aim assist on console, why?

[archvile93]

Yes. We do need aim assist.
Have you ever played a console FPS without aim assist. It's difficult. Very difficult.

He must have. There's no aim assist on the PC.

Metroid prime 1&2 had lock-on, and some homing weapons, but it fit because it took emphasis off of pointing the armcannon in the right direction and about timing your attacks and dodging enemy movements and locating weak points, making moving during combat hectic, but manageable due to the lock-on

Not to mention the other analog stick was used to change visions so you didn't have one for looking around.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I have no idea why some of these companies leave aim assist in multiplayer.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Because analog sticks are the worst form of moving the camera on an FPS. So it's easier because the game targets the enemy for you.

 

[Imat]

Yeah, consoles have these things called controllers which make it fairly difficult to aim without some hard-coded assistance.

 

[C95J]

Sometimes when I am using a sniper and someone runs across the screen this happens, but this never happens any other time.

The thing is it makes me a worse player It should be removed completely.

 

[imnot]

I find pc harder, but I have a naturaly laggy pc.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Im sure you can turn it off on most games.
If you dont like it dont use it. Personally I love it because a console cotroller is alot harder to aim with than a mouse and keybord.

Spoiler

STOP WHINING! be thankful for what you have.

 

[The Ambrosian]

You know there's an option to turn that off, right?

i have scrolled endlessly through the options and settings and cant find such an option, how exactly is it turned off?

I'm pretty sure most games with aim assist have options to turn it off. You've just missed it somehow.

Most don't, very few do.

 

[dbmountain]

The first thing I do when I play an FPS is turn the aim-assist off. People are just too used to it, but it is easy to get the hang of. Aiming with an analog stick is not that difficult, so I don't really understand why PC users always gripe about it. Even if it was more difficult to use, wouldn't that mean it just takes more skill to use it well (rather than mouse and keyboard)?


If aim-assist wasn't a feature in games it would encourage others to become BETTER at the game rather than just mosey along on easy mode. The only issue is that it IS in fact there, so playing with it off is only a disadvantage when considering the fact that 90% of the other plays play with it on. Aim-assist should be just completely removed to make things even.

 

[Worgen]

I have no idea why some of these companies leave aim assist in multiplayer.

because the only reason fps games work on consoles is because of aim assist, without it on multi then they would be vastly inferior to pc multi, instead of just inferior

 

[Sneaklemming]

You know there's an option to turn that off, right?

You can turn off auto-aim, but you can't turn off the aim assist.

Tbh it's probably because controlling someone with a gamepad is like using a crane. Got your two sticks, and thats how you pilot the character. It's just not as good as it should be.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I have no idea why some of these companies leave aim assist in multiplayer.

because the only reason fps games work on consoles is because of aim assist, without it on multi then they would be vastly inferior to pc multi, instead of just inferior

A bit of a loaded response.
I don't think aim-assist is absolutely necessary for all console shooters.
As much as it pains me to admit it, I have to cite Halo Reach as evidence.
I just finished watching my two friends kick all manner of ass in Reach, and they didn't have Auto-Aim on. The bullets went where they were aimed.

Now, I will admit freely that by technical standards, a keyboard and mouse are superior.
However, you can adjust your game's relative motion/gameplay speed for the type of system you are making your game for (Console or PC).

Halo is really really slow; and so are a number of current gen FPS titles.
Compare this to say, Quake 2/3 or even Tribes multiplayer, and the difference is perfectly clear; the latter games are far more difficult to learn simply because they are faster, and it is far more difficult to aim (or in Tribes case, move).

(Before some troll jumps down my throat, these comparisons are strictly by *TECHNICAL STANDARDS*. These things are measurable differences, and have absolutely nothing to do with personal taste or opinion.)

So, the point here is that Console Shooters use Auto-Aim/Assist, but unless the developers made the game "too fast" for the controls, there is no NECESSITY for auto-aim.
I think many of these alleged 'AAA' game devs know this by now.

When you add auto-aim to a competitive game, it had better be your absolute last resort and absolutely necessary (Armored Core does this, and Armored Core had a fairly tough learning curve for the average gamer regardless), but most console shooters do not fall into this category.

 

[sgtshock]

If you want to know why there is aim-assist, play a game that has co-op, preferably with friendly fire on. Halo Reach is good for this. Then, you and your friend try and kill each other. You will notice that this is really damn hard.

