Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Spearmaster]

"Irrelevant. My argument stands on it's own. It doesn't matter who I am. Consider my EXPLANATIONS, not my AUTHORITY! There is no need to get into a fruitless and unverifiable pissing match of who has more experience"

No pissing match here just trying to understand how you could think your view is as or more realistic than ADS.
I have considered all of your EXPLANATIONS and have asked of your AUTHORITY to see if you have the authority to make the claims you are making, seeing as you have dodged the question many times and still give no reference to your shooting experience other than "shootign sports" and have to quote an alternate source which you misconstrue and manipulate weather misconstrue and and manipulate weather unintentionally or intentionally to try and make your argument, I must conclude that you do not have the AUTHORITY to make the claims you make and have not provided any sound application of science to prove yourself right. You state sound scientific facts like parallax but fail to properly apply them in your argument so they give you no help. You cant prove the argument of "realistic" when the view is actually a less realistic view than ADS. With some tweaking you view could be sound but it will never be more realistic than ADS.

I do have the authorit to make an argument that DOES NOT DEPEND ON PERSONAL ASSERTIONS!

I depend on fact, examples, science and other actual experts who I have not misrepresented. If you are going to allege that I have misrepresented my sources then be specific. Use quotes from what I said and from the relevant articles, not just a general dismissal. I cannot correct for such a general dismissal.

"If BOTH EYES see the environment effectively the same way all you need to do to represent to right-eye view is show where the right eye would see the sights as being over."

Explain how this is more realistic than seeing what the game character would ACTUALLY be seeing?

Well welcome to page 1 of this discussion.

Because when aiming with both eyes open that is for the purpose of a less obstructed field of view. Showing the "guns arse" view OBSCURES.

Don't get so attached to CoD's perception of realism in games.

not CoD, actual realism, like real life and stuff, I'm not attached to anything, you are attached to the old reticule view in shooters so you are trying to use everything you can to try to make the claim that the reticule view is more realistic, when in fact you have not provided a valid argument due to lack of evidence, what evidence you did provide had been refuted several times but you just dismiss it as PERSONAL ASSERTIONS, therefore you are not welcoming argument you are demanding acceptance as fact.

"I depend on fact, examples, science and other actual experts who I have not misrepresented."

I never said misrepresented, I said misconstrue and manipulate weather unintentionally or intentionally because as I have stated you are not an authority and most likely lack the personal experience to even understand the subject of your source and giving your misapplication of your sources subject of two eye shooting I can only draw one conclusion, you argument is invalid. Has it been peer reviewed? I believe that is what we are doing here. What facts have you actually stated that makes your explanation of your view correct?

"Because when aiming with both eyes open that is for the purpose of a less obstructed field of view. Showing the "guns arse" view OBSCURES."

This is just more evidence that you don't understand what 2 eye shooting actually does.
The sights have to be obscuring at least one eye to be used, your view does not depict this, therefore invalid. You are not showing a realistic depiction of 2 eye shooting. Therefore you can not use 2 eye shooting to validate something that does not represent it.

Also as several others have stated a persons eyes are not far enough apart for the explanation you give using parallax to justify the superior realism of the L4D2 reticule view, Therefore you can not use parallax to validate something that does not represent it either.

 

[Treblaine]

You're making it sound like ADS is solely a realism thing. It isn't, it's just as much of a gameplay mechanic.

Well realism is the topic under discussion, as defined with the original-post and the very title.

Though I see what you mean, I do happen to think it is included mainly as a gameplay mechanic and a gameplay mechanic to serve as a benefit to console controls but a detriment with mouse+keyboard controls.

As to "forced to slow down gameplay for accuracy" well the classic view has that with dilating crosshairs, jsut much more continuous and not to such extremes that a camper who is sitting sighted in will have an unassailable advantage in accuracy.

As to "restricted view" that I see as too much of an advantage to campers who can easily align their sights in advance but someone advancing, being aggressive, you know PLAYING THE GAME have the advantage.

I like games that encourage you to be active, objective based games where you shouldn't be reluctant to attack an enemy that is given every advantage to camp like a claymore.

