Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Treblaine]

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.

Can I point out that both Fear and Half-life from your list before had aim-assist (toggleable in the original HL's options. Even in multiplayer) ?

Im sorry your coloration between Aim-assist and ADS is simply not founded. It is between consoles and aim-assist, and it exists mainly for because of their limitation in controls.

The ADS is a separate mechanic that has its ups pros and cons, but you are making false positive by equating it to a crutch.

Like I pointed out it has its place as a mechanic. It is best utilized in games where accuracy is rewarded. Like CoD. Here is a bit of trivia for you. Ironsight Aiming was modded into Battlefield 1942 by fans. A game exclusively made for PC was changed to what you are saying is a mechanic mainly for consoles by some of its own fans.

The entire issue lies at the modern military genre being popular on the console and the ADS is a good mechanic for that genre.

I think you are actually quoting me there.

The aim assist in those PC games is so weak and and I've never found aim assist works well with any mouse controlled game for the "twitchy" nature of aiming with a mouse, aim assist works best with the slower and more continuous vector based inputs of thumbstick aiming.

Well I hope you understand me when I said Aim-Down-Sight is a cue for the game to dial up aim-assist to a level that would be too high for moving about normally, but ideal when the game knows you are trying to aim to shoot at someone.

BF 1942 really is trying to go for the realism though. Without considering the parallax representation of the reticule, they may erroneously think they need to have aim down sight function on every gun for it to be realistic. But I'm arguing they didn't need to even do that.

 

[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.

Ah, see this is where i think your argument comes from and also where it falls to to pieces. I suspect the only reason many video games display your gun is in the bottom right is just a way to show you that you've got a gun out. There are games out there that just present you with a completely blank screen until you pull the ADS up, but that just feels odd. I guess developers stick the gun in the bottom right to avoid it feeling weird, and the fact that by default they're limited in places where they can stick the gun because of TV screens means it can sort of seem that the gun is lined up somewhere close to your eyes if you're trying to take this 24" representation of the entire field of vision of the human eyes too literally.

The reason i suspect this is true is because you can't really realistically move at any sort of reasonable speed with a gun lined up anywhere close to either of your eyes. It just ain't feasible. Soldiers don't run around the battlefield with the gun counched in the shoulders, they draw it up to their shoulders when they intend to shoot something.

Hmm, I don't know any FPS game that has come out in the last decade that doesn't have ANY visible gun model till you press the "sight in" key/button. Could you name one?

While it is plausible that the gun is only visible to show what gun there is, it also happens to appear perfectly with where the gun would appear if held with the stock in the shoulder, and generally armed policemen and soldiers are seen to have their weapon shouldered when they are in a combat zone intending to use it.

You can actually move quite fast with a rifle shouldered. The M4 carbine weighs a mere 2.5kg, that's not much more than the weight of a large bottle of soda.


Lots of running with a much heavier rifle set in their shoulder the whole time, even when moving at "reasonable speed".

 

[bojackx]

Actually, no, your left eye would not be seeing anything like that.

Your eyes aren't far enough apart for that.

There is nothing remotely realistic about accurate fire from the hip. In the real world, if you want to hit a target at anything beyond point blank range you raise your weapon to your shoulder and aim down the bloody sights. That's what they're there for.

This.

It's more realistic to have ADS because of the simple fact that IRL, hipfiring is less accurate than aiming down the sights. If they have to provide us with some incorrect perspective for ADS to work in games, so be it. It's still much more realistic than not having ADS at all.

 

[Squilookle]

BF 1942 really is trying to go for the realism though. Without considering the parallax representation of the reticule, they may erroneously think they need to have aim down sight function on every gun for it to be realistic. But I'm arguing they didn't need to even do that.

He's talking about the Mods- the default game didn't have ADS at all, save for a sniper scope. The Modders probably put Ironsights in because a) it's easier to implement, b) It was very novel at the time, and c)They just thought it looked cool.

And Treblaine- you need to work on your explanations a bit more- the amount of confusion people have had about what you were getting at in this thread is staggering- especially since you've already outlined your thoughts quicker and more clearly before on seperate occasions, like here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.314506-What-is-the-point-of-ironsight-aiming?page=3#12761460

And here, too:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.321605-Serious-Sam-3-does-not-need-ironsights-Full-stop?page=2#13178608

Here's my feelings on the matter, as stated before, and I....think they somewhat echo yours- you'll have to let me know if they are or not:

"The way I see it, before Iron sights came out, games already had all the ironsight gameplay mechanics. Even with crosshairs, games had right click zooming which sacrificed speed for an accuracy increase. Crouching/proning added further to accuracy, increasing the usefulness of fine-aiming.

