It's both actually. I play mcc on PC. Controller players get that very obvious cross hair aim you mention, and keyboard/mouse players don't. That's why all the pro players use controller, a 150ms latency human can't compete with the aimbot.

But there's also subtle bullet magnetism, for both controller and kb/mouse players.

There are YouTube videos demonstrating this if you're interested.

I prefer keyboard/mouse which puts me at a disadvantage but I'm not a pro player so I don't mind.

Quake players say otherwise. PC players destroyed the console ones.

Quake autoaim is far weaker than Halo's autoaim.

Console games generally have much more autoaim, to the point where people kinda call them "defacto aimbots".

Its probably both, but even without the auto tracking you describe, it's still quite possible for the space within a single pixel to be mostly misses. If someone positions their cursor in this single pixel, the game gives them the benefit of the doubt and counts it as a hit.

> Not really true. They do to be better among their peers, doesn't matter if there are PC players out there, irrelevant.

If you really wanted to be a player without autoaim / bullet magnetism / all the stuff Halo "aimbots" into your controller, you'd be playing Counterstrike.

But no, people play Halo. Because people like (subtle) aimbots making their headshots more consistent. Games like Halo (and other FPS games that came after Halo, such as Battlefront or Call of Duty) all take this auto-aim concept to varying degrees.

Its now a staple of modern FPS games.

------

But yes, I recall the "mouse practice" people would do to get better aim on Counterstrike. Those headshots don't happen by themselves: there's a lot of "move the mouse" practice in Microsoft-paint (practice moving one pixel at a time or whatever), and learning the positions of your wrist.

Most people don't care about that level of dedication or practice. I think it suffices to say that typical FPS gamers today prefer the subtle aimbot to handle that level of muscle memory.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic. Obviously the "Counterstrike" players and community cares about this stuff. That's why they still play Counterstrike. But I also am ready to admit that their community is a small minority of players in the greater FPS genre.

-------

"360 No Scope" happens to take advantage of this bullet magnetism / autoaim as well. Moving the reticle quickly IIRC engages the auto-aim bot a bit more.

> It's the reason why sweep shooting works so well. Sweep your crosshairs across the screen, pull the trigger when it crosses something, it'll hold onto them slightly as it goes by.

The game's "auto-aim" system effectively fires two bullets for each frame. If your target is "between" the two bullets, then it counts as a hit.

Sweep-shooting is moving the crosshairs really fast, so that these two "bullets" are spaced as far apart as possible. So you've grown the auto-aim area.

> But no, people play Halo. Because people like (subtle) aimbots making their headshots more consistent.

Valorant, a counter-strike like game, is actually more popular than the current Halo game.

And let's not forget PUBG, originally a PC-only game, that was wildly popular. No aimbot in there either and not only was there no auto-aim, bullets don't even go where you click because they obeyed physics!

PUBG was destroyed by Fortnite, which reintroduced autoaim to the battle-royale genre.

Emperically speaking, whenever a new game comes out with a more "hardcore" mode with less auto-aim... a newer game comes out and just brings back auto-aim, and suddenly the community switches over to it.

People really like autoaim. Whether they consciously know it or not... kind of doesn't matter. People seem to have more fun and that's all a game designer wants.

That just makes it sound like it's cyclical or random which type of game is on top. Otherwise how would that be happening over and over?

Yea honestly it probably has more to do with the game in vogue. Auto aim tends to only happen on consoles anyways, otherwise the skill ceiling on aiming gets too high.

Plus there was call of duty, then overwatch, then pubg, then fortnight, then valorant. The PC ones tended to not have auto aim. Of course consoles tend to have auto aim but console gamers are also more casual and mass market… but the auto aim just makes up for the inaccuracy and speed of joystick control.

Also fortnite didn’t destroy pubg. People just got tired of the game. Most pubg players I know just stopped playing, and there were a lot of adults that played it. Fortnite had a totally different crowd (basically preteens and kids) because the game was free to play whereas pubg cost a whopping $30 and required a beefy computer.

There's certainly a community of "hardcore" players who want as little autoaim as possible. But I'm frankly convinced that they're in the minority.

This is true with a lot of console FPS games, but Halos auto aim is more complicated/intentionally designed than average.

Halo does a bunch of things to make aiming easier on a controller, sticky crosshairs and homing bullets are both involved.