 

[Treblaine]

not CoD, actual realism, like real life and stuff, I'm not attached to anything, you are attached the old reticule view in shooters so you are trying to use everything you can to try to make the claim that the reticule view is more realistic, when in fact you have not provided a valid argument due to lack of evidence, what evident you provide had been refuted several times but you just dismiss it as PERSONAL ASSERTIONS, therefore you are not welcoming argument you are demanding acceptance as fact.

"I depend on fact, examples, science and other actual experts who I have not misrepresented."

I never said misrepresented, I said misconstrue and manipulate weather unintentionally or intentionally because as I have stated you are not an authority and most likely lack the personal experience to even understand the subject of your source and giving your misapplication of your sources subject of two eye shooting I can only draw one conclusion, you argument is invalid. Has it been peer reviewed? I believe that is what we are doing here. What facts have you actually stated that makes your explanation of your view correct?

"Because when aiming with both eyes open that is for the purpose of a less obstructed field of view. Showing the "guns arse" view OBSCURES."

This is just more evidence that you don't understand what 2 eye shooting actually does.
The sights have to be obscuring at least one eye to be used, your view does not depict this, therefore invalid. You are not showing a realistic depiction of 2 eye shooting. Therefore you can not use 2 eye shooting to validate something that does not represent it.

Also as several others have stated a persons eyes are not far enough apart for the explanation you give using parallax to justify the superior realism of the L4D2 reticule view, Therefore you can not use parallax to validate something that does not represent it either.

It's not being refuted to endlessly hear "no, it doesn't look anything like that" when I just proved that it does look like that. I don't hear explanations, I hear endless assertions.

"giving your misapplication of your sources subject of two eye shooting"

You never did explain this, to spite me asking you to explain it, you just asserted this without basis or explanation. What does this add to the discussion other than "Nuuuh-Uuuuhh, you're wrong". What specific part of the video (or lack-thereof) is not fitting with my explanation?

This is just more evidence that you don't understand what 2 eye shooting actually does.
The sights have to be obscuring at least one eye to be used, your view does not depict this, therefore invalid.

Wait, I don't understand both-eyes-open shooting because I point out that both eyes are open for a wider field of view.

Yes, one eye would be partially obscured by the weapon bein so close to the face... but the OTHER EYE wouldn't. So WHY show to obscured perspective?!?!?

Also as several others have stated a persons eyes are not far enough apart

Baseless assertions, we tried to calculate the divergence and it was found to be impossible to calculate. It's entirely subjective to say it is any specific distance. I only ever said it was in the region of possibility not certainty. You have to admit it is in the region, it is just a few inches off to the right of the centre of the view, in some games more than others.

I never said misrepresented, I said misconstrue and manipulate

Misconstrue and manipulate are forms of misrepresentation. That's the equivalent of saying to someone "I didn't say you deceived, I said you lied and cheated"

 

[Spearmaster]

snip

It's not being refuted to endlessly hear "no, it doesn't look anything like that" when I just proved that it does look like that. I don't hear explanations, I hear endless assertions.

"giving your misapplication of your sources subject of two eye shooting"

You never did explain this, to spite me asking you to explain it, you just asserted this without basis or explanation. What does this add to the discussion other than "Nuuuh-Uuuuhh, you're wrong". What specific part of the video (or lack-thereof) is not fitting with my explanation?

What part of 2 eye shooting makes it where you don't have to be looking down the sights to be looking down the sights? If your eyes are on target then that is your focal point which is the center of your vision in order to hit a target using sights you have to be able to align them with your target thus obscuring the view of the target. This is what sights do, this is how they work. If sights don't obscure the view of the target you cannot claim realism or first person perspective.

This is just more evidence that you don't understand what 2 eye shooting actually does.
The sights have to be obscuring at least one eye to be used, your view does not depict this, therefore invalid.

Wait, I don't understand both-eyes-open shooting because I point out that both eyes are open for a wider field of view.

Yes, one eye would be partially obscured by the weapon bein so close to the face... but the OTHER EYE wouldn't. So WHY show to obscured perspective?!?!?