Because the game won't aim-assist your teammate, this is what a console shooter with no aim-assist would be like. Trying to play a console shooter with no aim-assist would be borderline impossible.

 

[TheBaron87]

Yes. We do need aim assist.
Have you ever played a console FPS without aim assist. It's difficult. Very difficult.

Thats why PC FPS's tend to play better. There is no need for an aim assist, so it is never implemented -- unless some pathetic person downloads a hack.

I can NEVER play a console FPS effectively without aim assist. That's one of the reasons why I prefer PC shooters. The control stick camera is too clunky to play a First Person game well, I find.

Why?

Because the input device for a console isn't accurate enough to not use it.

Because analog sticks are the worst form of moving the camera on an FPS. So it's easier because the game targets the enemy for you.

Because a gamepad aims like shit without it.

Yeah, consoles have these things called controllers which make it fairly difficult to aim without some hard-coded assistance.

Sometimes when I am using a sniper and someone runs across the screen this happens, but this never happens any other time.

The thing is it makes me a worse player It should be removed completely.

because the only reason fps games work on consoles is because of aim assist, without it on multi then they would be vastly inferior to pc multi, instead of just inferior

It's threads like this that make me proud to be part of The Escapist community.

The first thing I do when I play an FPS is turn the aim-assist off. People are just too used to it, but it is easy to get the hang of. Aiming with an analog stick is not that difficult, so I don't really understand why PC users always gripe about it. Even if it was more difficult to use, wouldn't that mean it just takes more skill to use it well (rather than mouse and keyboard)?


If aim-assist wasn't a feature in games it would encourage others to become BETTER at the game rather than just mosey along on easy mode. The only issue is that it IS in fact there, so playing with it off is only a disadvantage when considering the fact that 90% of the other plays play with it on. Aim-assist should be just completely removed to make things even.

The device that takes (demands) the most skill is literally the device that takes (can handle) the most skill, or in other words the one with the highest skill ceiling, which is actually not even the mouse, it's the trackball. However, the mouse is still better than the controller because the controller has a plastic ring around the stick to hold it in place which doubles as a barrier on its range of movement. That means there is a maximum rate enforced on your turning speed, which in turn means spinshots on consoles are slower than spinshots on PC. In addition, mouse acceleration dynamically alters the ratio of mouse distance to in-game degrees based on the speed of the mouse so you can move it slowly to make tiny adjustments for sniping and then immediately make a quick jerk to turn exactly 138 degrees and blast the guy trying to flank you without sliding the mouse all over your desk.

You can't do that on console, but idiots like to say that all this stuff makes the mouse easier and therefore it takes less skill. That's only true if you are the only person using a mouse. Mouse takes more skill because the people you're playing against are ALSO using mice and not only can you die much faster when everyone is able to aim at your head more quickly, but people that are good with mice are much more intimidating than people that are good with a controller.

So no, it doesn't take more skill.

 

[SantoUno]

You know there's an option to turn that off, right?

The tragic truth is is that some games don't have that option and simply leave aim-assist implemented at all times, like in Halo: Reach. That pissed me off so much yesterday when the aim-assist was screwing up my aim and I found out there was no option to turn it off.

Yes. We do need aim assist.
Have you ever played a console FPS without aim assist. It's difficult. Very difficult.

No, not that difficult. Obviously you just need to get good at aiming, like with all FPS games. Console FPS games are no different.

I can't count the amount of times I've been about to shoot a guy, then someone else has walked by, and my mystical crosshairs decide lock on to him instead and totally fuck up my shot, so I miss both of them, and get gunned down. I must look like a right idiot to everyone else, shooting thin air...

That happened to me too in Halo: Reach yesterday, I was outraged.

I almost always turn it off. Not because it makes it that much more annoying, it just feels a bit like cheating to me.

I feel the same way. I think it's stupid that developers implement aim-assist into most FPS games by default because they think we can't practice enough to be able to aim well without it. I'd rather not use it and get good at aiming with my own skills than to use a stupid aid.

