Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Treblaine]

"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:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

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:

EDIT = different picture from mode recent in the series, on PC with 90-degrees FOV.

"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.

-------​

Spoiler: Then why bother with Aim-down sights in games?

Why? I think it's a con, with faux-realism and a crutch for much more unrealistic things like instantaneous zoom with iron sights and super-powerful aim-assist when activating iron-sights.

It's most valuable for on consoles where the thumbstick is just so crap for aiming, not a problem if a proper aiming device like a mouse is used.

OK, some hyper realistic games might need aim-down sights like Red Orchestra or ARMA for how you have adjustible sights and other things, but certainly the vast majority of FPS games, including war games the ADS mechanic is a crutch for gameplay, not for the level of realism they are aspiring to.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm one of those folks that doesn't give a right (or left) shit about realism in games, so I have to put the question of whether the realism is ever really gonna be real anyway, and if it's not...does that invalidate even the need for this argument?

 

[Spambot 3000]

The point of realism in ADS is that it gives you the experience of actually aiming down a guns sights. Thus being more realistic. The best your argument can prove is that ADS isn't necessary. It doesn't explain why it's not necessary for 'realism'.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

 

[Spambot 3000]

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

Your eyes aren't far enough apart for that.

This is true also. Unless you have a magical floating left eye.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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

Your eyes aren't far enough apart for that.

This. Unless your eyes are spaced apart so far that it makes you look like some kind of alien from Star Wars, then your left eye will not be seeing anything remotely similar to that. In fact, if you are using traditional iron sights your left eye would be slightly above and to the left of your right (because you lean in over the rifle couched at your shoulder) and would have the rear sight just a few millimeters away, not enough distance to properly focus on it.

As stated above by Draech, iron sights are mostly a gameplay mechanic meant to slow down firefights and make them more static. This represents how you in real life can't do much of any accurate shooting unless standing still.

 

[Smooth Operator]

But you need to understand that people who cry for realism do not mean realism, they mean a good enough illusion.
Noone questions the regenerating capabilities that would make Wolverine jealous, or the telepathic link that tells you when opponents get hit, or the instant teleportation in and out of vehicles... that's not as important as having your face full of gun.

 

[Treblaine]

"Then why bother with Aim-down sights in games?"

Why? I think it's a con, with faux-realism and a crutch for much more unrealistic things like instantaneous zoom with iron sights and super-powerful aim-assist when activating iron-sights.

It's most valuable for on consoles where the thumbstick is just so crap for aiming, not a problem if a proper aiming device like a mouse is used.

OK, some hyper realistic games might need aim-down sights like Red Orchestra or ARMA for how you have adjustible sights and other things, but certainly the vast majority of FPS games, including war games the ADS mechanic is a crutch for gameplay, not for the level of realism they are aspiring to.

Swing and a miss.

What happens is fairly simple.

What happens when you sprint in a modern fps? Your gun is disabled for the duration of the sprint. You are given a tactical choice. Move faster, but you cant shoot.

What happens when Aim down sights? You move slower. Sacrifice mobility for accuracy. defence for offence if you will.

Its not about it being needed to aim with an thumbstick or realism. It is about giving the player a tactical choice when presented with an engagement. It is about gameplay.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

It would though, did you do as I suggested and test this for yourself? Aim down something with your right eye then look through only your left eye. Remember to cant the right side of your head down a bit.

When your face is THAT close to the weapon the parallax of a few inches between your eyes is very significant. It looks close enough.

Also, even though it is called "hip-fire" it is quite clear that the weapon's stock is in the person's shoulder. Hold a tube, toy gun or safety-checked unloaded real gun at your hip, under your armpit, point it at a "target" far away and look at the same target. The "weapon" is hardly visible in your peripheral vision at all, certainly not the few-degrees off centre-view that you see in video games.

...
But yeah, I have yet to see how special units (since too many games are dealing with some kind of special units) are holding their guns in action that resembels the idea of "hip", all I've seen up to this day is that the guns are nearly always in aiming position or just slight down to prevent overreaction and shooting the teammembers. The idea of hipfire seems to be rooted in action movies... And if people want realism from games simulating action movies I really don't know what to say.

Yep, that is definitely the way they look.

Unless your eyes are spaced apart so far that it makes you look like some kind of alien from Star Wars, then your left eye will not be seeing anything remotely similar to that. In fact, if you are using traditional iron sights your left eye would be slightly above and to the left of your right (because you lean in over the rifle couched at your shoulder) and would have the rear sight just a few millimeters away, not enough distance to properly focus on it.

As stated above by Draech, iron sights are mostly a gameplay mechanic meant to slow down firefights and make them more static. This represents how you in real life can't do much of any accurate shooting unless standing still.

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.

 

[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.

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.

Then stop playing FPS that are doing that. There are lots of players who like what you don't.

 

[oplinger]

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:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

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

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.

"Then why bother with Aim-down sights in games?"

Why? I think it's a con, with faux-realism and a crutch for much more unrealistic things like instantaneous zoom with iron sights and super-powerful aim-assist when activating iron-sights.

It's most valuable for on consoles where the thumbstick is just so crap for aiming, not a problem if a proper aiming device like a mouse is used.

OK, some hyper realistic games might need aim-down sights like Red Orchestra or ARMA for how you have adjustible sights and other things, but certainly the vast majority of FPS games, including war games the ADS mechanic is a crutch for gameplay, not for the level of realism they are aspiring to.

It adds realism because it's more exact than just waving a rifle around and going "LOOK AT THE BULLETS LOOOL"

And as said above, it's a tactical choice.

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.

 

[Zhukov]

[snip]

By the way, are you that same guy who I've seen get into great big arguments about ADS mechanics in other threads around here?

 

[Treblaine]

Sprinting was to show an example of how it works. How tactical choice is a gameplay option and you missed the whole core of what tactics is. If you using sprint gets you killed, then clearly you did it wrong.

Also you go most non-ADS shooters, and then you mention l4d who has crouch using the exact same tactical choice setup. Sacrifice mobility for accuracy. It serves the same purpose. Only difference is that ADS is meant to be fighting enemies at a greater range than melee zombies so they give you a slight zoom.

Now the whole thing about what you like is all well and good, but here is the deal. Quake already exists living almost 100% on execution rather than tactical decision. You find the the forced choice limiting? Good! that means it works. Meaningful choice is supposed to be between things you want and deny you some of it. Real choice is shown in what it denies you.

Fact is it was never about realism or aim assist (making an unfair correlation. Classy).

It is a style of gameplay. You may not like it, but the world does.

Hmm I died when sprinting and must have done it wrong... ooooooh-kaaaaaay...

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.

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.

"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.

 

[Treblaine]

[snip]

By the way, are you that same guy who I've seen get into great big arguments about ADS mechanics in other threads around here?

There can't be only one.

But no, I have never raised the issue of ADS much before, this parallax thing only occurred to me recently.

 

[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?!?!

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.

Then stop playing FPS that are doing that. There are lots of players who like what you don't.

No one else wants to be badass ninja cowgirls?