Because you are claiming realism, you are saying wider field of view but then trying to remove the half of it you dont like.

Also as several others have stated a persons eyes are not far enough apart

Baseless assertions, we tried to calculate the divergence and it was found to be impossible to calculate. It's entirely subjective to say it is any specific distance. I only ever said it was in the region of possibility not certainty. You have to admit it is in the region, it is just a few inches off to the right of the centre of the view, in some games more than others.

For the left eye view it is, from my shooting experience the blade sight at the end of the barrel should be just to the right of the center of the screen to be closer to a left eye view, also the angle of the gun would be straighter moving the rear of the gun closer to center using your L4D2 pic as a refrence.

I never said misrepresented, I said misconstrue and manipulate

Misconstrue and manipulate are forms of misrepresentation. That's the equivalent of saying to someone "I didn't say you deceived, I said you lied and cheated"

Fine, misrepresenting then, 2 eye shooting view, lets try this, face a target, now point your finger at the target, sight down your finger at the target, now close your left eye and without turning your head tell me what side of your total viewing area your finger is on. Now remaining in that position open and close your left eye a few rimes and tell me what changes, it opens up your field of view but where in your field of view is you finger? Two eye shooting does not move your finger to the right side of FOV, single eye shooting might move it to the left side of FOV, we can then say that CoD style ADS is already using 2 eye shooting because it has a open field of view on both the left and right side of the sights.

You view with tweaking could be mechanically correct but it will still lack the realism of actually looking down the sights when looking down the sights. Instead we can call it a LES for "left eye shooter" rather than FPS.

 

[Treblaine]

What part of 2 eye shooting makes it where you don't have to be looking down the sights to be looking down the sights?

When the left eye is open.

Because you are claiming realism, you are saying wider field of view but then trying to remove the half of it you dont like.

I am it removing it, the shooter's brain is removing it. Look, you cannot simultaneously obscure and show the environment in the same frame.

For the left eye view it is, from my shooting experience the blade sight at the end of the barrel should be just to the right of the center of the screen to be closer to a left eye view, also the angle of the gun would be straighter moving the rear of the gun closer to center using your L4D2 pic as a refrence.

For with the attention on the right eye, but holistically combining both perspectives the gun would appear off to the right because it IS off to the right. The sights would be centre on the screen as they are in the centre of the right eye's perspective that is not right shifted, they both focus on the same point in the environment.

Fine, misrepresenting then, 2 eye shooting view, lets try this, face a target, now point your finger at the target, sight down your finger at the target, now close your left eye and without turning your head tell me what side of your total viewing area your finger is on.

Pointing with my right hand, aiming down the finger with my right eye, my finger is is of course in the centre of my right eye perspective. Not to the right or left. Centre.

But to make this more like what we are testing I replace the finger with a dayglow-point, like what modern sights are made of.

Now remaining in that position open and close your left eye a few rimes and tell me what changes, it opens up your field of view but where in your field of view is you finger?

What I see are the prominent point in the centre of my vision. I focus on just the right eye view, as the experts advise to do.

Two eye shooting does not move your finger to the right side of FOV, single eye shooting might move it to the left side of FOV, we can then say that CoD style ADS is already using 2 eye shooting because it has a open field of view on both the left and right side of the sights.

You view with tweaking could be mechanically correct but it will still lack the realism of actually looking down the sights when looking down the sights. Instead we can call it a LES for "left eye shooter" rather than FPS.

But I see just the dayglow point, not looking down the top of my finger. Really, pointing my finger is nothing like a rifle where the stock is close to touching my cheek. I repeated this with the day-glow point elevated on top of a cardboard tube with a paperclip, focusing as I was told the sight was prominent in the centre of my vision and I saw the tube mainly off to the right of my combined both-eyes-open field of view.

 

[Spearmaster]

What part of 2 eye shooting makes it where you don't have to be looking down the sights to be looking down the sights?

When the left eye is open.

Wait what? are you trying to tell me that by opening your left eye you dont need to have the sights aligned over the target to hit it?

