What is better, ADS or nOsc0peZ?

[Bob_McMillan]

I have a feeling this is too spunkgargleweewee-ish for you guys, but oh well.

This was brought on mainly by reactions of people on Halo 5 videos. Apparently most of them think that bringing ADS into Halo is a bad thing. As someone who loves the lore of Halo, this was great news for me. I was horrible at Halo 4 when I tried it on my uncle's 360. But as I said, the Halo community hates it. Apparently this sentiment is shared by many people. Even Yahtzee, in the Painkiller review I think, doesn't seem to think much of ADS.

I for one think that ADS is an awesome mechanic (can you call it that?) in FPS games. It makes the game feel faster somehow, more fluid.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

 

[False Messiah]

I think it depends on the rest of the game. My experience is that ADS makes the game a bit slower and more deliberate. Getting cover is more important and usually your movement slows when you're aiming.

I think that if ADS is 'better' for long range combat (snipers, rifles and the like) and hip fire is better for close combat (spray and pray).

There is a case to be made that ADS is more realistic, no one in real life is going to be a good shot without using the sights on his/her weapon, but combat in video games isn't very realistic, so I don't care either way.

 

[baddude1337]

I don't mind either way, not a big Halo fan. In terms of the lore it seems slightly odd as I thought spartans were meant to be godly at aiming even without scopes etc and lot of that was built into their helmets. In terms of gameplay for a classic styled FPS (in terms of aiming) to suddenly get ADS 5 games in does seem odd, and I can see why a lot of people wouldn't like it.

I wouldn't say ADS makes the game more fast paced at all, the opposite actually. Then again my main shooter experience for the past few months has been Project Reality singleplayer.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

Its completely dependent on the game. Its a design choice. It makes sense for some games and doesn't for others.

As far as Halo goes the new smart scope ADS is really obnoxious. Its a complete downgrade in many respects, it blocks far more of the player field of view, it is slower to activate, and punishes hipfire by giving some weapons huge buffs to range.

On top of all that it is actually less lore friendly than the zoom in the other games. The whole point of targeting/smart-link stuff was to explain why we didn't need to bring our weapon up to our face to aim.

Its just another change chasing the coattails of CoD and other 'modern' shooters without any thought given to gameplay.

 

[Prince of Ales]

I can't see anything wrong with having the option of ADS. It's an additional mechanic after all. You trade a bit of mobility for a bit of accuracy, and if it's done right it can be a strategic choice. You've just got to be careful to give both modes a purpose.

I don't play too many shooters, but I've played a lot of the Borderlands series. I felt that in BL2 specifically, there were very few weapons that had a good hip-fire (Hyperions were fine from the hip, for instance). For most weapons ADS was generally superior. TPS had an interesting mechanic with Nisha's pistol spec. She gets a skill that lets her dual-wield pistols, but using ADS would only let you fire the right-hand weapon. Couple that with a few skills that affect hip-firing only, and I felt there was more of a real choice between precision fire and spray-and-pray, and I'll regularly find myself using both as the situation permits while mobbing.

I can understand complaints when it's not done right. It has to add something to the game.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if you like it I guess you like it.
I will say it works for long range weaponry, and it is that bit more "realistic" as a lowly human won't hit much from hip fire. But it actually makes games very slow, sure the camera jumps around like a drunkard but that is the "action enhancement" equivalent to movies that just shake the camera instead of making a proper action scene.

And if you aren't a lowly humie why the fuck would you need it, ergo why the fuck would super Saiyan Halo robo dudes need them after 10 games... did their shit get broken over the years or something?

 

[SoreWristed]

my main argument against the noscope people would be : 'if you are slowed down by ADS, that means you aren't very good at it. ' It means an extra button to press or hold down, with a finger that probably isn't doing anything else at the moment, so i don't see why you would lose time. If you have to rely on speed to get you back to cover before your targets buddies figure out where you were, then i understand why you hate it. Those players have, in my mind, very little understanding of how teamplay or using a map to your advantage works. In fact, most halo multiplayer footage i have seen so far, even from pro players, tells me this is just the opposite of a tactical shooter.

I like ADS in gaming and for me that means having to sacrifice a little bit of spacial awareness to gain more accuracy. It's a tactical choice i need to make, in order to get that kill, and not get shot myself.

I would love to go on the Xbox version of destiny and simply outgun all those players from the halo games, simply because i'm already used to ADSing.

 

[Mahorfeus]

Disclaimer: Gamepad FPS Player

I think ADS is a great addition to any game - truth be told, I have a hard time aiming without it. In whatever CoD game I happen to be playing, I almost always take any perks that make it easier to use. My habit of using it in close quarters tends to get me killed a lot, though...

