@Demonic
wow, exaclty like pointer controls, you also has to push off center to turn! the wiimote turns the camera + reticle (left stick) and the nunchuck moves your character (right stick)
tough I think you can do faster movements and quick-turns with the pointer and it's great for headshots and meele attacks

wow, exaclty like pointer controls, you also has to push off center to turn!

Not in any controller-based FPS I've ever played.

The aiming sight remains dead-center with controller-based FPS games. The camera moves with the aim.

I forgot to mention that... hah. Yeah the reticle is always in the middle, move the camera with the right stick and the reticle moves with the camera. The thing I hate about that set-up is you have to move the whole camera to get your reticle on to something, while with the Wii Remote you can aim anywhere on the screen without having to move the camera.

I think it's easier than a standard twin-stick controller. i don't know...I played Goldeneye and Red Steel 2 using the motion controls and it was OK i guess. It just feels kinda weird to do..

I wouldn't want to play a first person shooter with anything other than keyboard and mouse controls because they do the job perfectly. There's a reason why action/shooter games tend to be 3rd person on consoles these days, and it's because aiming from a first person view is a much trickier proposition using a dual-stick controller. I mean people do get good at it, but at first its something that's really difficult to do well..aiming and shooting from a 3rd person perspective seems to require much less precision.

I own all three consoles.

Metroid Prime 3 > Bioshock as far as hitting my targets go, and Bioshocks camera even follows the people running around.

I have just got CoD: Black Ops for PS3 so I'll give that a run and see if I like that better than Metroid Prime 3 or not

Pointer controls are much faster and more accurate than dual analogue. The thing that often misleads people though is when dual analogue games use aim assist which snaps the reticule to the target and makes them think that they are really accurate. When a pointer controlled game does this it feels very unnatural, so they generally just leave the aiming up to the player.

As for turn speed, it is generally a trade off for accuracy but it's not impossible to have both. I had 2 settings for COD on Wii, one with a zero deadzone for very fast running n' gunning (screen move whenever the pointer does) and one with a wide deadzone for steady aiming (such as with a sniper rifle). Being able to set the control methods for different loadouts provided a perfect set of controls. Such customization is also available in dual analogue, but it isn't as noticible due to things like aim assist taking over.

Don't care for the wii with them. Mouse and keyboard are the best but dual sticks work well too

The only FPSs I really play regularly are TF2 and Left 4 Dead (1 and 2) on PC. I can say that if I were able to use a Wii remote instead of a keyboard and mouse, I think I would be slightly better. Having played the Metroid Prime games, Medal of Honor, Goldeneye, and Red Steel 2 on the Wii, the Wii remote is (for me at least) the most accurate and natural control method.

Dual Analog sticks are the least accurate obviously. The lack of subtle movement and sensitivity options are unavoidable here.

I prefer pointer controls. The Wii is quicker and you can snipe of enemies if you have a steady hand. I was playing Metroid Prime 2 today and noticed how easy I could take out a large group of fast enemies and anticipate motion and shoot to compensate for the speed of the enemy. I think people don't always appreciate the set-up because it is so natural.

Metroid Prime: Corruption was the best FPS I've played control wise. It felt great. If I had to choose between dual-analog and pointer controls, I'm slightly more of a pointer control guy, though considering most games fail at good pointer controls, I tend to use dual-analog more. And on my 360, it isn't an option...unless you're talking Kinect, which for me has been hit and miss, namely w/ the pointer stuff, only worse. The dashboard does pointer controls even better than the Wii home menu, so it's possible to have excellent pointer controls on the 360, but the lack of buttons pretty much screws Kinect FPS games. So yeah, motion controls when executed correctly by the dev are more accurate. Keyboard & mouse come close, but the keyboard is clunky (like a d-pad), which brings down the mouse's upper-hand.

I own all three consoles, run a large Australian gaming clan and play Call of Duty on all 3 of them! This is something that even I find really hard to gauge! There are things I can do on the Wii that I can't on PS3/360 thanks to the pointer controls but as far as accuracy I'm not so sure! However it's something that's even harder to judge because Call of Duty is a game that is meant to run on HD consoles and the Wii versions do suffer from some strange lag that may be associated with processing power rather than the Wii Remote itself!

I for one hope that the inevitable Wii U versions of Call of Duty will allow both Wii Remote and Gamepad/Classic Controller Pro support so I can answer this question once and for all!

I think it just depends on the person. I have VERY good muscle memory so the duel analog sticks work best for me. If you don't believe my muscle memory then check this video I posted, http://youtu.be/BQCTAfshoyk don't get me wrong I really enjoy the Wii remote controller but overall duel analog sticks just work better for me. AGAIN this is just my opinion.

Wow, lots of love for pointers in here...

I own everything but a Vita and I can say that every system has it's advantages and disadvantages.
-A dual analog controller is less accurate, and requires more handicaps like magnetization (attracting your reticule to an enemy when it is 'close enough') and reticule friction(cancelling any momentum your reticule would have had if you were not aiming at an enemy). If you need proof, go play any first person shooter made before Halo 1. The advantage here is that it's more comfortable, conforming to the shape of your hands and not requiring much movement.
-A mouse and Keyboard requires you to pick up and replace it constantly, can only be used on a desk or solid surface, can have read errors that make the pointer move erratically if it's on the wrong surface, and has some software issues from Windows that can mess people up. Many of these can be mitigated from the use of a trackball (not the old ball mice you remember from grade school), but most people find them uncomfortable. The advantage is that the mouse is most accurate by far, and has an advantage in stability from constantly being in touch with a solid surface.
-A pointer requires the use of a deadzone (an invisible box determining where your pointer is in relation to the edge of the screen)in order to move your camera around, and has difficulties reading if you are not aimed directly at the screen. You get a sense of realism from the shakiness of your own hands actually affecting the pointer, but that also decreases your accuracy. It also feels closer to reality from the fact that you're actually aiming something, rather than an abstraction of aiming like the other two.

Honestly I think the ultimate controller is the Razer Hydra. It has motion capabilities more accurate than a Wii Remote, a second stick for moving the camera independently of the pointer, and more buttons for more functions as are typically required in a first person shooter. It's too bad there aren't really any games made for it besides Half-Life mods...

From what I've played...accuracy, no...but for me the game is easier for me to control than dual sticks or the mouse and keyboard.