Because you are claiming realism, you are saying wider field of view but then trying to remove the half of it you dont like.

I am it removing it, the shooter's brain is removing it. Look, you cannot simultaneously obscure and show the environment in the same frame.

If the shooters brain is removing it how are they still using the sights to aim?

For the left eye view it is, from my shooting experience the blade sight at the end of the barrel should be just to the right of the center of the screen to be closer to a left eye view, also the angle of the gun would be straighter moving the rear of the gun closer to center using your L4D2 pic as a refrence.

For with the attention on the right eye, but holistically combining both perspectives the gun would appear off to the right because it IS off to the right. The sights would be centre on the screen as they are in the centre of the right eye's perspective that is not right shifted, they both focus on the same point in the environment.

So the gun would be off to the right but the sights would be in the center?

Fine, misrepresenting then, 2 eye shooting view, lets try this, face a target, now point your finger at the target, sight down your finger at the target, now close your left eye and without turning your head tell me what side of your total viewing area your finger is on.

Pointing with my right hand, aiming down the finger with my right eye, my finger is is of course in the centre of my right eye perspective. Not to the right or left. Centre.

But to make this more like what we are testing I replace the finger with a dayglow-point, like what modern sights are made of.

Now remaining in that position open and close your left eye a few rimes and tell me what changes, it opens up your field of view but where in your field of view is you finger?

What I see are the prominent point in the centre of my vision. I focus on just the right eye view, as the experts advise to do.

So where is your finger then? Left, right or center? Also you do realize that you are admitting to using mainly your right eye right? The eye that puts the sights in the center of your FOV

Two eye shooting does not move your finger to the right side of FOV, single eye shooting might move it to the left side of FOV, we can then say that CoD style ADS is already using 2 eye shooting because it has a open field of view on both the left and right side of the sights.

You view with tweaking could be mechanically correct but it will still lack the realism of actually looking down the sights when looking down the sights. Instead we can call it a LES for "left eye shooter" rather than FPS.

But I see just the dayglow point, not looking down the top of my finger. Really, pointing my finger is nothing like a rifle where the stock is close to touching my cheek. I repeated this with the day-glow point elevated on top of a cardboard tube with a paperclip, focusing as I was told the sight was prominent in the centre of my vision and I saw the tube mainly off to the right of my combined both-eyes-open field of view.

A single point at the end of the tube wont suffice. Are you using 2 separate points to represent the hindsight and foresight? You need 2 points to determine a line. If you are aligned down the sights(dayglow point) where is the gun in refrence to the sights? Its directly under them because the sights are attached directly to the top. So if the sights are in the center of your vision and the gun is directly attached under the sights then where is the gun in your vision?

You can use suppression to either suppress the left eye or the right eyes view slightly, you cant however suppress the right eye to view the gun more to the right while at the same time suppress the left eye to see the sights more clearly.

I focus on just the right eye view, as the experts advise to do.

I actually have a solution that will satisfy us both and create the most realistic view possible for 2 eye shooting.

You can suppress your right eye to have a view of the gun to the right and a semi transparent (ghost) image of the sights over the target which lets you use the sight while also seeing what it obscures(this is how I mainly shoot trap) but you still need at least the ghost image of the sights because if you completely remove them you are just using your left eye.(this is what your source was talking about by the way)

Take the L4D2 view, hit the aim button, it brings the gun closer and just right of center, removes the reticule and replace it with the Cod style ADS view at 50% transparency over the target, that would be the most realistic view. That said it takes years of training to be able to shoot that way unless you are lucky enough to start out left eye dominant(I am not), Soldiers are not trained to shoot that way as far as I know, I demands to much concentration in a combat situation and results in slow reaction times in a hot situation therefore the old trusty right eye aiming is used. That and they mainly use reflex scopes these days anyway.

PS: if you use this just site me as a source.