The only thing that changed when ironsights arrived was that games lumped a bloody big black blur in front of your face, covering a sixth of your screen and wrecking your view. It doesn't improve immersion, because in real life you've got two eyes, and at a moment's notice you can open your non-aiming eye for another perspective on anything that's in the gun's blind spot. In a game, however, the gun instantly slots in to the perfect firing line, and you get stuck into a ridiculous pattern of aiming away from your target until you're sure it's an enemy, then plucking your aim at them to fire.

Later crosshair games had all of the advantages of the ironsight system, without any of that screen blocking crap. As I've said time and time again, if I want that much of my screen obscured, I'll stack a book infront of the moniter.

Ironsights need to kick the bucket. I'd only ever accept them in the more realism centric shooters like Flashpoint, ARMA, and RO2 and the like. And even then crosshairs should be an option. I beat the whole of the first Flashpoint and probably only used the actual ironsights a handful of times.

We should NEVER be forced to use goddamn ironsights. Give us the option."

 

[PatrickXD]

Maybe I'm just horribly confused, but I always suspected that the gun becoming dead straight on centre screen was a representation of you closing your left eye, right? So it looks straight because you're avatar has only the one eye open. I mean, it's damn hard to fire a gun with both eyes open.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Realism" in shooters. Oh dear, are we being serious?

 

[DarkRyter]

I thought aiming down the sights was about game balance.

Can't see half the screen, but you shoot more accurately.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

**snip**

Have you heard of ocular dominance? I would think from your post that you don't really have a clue what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance
There's a clue.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Actually, no, your left eye would not be seeing anything like that.

Your eyes aren't far enough apart for that.

There is nothing remotely realistic about accurate fire from the hip. In the real world, if you want to hit a target at anything beyond point blank range you raise your weapon to your shoulder and aim down the bloody sights. That's what they're there for.

This. One of the first thing you're taught when using a weapon is using the sights and getting the weapon resting on your shoulder, as it allows you to aim accurately and takes the recoil action.

So if you're that tied up about realism, you'd understand why it's in. But nice touches with the diagrams.

 

[mad825]

"What? He's crazy, this guy must be crazy to suggest that hipfire with a mysterious reticule in the middle of the screen is in any way realistic."

Well, not so crazy when you think about how the screen perspective is a single 2D perspective yet humans have 2 eyes meaning you'd get two shifted 2D perspectives, that means the parallax must be represented combining the two views into one frame.

"What? I don't follow, Parallax?"

Basically, both your eyes look the same direction but because your eyes are a few inches apart they get a different view. Like how if you look at a tree with your finger held up, your right eye sees what is slightly shifted from what your left eye sees:

Remember this picture. How does it look familiar? The finger in line to the tree, like the sight post on a gun, and then the off the the side view...

When we see the the world around us with two eyes we combine this together what each eyeball sees as the images are processed separately. But how would you Represent this in a First-person perspective which has only a single 2D frame?

Think about it, the right eye would be looking down the weapons sights and out around at the enviroment. The left eye would be looking around with a better view at the environment and see the left side of the gun in your hand.

Your left eye would see something like this:

There's a thing call eye dominance. I take it you've never fired a handheld gun/basic rifle or something. Usually, one eye takes over to process the image however if you use the wrong eye you'll lose depth perception and shoot too far left/right from where you were aiming.

Commonly, people are right eyed however there are people whose eyes are both dominant in which case it doesn't matter which eye you aim with. The idea of implementing eye dominance is just stupid and a waste of time.

 

[Doopliss64]

Your science is a little flawed but I've been saying the same thing for years. There are many instances of devs going for a superficially "realistic" option instead of an actual representation of human perception. I do have to disagree with your jab at consoles though, the stick is not as precise as a mouse but its perfectly serviceable for the majority of people.

 

[MetroidNut]

Broke out my airsoft M4 carbine to test this, because I had it lying around so why not. Looking down the sights with your right eye gives you roughly the view you get in most FPS's when not aiming down sights. There's just two problems - first, the gun would eat up the entire bottom-right corner of the screen, right up to the reticle, basically. The other problem is previously noted - you wouldn't actually keep your left eye open when aiming.