That being said, I was under the impression that there were lore-related reasons that ADS was unnecessary in Halo, though I might be wrong. Granted, it wouldn't be the first time they expanded/retconned something for the sake of accomadating a new mechanic.

 

[Vigormortis]

my main argument against the noscope people would be : 'if you are slowed down by ADS, that means you aren't very good at it. '

Uh, most games with ADS actively slow player movement when the ADS button is pressed. It's not a matter of the player "not being very good at it" but rather the game actually slowing player movement.

I don't know how you've missed that.

It means an extra button to press or hold down, with a finger that probably isn't doing anything else at the moment, so i don't see why you would lose time.

Which is one of the sticking points of the debate. Why should a player HAVE to press an extra key to fire? It adds a extra layer of inherent latency to the action (or rather, reaction) of firing at a target. Ergo, you lose time.

It's not really a matter of opinion. You literally lose some time between reaction and action.

If you have to rely on speed to get you back to cover before your targets buddies figure out where you were, then i understand why you hate it.

First, what the hell does moving to cover have to do with ADS mechanics?

Second, how does one NOT need to rely on speed to move effectively from cover to cover?

I genuinely do not understand this part of your argument.

Those players have, in my mind, very little understanding of how teamplay or using a map to your advantage works.

Again, what the hell does this have to do with ADS? In light of games like Team Fortress, Counter-Strike, et al, that are centered around team play and map awareness and have little to no form of ADS present in their aiming mechanics, how does that claim make any sense? Further, you have games like Quake, et al, that have no ADS and are built entirely around player movement, aiming skill, and map control. So the claim makes even less sense in regards to those.

In fact, most halo multiplayer footage i have seen so far, even from pro players, tells me this is just the opposite of a tactical shooter.

Even if that were the case, (though I'd argue Halo is no more or less "tactical" than many traditional ADS games, like Call of Duty for example) that doesn't "prove" your assertion that ADS is intrinsically better than non-ADS , nor that players who prefer non-ADS are somehow "bad" at playing.

I like ADS in gaming and for me that means having to sacrifice a little bit of spacial awareness to gain more accuracy. It's a tactical choice i need to make, in order to get that kill, and not get shot myself.
.

And this is effectively the crux of the debate.

Why should the player have to sacrifice spacial awareness, and to a degree, mobility, for the slight bonus of accuracy? Why suffer BOTH when one would suffice as a trade-off?

Using Counter-Strike, again, as a prime example, you have a high-degree of mobility while moving but lose some of your accuracy. By slowing down, walking, or crouching, you gain a high degree of accuracy to your weapon while sacrificing your initial mobility. It's a solid, one-to-one trade off. Adding in the addition of ADS would lead to a two-to-one trade off. Something that would drastically affect the flow, speed, and tactical nature of Counter-Strike. The loss of spatial awareness AND mobility would be catastrophically detrimental to what makes Counter-Strike Counter-Strike.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

That said, I have no inherent issue with ADS. I enjoy it when used well, and am perfectly comfortable playing a first person game with or without it. I just felt your argument was needlessly derogatory and seemed to miss the point of the other side of the debate. So don't take my quoting you as some "attack". I just wanted to chip in on the debate and am always open to hearing from both sides.

 

[SoreWristed]

That said, I have no inherent issue with ADS. I enjoy it when used well, and am perfectly comfortable playing a first person game with or without it. I just felt your argument was needlessly derogatory and seemed to miss the point of the other side of the debate. So don't take my quoting you as some "attack". I just wanted to chip in on the debate and am always open to hearing from both sides.

Well said, but i fear you misunderstood many of my points. player movement and time/kill ratio are two different things entirely. I was talking mainly about time/kill. I don't feel, or see how, ADS slows down a player's ratio.


To your argument of having to press the extra button, i'm going to compare it to something else first. Please don't take this to be demeaning, because that's not what i mean.
=> having to press an extra button to be able to fire as accurately as you need/want, is the same to me as having to turn a doorknob, before walking through the doorway. You can walk through the door anyway, but it's going to take an inordinate amount of effort (bullets). Your hand probably isn't doing anything as you are walking through the door, so what harm is the minimal effort? I realise this only applies to games that have ADS implemented. Games without ADS, ussually revolve around other types of trade off.

I never meant games that don't feature ADS to be automatically better, but simply based on other mechanics and skills.
I also feel Counterstrike to be a category of it's own, and not to fit into any other, exactly because of it's unique mechanics.

And if you want to continue this argument with guns, come find me on steam and we'll duke it out in Dust2.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

ADS is a result of the shift of modern shooters towards the """""""realistic"""""" angle. Given how monotonous and ubiquitous it is, almost to the point of being anti-fun, I can see how the standard notable mechanics can become signals of bad games in and of themselves. This is in contrast to older, faster and more "arcadey" mechanics where you're moving way too fast to take deliberate aim which is heavily associated with fun games.