 

[PrimitiveJudge]

I like this topic. Games today like valve's lack of aiming when it comes to zombies that don't need to die from a headshot (which is wrong), are trying to make those who are not military or hunter trained to kill just by pulling the trigger, however on a sad note it teaches a pathetic form of burst fire, effective but not a good way of demonstrating it. Aiming down the sites is required for any gun, even a mini-gun has sites. I will say that L4D is fun but after playing many other where aiming is required to do damage, I found it frustrating and a pain in the ass to play without site aiming. (sniper rifle does not count).

As a hunter I can be at a large pond with a 12-gauge shotgun, half choke with 3 1/2 inch black cloud shot 30 feet away from 4 ducks, hip fire would kill a duck, down the sites with proper placement would kill all 4.

I require sites, hell even in Skyrim you can aim down the sites. Didn't mean to bring that up but, there are people out there that care about what you look at.

 

[Treblaine]

I like this topic. Games today like valve's lack of aiming when it comes to zombies that don't need to die from a headshot (which is wrong), are trying to make those who are not military or hunter trained to kill just by pulling the trigger, however on a sad note it teaches a pathetic form of burst fire, effective but not a good way of demonstrating it. Aiming down the sites is required for any gun, even a mini-gun has sites. I will say that L4D is fun but after playing many other where aiming is required to do damage, I found it frustrating and a pain in the ass to play without site aiming. (sniper rifle does not count).

As a hunter I can be at a large pond with a 12-gauge shotgun, half choke with 3 1/2 inch black cloud shot 30 feet away from 4 ducks, hip fire would kill a duck, down the sites with proper placement would kill all 4.

I require sites, hell even in Skyrim you can aim down the sites. Didn't mean to bring that up but, there are people out there that care about what you look at.

I give up.

If after 10 pages you think this is all arguing in favour of "hipfire" shooting - just slinging the weapon around near the hips and pointing the weapon entirely by proprioception then I give up.

No.

The sights ARE being used, even in games like Left 4 Dead, the sights are being used constantly, the right eye's view of the sights is USED to draw the crosshair in the centre of the screen.

Maybe a year from now I'll raise this topic again when I can find a way of explaining this that is IMPOSSIBLE to misunderstand.

 

[PrimitiveJudge]

I agree dude, but not actively using the sights option is the problem. Most games today are trying to teach the difference, this isn't the doom era anymore its 2012, kids should know the difference where the weapon is placed when it comes to aiming

 

[Zoele]

I agree with the thread starter, but I'm going to take it a step further as some of you may already have. Specifically, it should be accepted that using a gun does not require you to close an eye while looking down the sight with 1 eye. I wouldn't be surprised if keeping both eyes open was even encouraged in some militaries but I don't think they'd have a problem with the "stop, close one eye, target and aim, fire" method or with the method of having both eyes open, the weapon (shouldered if possible) lined up with the (load bearing) trigger arm's eye giving the user greater situational awareness due to increased field of vision (because of the non sighted eye's less gun-obstructed view) and a clear view of the position/vector of aim along with the overlay of the sighting reticle (whatever it may be) due to, of course, having 2 eyes and 2 images which overlay with each other in a addative yet 50% method.

(just some interesting related information: if you close one eye you may notice the world doesn't get darker, however, after sometime you may be able to "confirm the darkness of the other eye in your brain. When that happens then you'll sort of notice the darkness. Non-black overwrites black in your brain at a rate higher than a 50-50 even spread between the two.).

The important thing about these 2 methods is that it keeps the weapon in a ready-to-fire-accurately position. The 2 eyes open method however is more practical and surely more widely practiced (I hope). But besides being not as good there are other issues with the IMPLEMENTATION of 1 eye open aiming down the sight, in FPS. The first is that so many games, when you actually aim down the sight, reduce your movement speed, change the sensitivity and some even cause you to zoom a bit, which... kind of makes no sense if theres no telescopic zoom optics lol. ALL OF THESE THINGS are VERY ANNOYING and makes the whole experience SUCK. If none of these things happened it really wouldn't be that bad. Infact it would just, most often be the second other annoying factor. This second factor is the fact that you actually need to press a button to do this. Which isn't a big deal but... kind of adds to the tedium that a trained specialist would do so naturally that it would be AUTOMATIC. Now this issue isn't really a big one but... When you look at it in terms of how much annoyance is causes, you're pretty much pressing the button which makes the game SUCK. Also, sadly, guns, when close to your eye, eat up alot of the space. You sacrifice your sighted eye's field of vision for pinpoint accuracy.

