Are you sure about that? Wikipedia mentions a PC release.

Right, because "Crysis", "Metro 2033", "Half-Life 2" etc etc. were all awful because of Halo. Yes, there are a lot of terrible FPS games, but you can say that about just about any genre.

With the possible exception of Metro 2033, those games had their own serious issues.

I can't imagine playing Shadow Warrior reboot, Hard Reset, Doom, Quake, etc with a controller when I can do everything better with M&K. As for lack of buttons on controllers, of course that's an issue. I can map every single weapon in Shadow Warrior to a hotkey. For a game so fast paced, that's a huge advantage. Not to mention the faster camera control with a mouse.

Oh, okay- I understand. Yeah, when you play a game to compete, it's more interesting if it's less simplistic, and having better tools, like more responsive/accurate mouse+key b, makes your performance better.

There's no denying that gamepads are less accurate/responsive than M+KB, so I think Devs who make simplistic FPS for consoles do it for people who play those games without any desire to compete with others, i.e. people who play for leisure, or those who simply want to compete on a simpler level; some people can play really well with gamepads, but of course not on the same level as M+KB.

There's nothing wrong with gaming for leisure, or gaming without wanting to compete, but yeah- there should be intense FPS games in the market too since people want to play them.

Actually, what would be awesome is if game difficulty levels were more meaningful, like if you're playing on the Harder levels, you need more accuracy, precision and responsiveness to get results, as opposed to making enemies into bullet sponges, which is just annoying and not fun.

I know, but the PC Powerslave is another Build engine FPS with an egyptian theme (not to say that it's bad. It's really good (except that I don't think you can save during levels and that the mouse support is crap). The console version which are non-linear (in a Metroid Prime fashion) uses a completely different engine (that paradoxally gives it better graphics than the PC version) and is almost a completely (and much better) game. I'd recomment anyone giving it a go before saying that there's no good console FPSs (always drives me nuts when someone says that).

They don't mind the controllers, but it doesn't mean they prefer it.

To a large extent, things are subjective, but there is an underlying ratio in there and if you did a statistical experiments on unbiased users, most people would agree that the ratio of users preferring the controller for FPSes falls well below 50%.

FPSes evolved on the PC with a mouse. That we need to use a controller to play FPSes is a classic example of us having to wrap our needs around the market rather than the market wrapping itself around our needs.

Simply put, consoles are more profitable atm and console manufacturers made the arbitrary decision not to include a mouse.

Agreed. I'd play an FPS with a controller long before I'd play an RTS like Starcraft with a controller.

At least, the FPS can have auto-aim.

Technically, Japanese-style fighting games are made for controllers.

I hate those gimmicks anyways, but have you tried doing a 180+ degree arc on a keyboard's arrows? Awkward.

Oh yes, the amazing argument of 'Everything you can do I can do better!' My favourite responce? I would not be able to play new Shadow Warrior cuddled to my wife on couch with M+K. Being physically free and close to my loved one in the sparse free time we have > better aiming and faster switching of weapons. Not to mention that as long as you enjoy a game, there's absolutely no point in the latter in a singleplayer game. All it does is make the game more difficult - I'm fine with that.

Oh, and yes - switching weapons is the only thing you need more buttons for. Which can, of course, be handled via weapon wheel or a similar concept with a controller. Not as efficient as numbers? True, but my above argument applies.

Well, there are more reasons than that. If an FPS is designed around a controller, you will probably have no trouble playing it on a controller. And controller is just ergonomically designed to play videogames, as opposed to efficient writing.

Controllers are generally more responsive than keyboards. The lag between a button press and an action always feels much more apparent on a keyboard than on a controller, thus far greater accuracy for platforming when using controllers.
(I believe that doesn't apply to more expensive gaming keyboards, but ... I don't care, I have a controller :D)

So, it's a different game. Right. As for good console FPSs, there is always GoldenEye. Oh sure, the N64 controller (and by extension the controls) suck, but this game was the local multiplayer shit.

Strangely, I thought that the N64 controller was perfect for FPSs (Using Z to fire, C buttons to move and the analog stick to look around). If only the analog stick wasn't so fragile.

My favorite is still Medal of Honor on the Playstation. The multiplayer is lackluster (unless you link two consoles, which I never could), but the single player campaign is pure awesome.

The PSX port of Quake 2 was great as well. Just the fact that they managed to make Quake 2 work (with very little lag) on the Playstation is awesome. The only downsides are that there are fewer levels and the analog controls are very sensitive. But the game can be played with the Playstation Mouse if you have one.

Good luck finding these mythical "unbiased users", gaming/forums/the Internet at large is full of bias. Also, statistics show that 99.999997% of "stats" are made up on the spot.
With the exception of Crysis/Metro 2033 requiring hefty rigs to max out, I don't know what "serious issues" you refer to. Also, there's a difference between having a few issues (even critically lauded games have at least a few) and a game/genre being "destroyed".

The pure FPS concept is freestyle aiming on a plane. Controllers make that painfully slow compared to a mouse.

Also, I like the fact that you can custom-map keys on a keyboard so that the mapping feels comfortable for my fingers, but then again, I'm a fine typist so the amount of keys on a keyboard doesn't intimidate me.

I get why the everyday guy would prefer the simplicity of a controller for a lot of games.

Right, but selecting icons on a desktop or mobile device is almost the same as shooting on a particular spot on your screen for an FPS and people's control of choice for that is a mouse or a touch screen, not an xbox controller ;).

I never said those games destroyed the genre. But, Crysis was important technically, but the whole game design was sloppy. IIRC, that game would allow you to skip the entire game and not kill anybody during the game.

And I absolutely hate the QTE that Half-life popularized in the genre. When I want a story, I play an RPG, you know a game genre where there's frequently real stories with real choicesl

From the Playstation 2 era and onwards, the typical FPS controls are: left analog stick to move forward/backwards, strafe left/right and right analog stick to aim around. In GoldenEye, the typical controls were: analog stick to move forward/backwards, turn left/right and the c-buttons would be used to strafe left/right, look up/down which is pure madness. Yes, you can master it which I eventually did, but it is torture.

I thought you were lying when you said PlayStation Mouse, apparently not. That's pretty amazing :O

OT: Because that's where the money is, plus Consoles aren't the programming nightmare that is PC.