CONCLUSION: Your eyes are further apart than you might expect, but reality still doesn't quite match what you get in most games when not aiming down the sights, and in the end the argument is irrelevant anyway because ADS feels more like aiming a gun. Whether it's actually a good representation of aiming a gun doesn't matter - it feels more like you're aiming it, not just relying on a rarely-explained crosshair inexplicably hovering in the middle of your screen, so I would argue it improves immersion.

 

[The Funslinger]

Actually, no, your left eye would not be seeing anything like that.

Your eyes aren't far enough apart for that.

There is nothing remotely realistic about accurate fire from the hip. In the real world, if you want to hit a target at anything beyond point blank range you raise your weapon to your shoulder and aim down the bloody sights. That's what they're there for.

Agreed. I came here to say you'd have to be hellishly deformed if that was what you saw. Or Ice Age's Sid the Sloth.

The only nitpick I have for aim-down-sights is how unrealistically it does it. You want to look dead centre down a rifle? Don't come crying to me when your front teeth are missing and your sternum is shattered.

 

[Major_Tom]

Bullshit.

Spoiler: No eye sees this

Spoiler: Left eye

Spoiler: Right eye

Now neighbors are looking at me funny.

Also, I find it ironic that you have the Doomguy on your avatar. How did he aim?

Spoiler: Oh right, like this.

 

[ElPatron]

Well, not so crazy when you think about how the screen perspective is a single 2D perspective yet humans have 2 eyes meaning you'd get two shifted 2D perspectives, that means the parallax must be represented combining the two views into one frame.

Which is why you train to shoot with both eyes open, or if you're lazy just close one eye.

Damn it, aiming a gun is not rocket science.

The only nitpick I have for aim-down-sights is how unrealistically it does it. You want to look dead centre down a rifle? Don't come crying to me when your front teeth are missing and your sternum is shattered.

If you have a proper cheek weld and your left eye closed you can look dead center. Otherwise it becomes impossible to align the front sight since it's not canted to your side.

Video games really make it look way too easy to accurately hit a target with any sort of firearm. Hitting a medium sized target (like, say, a person) at anything over fifty meters isn't as easy as pointing and firing. Don't even get me started on shooting long distance! lol

Firearms were made so that the lowest common denominator in society can still serve in the military.

Fifty meters is a challenge with handguns, but any sort of properly zeroed rifle will allow groupings less than 1" at 50m.

A human torso is much bigger than a 1" circle.

you wouldn't actually keep your left eye open when aiming.

That's why you aim with your dominant eye. It's recommended to keep both eyes open so that you can maintain situational awareness.

Shooting from the dominant eye still allows the sights to be always superimposed on the target, though.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Your left eye would see something like this:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

But... if you aim down sights then you want to be seeing the bottom image, not the top and bottom image. How would it be 'realistic' to see the same gun model all the time and be told "it's ok bro, your right eye is aiming down the sights!" even though you can't see it. I don't care about realism, but since you're trying to say it's realistic to have a gun completely stationary all of the time and say "parallax lol", I'm calling it out.

 

[WanderingFool]

The only nitpick I have for aim-down-sights is how unrealistically it does it. You want to look dead centre down a rifle? Don't come crying to me when your front teeth are missing and your sternum is shattered.

Do you know how aim a gun?

 

[The Funslinger]

The only nitpick I have for aim-down-sights is how unrealistically it does it. You want to look dead centre down a rifle? Don't come crying to me when your front teeth are missing and your sternum is shattered.

Do you know how aim a gun?

Yes, I've grown up hunting and shooting.

If they could put some proper alignment on the guns, I wouldn't mind, but in all games with iron sights, it looks like the protagonist is sticking the stock under his chinny chin chin.

 

[CplDustov]

I always thought it was implied that the other eye was closed as the sights were brought up t the avatar's face. I'm not sure, but I believe it's not really zoom but a change of Field Of View which links to reduced peripheral awareness.

However, I imagine it's different for different games; if valve have light refracting through water etc. then there's no reason real lense physics aren't in play by this point.

 

[ElPatron]

but in all games with iron sights, it looks like the protagonist is sticking the stock under his chinny chin chin.

You're supposed to push the stock into your cheek so that the shooting eye is as close to the center of the rifle as possible.

Your shooting eye sees the rifle as if it was in the place your chin used to be.

Please, OP, let me hope you're not saying you aim your guns with both eyes open... That would be awkward.

I'm right eye dominant and shoot with both eyes open to give me peripheral view. It's only awkward if you have never done it before.

Fun story, I trained shooting with both eyes with Nerf before trying on the real deal.