This drawback alone IS ENOUGH REALISM IN TERMS OF WHAT WOULD BE SEEN. The professional solution would be to open both eyes and gain a bit more vision (see the thread starter's great post). Instead in most games we get this realistic drawback with all sorts of annoying bullshit that SOME real life operators might consider doing, like slowing down, JUST to make sure their shots are more accurate. Infact, ALOT OF GAMES ALREADY IMPLEMENT A MOVEMENT = ACCURACY LOSS factor. Some games even have a WALK button so you can move slow (for all sorts of reasons including having some mobility and more accuracy than a full out run for example). The other issue of this implementation is when you're not even aiming-down-the-sight in a game with an ADS mode as described above, specifically; You have NO ACCURACY WHAT SO FUCKING EVER. Which is BULLSHIT. First of all they call this "hip firing" in alot of games. It doesn't always mean firing from the hip, mafia style (tommy gun style), but it does atleast refer to not having the weapon in the shouldered position.

This is a major issue. Guns should be fired from a shouldered position whenever possible. If its a handgun you shouldn't have a problem lining up the firearm with an eye fairly quickly but admittably trained users would probably be far more natural in this respect. Still, the idea that if you're not aiming down the sight, you therefore have bullshit accuracy, is bollocks. Less? Maybe, or most likely. But not even MUCH less, and then, just in case people are wondering, hip firing isn't that inaccurate of a firing method as well in some cases. You can still line up your target using a vertical but thats not only archaic, it seems pointless IF you know how easy it is to actually have a weapon shouldered.

And contrary to crappy FPS belief, it is possible to run with a shouldered weapon, even with an eye aiming down the sight (admittably this last factor would require some training but it is done and it is possible). Infact, it would probably be implemented in such a way that you would have general ADS accuracy by reflex (you might see where i'm going here) just by pivoting the weapon into your line of sight. Also the gun might be bouncing around as you try to aim down the sight but, the fact that you'd be trying to aim down the sight with one eye, yet still have both eyes open, while running, with the gun shouldered, would probably be enough for you to be able to run and gun "accurately enough" rather than be a complete piece of crap as some games would have you believe, when they show enemies with shouldered weapons in running motion firing bullets all over the place (other players trying to fire accurately in games that handle these concepts poorly for twisted ideas of "realism").

In the end, I'm all for more attention to detail, but when you make the kind of mistake that so many crappy FPS developers have made recently, and then they themselves call it a greater attention to detail, or "realism", you're left with people like me and the thread starter who are annoyed, AND you're left with a bunch of people who don't realise how bad of a design choice they made, and then you're left with a bunch of people who might not even read this.

I'd rather be playing good FPS then complaining about shitty ones but the masses can barely tell the difference between the two. I can go play CS:S, or UT2004, or a handful of other OLD GAMES that did it right. But I've played them to death and writing this here on this thread even though its such an old thread, is just more interesting right now.

What we need are more games that give us that properly-in-control-feeling, standard fps freedom (from the era before all this ADS fail) and don't annoy us with all this improper take on realism bullshit.

Those old games like that were not annoying. They were awesome because they weren't annoying and because they didn't fail in other respects. Alot of games that have this shitty ADS shit often have issues with other gameplay mechanics as well like the Call of Duty series, lol (I didn't even mind COD2 much tbh, but the WW2FPS/game genre really was packed and I didn't need more than one. And I already had ONE [Three. HL:CS DDay, Day of Defeat, Day of Defeat: Source]).

I hope other people agree with me. Thanks for reading before replying.

My reason for writing this would be this statement found above:

"What we need are more games that give us that properly-in-control-feeling, standard fps freedom (from the era before all this ADS fail) and don't annoy us with all this improper take on realism bullshit."

I'm waiting and its a short list (PC):

Tactical Intervention

Let me know if you have anything else that can go on. Peace