Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Treblaine]

That's how that makes me feel. I'm already self concious man..

Lol, it can feel like that, but that's just maths mind-fracking you. The geometry of parallax can go against "gut instinct" in our minds eye the distance between our eyes is insignificant but when something is held close to your face it's actually quite dramatic you just don't immediately realise as you've seen through two eyes all your life.

Now take the important part of what the right eye sees, where the sights line up and indicate where the bullets go, and lay that superimposed over the wider less restricted view of the Left eye. Then you have the classic "unrealistic" representation of aiming a weapon with a reticule in the centre of the screen:

"These games are so unrealistic, you can't aim without using the sights. Where does the reticule on the screen come from?"

The reticule comes from using the gun. It is a game REPRESENTATION of your right eye using the sights while your left eye is open.

You can do this yourself with a ruler though preferably something more gun-like, With your right eye look down the ruler/sights then close your right eye and open your left. It's more obvious with your head canted to the right so your left view of the gun is a little lower.

The reticle comes from not being a moron and knowing where the gun is pointing. When you're not looking down the sites, you're not holding your gun at the hip. In fact imagine how your contorted body would look if you could see that much gun holding it from your hip.

You have it to your shoulder.

Well unfortunately everyone is a moron as Proprioception (detecting where your body parts are relative to reach other) is not that precise, trying to aim just looking at a target and not trying to line anything up visually, then you'd struggle to hit a person standing only 20 feet away, as police have noticed in shootings where the assailant doesn't aim.

Sprinting now? That's something quite separate, completely disabling weapons to move faster. And games like Crysis let you shoot while sprinting just reduced turning/aiming. I never found sprinting that defensive in COD but hugely risky, it is a good way to get to the battle quicker but if anyone sees you then you are totally vulnerable as you certainly aren't moving too fast to hit and change direction slower.

In crysis you have a body suit that makes you super human. Not really a fair comparison..

Also sprinting is defensive if used correctly, you don't spring into battle. You sprint to minimize exposure when you come out of cover. The reason you stated is why you don't spring into a combat zone..

I never liked the whole "tactical choice" by limiting what you can do. I like to be able to shoot with reasonable accuracy while running and jumping, because in my mind I am a badass ninja crossed with Annie Oakley, I don't want to be inherently limited by the game that says I cannot hit where I am trying to aim when I leap over a barrier. The limitation should be the short time frame and shifting perspective of moving up rapidly rather than side to side relative to my target.

You don't like choices, you just want to be a badass? Have you ever tried to sprint and aim a gun? or leap over a barrier and shoot a gun? It moves kind of a lot. It's less about realism in mechanics now and into just freaking weird. This is really getting to sound like "I hate "realistic" games because I'm no good at them. I can't feel superior!"

In most non-ADS games you still can sacrifice mobility to get more accuracy, crouch or just stand still or move while holding walk key keeps the reticule tighter. When I am coaching new players for Left 4 Dead - poor things never played an FPS game without ADS before - I tell them to mount crouch to shift and use in situations where they would use ADS.

Its just that it is no where near to the same extent as with ADS and the disruption between HUD-crosshairs to irons favours someone who is already in position.

I think it very much IS about being a crutch for console players by how the aiming changes fundamentally when "Aim Down Sight" suddenly zoomed, with lower sensitivity and with distinctly higher aim-assist and sometimes even snap-to aiming.

Crouching in L4D is nothing compared to just walking. Quicker movement means less deaths, you can tap the walk key for instant no-miss accuracy, fire, and go. L4D however is a perfect example to use. ADS is for slower more tactical games (Not saying fast paced games don't add them in for no reason) L4D's pace is much quicker, iron sights would get in the way more than anything.

And as for them being a crutch for console players, no.. ADS isn't the crutch, just the aim assist is. A much needed crutch.

If you're not in a supersuit I'm OK with sprinting and not being able to shoot.

The thing is I KNOW I can aim the reticule onto the target and fire at the right moment while leaping and shit, but the game expands my point of aim to half as wide as my field of view. I'd rather have something like the point of aim moved off in a random direction and I could correct for, not just expand the crosshairs to 12 meters wide.

My point about the aim-assist is it becomes CRAZY HIGH when you activate ADS, so high it would be jarring to move around quickly with that ADS all the time.

 

[Garrett]

I think it very much IS about being a crutch for console players by how the aiming changes fundamentally when "Aim Down Sight" suddenly zoomed, with lower sensitivity and with distinctly higher aim-assist and sometimes even snap-to aiming.