I have no idea why some of these companies leave aim assist in multiplayer.

because the only reason fps games work on consoles is because of aim assist, without it on multi then they would be vastly inferior to pc multi, instead of just inferior

NO, NO, JUST NO. Saying that console FPSs can only work with aim assist is just putting down console FPSs. If that was true then every shooter would implement it without question but there are plenty of them that allow the option to turn it off. Just because it is difficult to aim without aim assist doesn't mean it's impossible, so people need to stop saying that, makes them sound like your typical K+M elitists who always feel the need to bash controllers.

 

[Worgen]

You know there's an option to turn that off, right?

The tragic truth is is that some games don't have that option and simply leave aim-assist implemented at all times, like in Halo: Reach. That pissed me off so much yesterday when the aim-assist was screwing up my aim and I found out there was no option to turn it off.

Yes. We do need aim assist.
Have you ever played a console FPS without aim assist. It's difficult. Very difficult.

No, not that difficult. Obviously you just need to get good at aiming, like with all FPS games. Console FPS games are no different.

I can't count the amount of times I've been about to shoot a guy, then someone else has walked by, and my mystical crosshairs decide lock on to him instead and totally fuck up my shot, so I miss both of them, and get gunned down. I must look like a right idiot to everyone else, shooting thin air...

That happened to me too in Halo: Reach yesterday, I was outraged.

I almost always turn it off. Not because it makes it that much more annoying, it just feels a bit like cheating to me.

I feel the same way. I think it's stupid that developers implement aim-assist into most FPS games by default because they think we can't practice enough to be able to aim well without it. I'd rather not use it and get good at aiming with my own skills than to use a stupid aid.

I have no idea why some of these companies leave aim assist in multiplayer.

because the only reason fps games work on consoles is because of aim assist, without it on multi then they would be vastly inferior to pc multi, instead of just inferior

NO, NO, JUST NO. Saying that console FPSs can only work with aim assist is just putting down console FPSs. If that was true then every shooter would implement it without question but there are plenty of them that allow the option to turn it off. Just because it is difficult to aim without aim assist doesn't mean it's impossible, so people need to stop saying that, makes them sound like your typical K+M elitists who always feel the need to bash controllers.

the thing is tho that console fps games didnt take off till someone came up with a good autoaim system, before then... well they were around but they didnt blow up the market like they did since someone figured out auto aim so clearly players understand how important auto aim is for consoles

oh and the mouse isnt higher skill then the controller, its just a better tool, its kind of like the difference between iron sights and a scope

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The reason is simply because a game pad offers either speed or precision to a player but never both at the same time (in the context of an FPS). Because of this, at least some level of aim assist is necessary to allow players to reasonably hit what they believe they are aiming at.

When done correctly, people can play without ever really noticing its there (Halo for example. Unless you actually stop and test it you are unlikely to notice it's presence). When done poorly, players get the impression that it's playing the game for them (such as when your aim physically snaps to a target other than the one they intended).

 

[nub the samurai]

Medal of Honour online has really persistant aim assist. It's quite funny sometimes when your cursor is already pointing at an enemy coming up the stairs, through a wall.

MoH's aim assist is fine EXCEPT for how your reticule sticks to players sitting behind a wall or rock. When your reticule sticks to a player that is sitting behind a rock, I think there is something wrong.

 

[Netrigan]

Medal of Honour online has really persistant aim assist. It's quite funny sometimes when your cursor is already pointing at an enemy coming up the stairs, through a wall.

It's almost hilarious how many enemies I've only noticed because the game decided to lock onto them. What's not hilarious is that the game hijacks my camera and leads my point of view into a wall while a battle rages off to my left or right and is steadily coming closer to killing me.

Medal of Honor did a lot of things well in my opinion, but the aim assist was definitely not one of those things.

OT: Aim assist has its place, and when implemented subtly, it can be really, really useful. However, overdoing it can be obnoxious.

It's a good thing the fights in GTA IV are so easy, because there are many, many, many times in which the auto-aim refuses to lock on to a nearby enemy in the open in favor of a concealed enemy. So frustrating to have the guy in your sights, you go to aim (to avoid the wild firing blindly from cover thing) only to have your cross-hairs skip over to an enemy hiding behind a garbage dumpster... on the other side of a garbage truck.

Also annoying how it won't lock onto a vehicle if there's enemies on the screen. I'm trying to shoot down a helicopter before it swings around and cuts me to bits... and it's determined to shoot the guy hiding behind a wall.

 

[Blobpie]

Try and play without the aim assist... it makes it REALLY hard to play.