllers at all. Really, I just use a controller for ergonomic reasons and for smoother movement.

That's what a d-pad is for, retard.

Nice thread faggot.

d pad is usually reserved for quick slots wtf are you on about?

good bait user I appreciate the time you took to write this out

Name one game that is actually configured to take advantage of that.

Only if the the ability to modulate move speed granularly is important in a game, otherwise they are objectively worse. Especially if the game has air strafing.

>thinking 'directional' pad = quick slots in the first place
so you admit it's useless so then devs use it as extra buttons, aren't you?

No, the ideal controller for atari games is the sega genesis controller.

yes they use it as a replacement for the number keys, you get 1-4 on a d pad and miss out on 5-0. I admit it, they usually have to add in inefficient menus to make up for this. I admit that too, controllers usually suck

>powerstance

Attached: 1601989574110.jpg (819x579, 68.38K)

>out strafes you with wasd
nothin personnel kid