Yes, the fact that first games fully utilising ADS weren't even released on consoles (or ported far later) totally proves your point.

IS that sarcasm because games with ADS were released on console, most successfully with Call of Duty's aim-down-sight and super-strong aim-assist?

That was the central point of my argument... okay... I'm confused. Do you agree or not?!?!

How about learning to read? "first games fully utilising ADS". Few games implemented that. Lots of PC gamers liked it. BAM! It's almost everywhere. And consoles had FPSs long beofre ADS system was invented.

Also, CoD and CoD:UO weren't released on consoles. Vietcong wasn't released on consoles. America's Army was ported later on consoles (and in AA even in ADS you may have trouble hitting). Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis was ported on ONE console few years later. There are probably more examples but I'm not into shooters so that's the extent of my knowledge.

So no, argument that ADS is primary for consoles is complete bullshit. Maybe next you'll claim that bullet-time was invented with consoles in mind?

 

[omega 616]

How do your posts always have Pc elitism in them, it's quite impressive really.

On topic. I have no idea where this ramble about how your eyes work comes from. It's a gameplay thing for being more accurate but making you aim and move more slowly.

As far as realism goes, how many soldiers hip fire? Don't you also close one you when you ADS so your aim isn't thrown off by the other ones perspective?

Anyway, ADS isn't going anywhere in modern games any time soon.

 

[MammothBlade]

It's not about realism for me. Hipfire feels more fun, plus you have a wider line of sight. I've always hated Iron Sights since it doesn't feel like shooting a gun so much as a telescopic pea shooter. If I'm in a game with iron sights I always use hipfire like a pro.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, crouching or holding walk key serves the same purpose but not to the same extent or with such jarring difference of rear sight block suddenly appearing and ignoring left-eye field and zoom as well of ADS which doesn't make any sense. It zooms even outside the scope, it can't be the scope.

Once Zombies start getting guns so you have to fight them at mid to long range then L4D will give you the ADS.
Want to see a good comparison? Killing floor has you killing tougher slower moving zombies that require you to make head shots for efficient use of ammo. And thus they give you ADS. No aim-assist. Just use of the game mechanics to give the player the tools to solve the task ahead.

I don't see how you can dismiss Aim-assist when it is so obviously higher when aiming down sights in games like COD. I think it is a very fair point, not an unfair correlation.

So Killing floor has aim assist? No? But it has ADS? Your correlation is unfair then.

"You may not like it, but the world does."

But PC gamers don't and they don't get aim assist nor particularly want it. I'm not saying one is better but PC doesn't get aim assist and it does use a mouse for FPS games which is much more accurate and flexible (broad sweeping motions, then pivot on heel of hand for more precise movements).

PC gamers are not champing at the bit for aim-down-sights in games like Counterstrike or Team Fortress 2, the new Counterstrike won't have ADS. ADS is used in games like Red Orchestra because of the extent of bullet drop you need to use the actual sights mechanism to adjust for bullet drop and windage.

List of very popular PC games without any standardised ADS mechanic:
-Left 4 dead 1 & 2
-Team Fortress 2
-Half Life series
-Tribes Ascend
-Quake Live
-FEAR and FEAR Combat
-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)
-Minecraft? (it's got a bow)

I think it is the mouse and lack of Aim-assist which is a factor.

Wow you went to minecraft for that as well...

Do you really want see how many games I can find with ADS?
If I made a list longer than yours do you then think you were wrong?

I have already proven that ADS and Aim assist are 2 separate entities yet so I dont feel the need to drag it out here and point it out again.

What you want is a PC vs Console fight. Your aim assist gets disabled on the PC almost all the time ADS doesn't.

In the end ADS is a gameplay mechanic. It has its place. My current favourite example of when that mechanic is needed is when the question was asked about Natural Selection 2. They chose not to use it. It turns outs when you are mainly fighting in tight corridors and your enemies are fast moving wall crawling aliens, then accuracy isn't a main concern.

Hmm, point taken on killing floor, but it's not like you couldn't be as precise with an on screen reticule. The Stalker and FEAR series didn't see need for ADS unless a dedicated zoom scope was added. Killing Floor is more of an exception to a trend, the wider trend set by CoD on consoles is right there.

My point of those games is not a quantity list but a matter of quality. ALL THOSE GAMES, very popular and lauded games, don't have aim-down-sight as a standard mechanic and it isn't a problem. There is no great consternation such as "Grr, when are they going to patch in ADS mechanic, mod this shit in NOW!" is not there. Which was my point, not that CoD on PC or latter FEAR games (less well recieved) had ADS.

Of course aim-down-sights (as a standard mechanic, not just an alt-fire for certain weapons like zoom sniper rifle or "ready gun" for like TF2 Heavy's minigun) is not intrinsically and unavoidably associated with ADS, I'm sorry if I left that impression with you.

MY POINT what the "Increase amount of Aaim-assist" IS TOTALLY associated with ADS mechanic. You can have ADS without a ramp-up Aim-assist, but you can't have an on-demand ramp-up-aim-assist without an ADS mechanic.

My point is that ADS is not a salient feature of an FPS being adequately featured or decently realistic game.

My point was that its main utility in ADS is to serve the "increase-aim-assist" mechanic which is mainly for consoles.

 

[Treblaine]

I think it very much IS about being a crutch for console players by how the aiming changes fundamentally when "Aim Down Sight" suddenly zoomed, with lower sensitivity and with distinctly higher aim-assist and sometimes even snap-to aiming.

Yes, the fact that first games fully utilising ADS weren't even released on consoles (or ported far later) totally proves your point.

IS that sarcasm because games with ADS were released on console, most successfully with Call of Duty's aim-down-sight and super-strong aim-assist?

That was the central point of my argument... okay... I'm confused. Do you agree or not?!?!

How about learning to read? "first games fully utilising ADS". Few games implemented that. Lots of PC gamers liked it. BAM! It's almost everywhere. And consoles had FPSs long beofre ADS system was invented.

Also, CoD and CoD:UO weren't released on consoles. Vietcong wasn't released on consoles. America's Army was ported later on consoles (and in AA even in ADS you may have trouble hitting). Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis was ported on ONE console few years later. There are probably more examples but I'm not into shooters so that's the extent of my knowledge.

So no, argument that ADS is primary for consoles is complete bullshit. Maybe next you'll claim that bullet-time was invented with consoles in mind?

Oh that's what you meant, that wasn't very clear.

ADS as a mechanic for all guns may have started on PC but didn't spread on PC like it spread on consoles.

Call of Duty 1 (not the first to do it, but one of the first) was really pushing for realism and had loads of stuff like mountable machine gun emplacements and other details the series would drop later for a "different" approach that long standing fans weren't hugely keen on. I remember playing the game and noticing how the cross-hairs were so tight it didn't make much difference whether aiming down sights or not

COD2 was seen as a betrayal by PC gamers, it was dumbed down compared to the last game and the PC version scored lower on average than the console release. Score aggregates don't say inherently of a game's worth, but they are a good measure of the expressed opinions of critics.

Operation Flashpoint and ARMA focused a lot on "hyper-realism", they could not have something representative like a reticule, even though realistically they would be aiming down the sights to shoot with precision and have their left eye open for wider field of view, it needed to go beyond plausible to "exactly as you would see it" even if things got awkward.

I don't think ADS was "invented" as a console crutch but more as a step towards even more realism.

I do think however that ADS was ADOPTED by so many console games FOR how it could be used as a crutch to compensate for thumbstick's slow imprecision when combined with aim assist.

I hope that cleared that up.

 

[Fishyash]

Honestly I wouldn't bring realism into account of the function of ADS. It is there to make FPS games easier to play on console.

I prefer the way counter strike handles it, where your reticle spreads out making you less accurate, so you have to stand still or walk to get the best accuracy. But still, I think ADS is a more effective solution.

Until a new mechanic comes out that makes console FPS even easier, yet makes the game more enjoyable comes out, ADS is here to stay.

 

[Rack]

I was going to point out the reason for ADS but you've more or less convinced me. Of course the fact that it "feels" more realistic is more significant than it being more realistic so I still don't think it is entirely redundant, but I reckon it's more about making games more controller friendly than anything else.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Did you test this? Or are you making assumptions about parallax? You even say your face is just a few millimetres from the rear sight, get that close and the parallax effects are large.

What you say about the left eye being higher supports what I say, as if your left eye is higher then you would see the weapon in lower right field of your vision while the right eye representing the reticule is centred.

I've served in the swedish army and have done my fair share of combat exercises with an assault rifle as my primary weapon. The simple fact is that you can't aim with both eyes open if you are using iron sights and standard procedure is to not "drop down" into aiming until you've acquired a target, in essence you are looking for a target using both eyes and then lower your head and close your left eye once you start firing. Much like how you "use iron sights" in "realistic" shooters.

This "weapon in lower right corner" thing is even more ridiculous when the weapon in question is equipped with a red dot sight or reflex sight which requires you to look through the sight with both eyes open.

My main contention is that the weapon itself is way too small on screen. If you raise a rifle and aim with it, it will obscure most of your vision and not just a fourth or fifth. While I see your point, it is ultimately flawed an wrong because this particular gaming convention does not match real life.

 

[GoaThief]

No one else wants to be badass ninja cowgirls?

It's OK, you're not alone.

I can totally do without the likes of consolised sprint, iron sights, aim assist, pseudo-realisc arcade military shooters (milsims are a different kettle of fish), a barrage of rewards and low skill ceiling titles that cater to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Treblaine]

How do your posts always have Pc elitism in them, it's quite impressive really.

On topic. I have no idea where this ramble about how your eyes work comes from. It's a gameplay thing for being more accurate but making you aim and move more slowly.

As far as realism goes, how many soldiers hip fire? Don't you also close one you when you ADS so your aim isn't thrown off by the other ones perspective?

Anyway, ADS isn't going anywhere in modern games any time soon.

Well it would be dishonest for me to say PC was worse, and disingenuous to ignore the contrast with consoles.

The ramble about eyes? It's called Parallax, it's high school geometry, really basic stuff of what is actually going on. The ammo counter represents your memory of what shots were loaded, the health bar represents how close to death you feel, and the reticule represents what your right eye sees you lining up with.

I hope I made clear what's called "hip-fire" in games isn't hip fire, it's obvious from the view-model that the weapon is firmly in the shoulder and the rear sight very close to the point of perspective and just a few inches to the right (where the right eye would be).

I think ADS is definitely not going from console games, not unless they come up with a new controller design that is quicker and more accurate than a thumbstick.

 

[Shpongled]

Oh that's what you meant, that wasn't very clear.

ADS as a mechanic for all guns may have started on PC but didn't spread on PC like it spread on consoles.

Call of Duty 1 (not the first to do it, but one of the first) was really pushing for realism and had loads of stuff like mountable machine gun emplacements and other details the series would drop later for a "different" approach that long standing fans weren't hugely keen on. I remember playing the game and noticing how the cross-hairs were so tight it didn't make much difference whether aiming down sights or not

COD2 was seen as a betrayal by PC gamers, it was dumbed down compared to the last game and the PC version scored lower on average than the console release. Score aggregates don't say inherently of a game's worth, but they are a good measure of the expressed opinions of critics.

Operation Flashpoint and ARMA focused a lot on "hyper-realism", they could not have something representative like a reticule, even though realistically they would be aiming down the sights to shoot with precision and have their left eye open for wider field of view, it needed to go beyond plausible to "exactly as you would see it" even if things got awkward.

I don't think ADS was "invented" as a console crutch but more as a step towards even more realism.

I do think however that ADS was ADOPTED by so many console games FOR how it could be used as a crutch to compensate for thumbstick's slow imprecision when combined with aim assist.

I hope that cleared that up.

So what? Doesn't change the fact that, as you pointed out in the paragraph right above that one but seem to have already forgotten, many PC games use ADS for completely different reasons. L4D and many other games use the exact same mechanic already in the fact that reticles decrease/increase in size depending on movement. It is the EXACT same mechanic as ADS, the only difference is the fact that ADS displays a visual representation of the fact that you're becoming more accurate whereas CS/L4D etc don't bother.

Whether it's used as a crutch on console games or not is entirely beyond the point. A) Console games kinda need ADS in some ways for obvious reasons, and B) There are a plethora of PC games out there that use ADS to represent the fact that you can't aim accurately when you're running around.

Just as a sort of aside, have you ever played paintball or anything similar? If so, you'll have noticed how utterly pointless it is to fire without aiming down the sights at any range beyond a few feet, and you'll also noticed how utterly fucked you are if you spend literally the entire game actually aiming down the sights. Some video games are going to want to represent this aspect (just as some games aren't, mainly earlier FPS's, but TF2 also comes to mind), and ADS mechanics are by far the most "realistic" ways of doing this. You can use a simpler reticle expanding/retracting as you move sort of mechanic to represent this if you want, but it's merely a cosmetic difference, the same mechanics are going on beneath.

So i'm guessing you're not actually complaining about the mechanic itself, what you're actually complaining about is that you personally don't enjoy seeing iron sights on your screen. Which is completely fine, different strokes and all that, but don't tell the rest of us that just because we like seeing iron sights that we're somehow wrong for our opinions.