As a side note, I remember Razorfist saying in one of his videos how he cannot believe how unrealistic games are in that they have soldiers taking aim in a firefight. He genuinely seemed to believe that shooting from the hip or flailing it around corners was SOP in a struggle.

 

[Vigormortis]

Well said, but i fear you misunderstood many of my points. player movement and time/kill ratio are two different things entirely. I was talking mainly about time/kill. I don't feel, or see how, ADS slows down a player's ratio.

Perhaps it was the wording. That wasn't what I was getting out of the comment. My apologies.

As for the time interval to kill ratio, I'd say it's very much a case-by-case dilemma. Depending on the game design, inherent movement speed and ability of the player characters, method of gunplay, etc, the average time-to-kill ratio could vary wildly, or not at all, with the inclusion of an ADS system.

To your argument of having to press the extra button, i'm going to compare it to something else first. Please don't take this to be demeaning, because that's not what i mean.
=> having to press an extra button to be able to fire as accurately as you need/want, is the same to me as having to turn a doorknob, before walking through the doorway. You can walk through the door anyway, but it's going to take an inordinate amount of effort (bullets). Your hand probably isn't doing anything as you are walking through the door, so what harm is the minimal effort? I realise this only applies to games that have ADS implemented.

I wasn't really saying that the delay was detrimental in all instances. In fact, within games designed around an ADS system the delay between reaction and action is so minimal as to be inconsequential. What I meant was, for some games, millisecond-quick reaction and response times are crucial. So much so that even the extra action of having to press one or more keys prior to pressing the fire key can be the difference between landing a shot or missing entirely.

And this isn't taking into account the slowing of player movement when aiming.

Games without ADS, ussually revolve around other types of trade off.

Oh, of course. Some do. But many others don't delve into 'trade offs' at all. Games like Quake 3 are all about the player's skill with movement and aiming. There's no trade off between adjusting to one or the other.

I never meant games that don't feature ADS to be automatically better, but simply based on other mechanics and skills.
I also feel Counterstrike to be a category of it's own, and not to fit into any other, exactly because of it's unique mechanics.

Fair enough. Your comment about ADS detractors "not getting it" threw me, I suppose.

And if you want to continue this argument with guns, come find me on steam and we'll duke it out in Dust2.

Depends on which version of CS we're talkin' about here.

'Course, regardless of which it is I'll need to reinstall it. Haven't played in ages. XD

 

[baddude1337]

ADS is a result of the shift of modern shooters towards the """""""realistic"""""" angle. Given how monotonous and ubiquitous it is, almost to the point of being anti-fun, I can see how the standard notable mechanics can become signals of bad games in and of themselves. This is in contrast to older, faster and more "arcadey" mechanics where you're moving way too fast to take deliberate aim which is heavily associated with fun games.

As a side note, I remember Razorfist saying in one of his videos how he cannot believe how unrealistic games are in that they have soldiers taking aim in a firefight. He genuinely seemed to believe that shooting from the hip or flailing it around corners was SOP in a struggle.

Most mainstream games do take the idea of aiming to a ludicrous degree. I would say a lot of the problem lies in the actual distance of combat in a lot of shooters. Games like CoD have really, really small maps and therefore short engagement ranges. You wouldn't need to aim down a scope of someone very close to you but aiming has been associated with "realism" in gaming so therefore games force you to with really awful hipfire accuracy. A mod I mentioned earlier, Project Reality, has engagement ranges of normally a few hundred metres at least so aiming is essential and it also takes time to acquire a target. Then when in close hip firing is still really effective, as it would be when you are a few metres from a target.

 

[kommando367]

Target 4-50m away - ADS

Target < 4m away - hip-fire

Target > 50m - get closer to target.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I have a feeling this is too spunkgargleweewee-ish for you guys, but oh well.

This was brought on mainly by reactions of people on Halo 5 videos. Apparently most of them think that bringing ADS into Halo is a bad thing. As someone who loves the lore of Halo, this was great news for me. I was horrible at Halo 4 when I tried it on my uncle's 360. But as I said, the Halo community hates it. Apparently this sentiment is shared by many people. Even Yahtzee, in the Painkiller review I think, doesn't seem to think much of ADS.

I for one think that ADS is an awesome mechanic (can you call it that?) in FPS games. It makes the game feel faster somehow, more fluid.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Here's the thing about ADS in a Halo game, there's in-game lore reasons for it to not be there. All the weapons in the Halo universe have cameras on them, which connect to the user's armor, and provide the reticule on their HUD. That's the entire reason that there's no ADS in the previous Halo games, because the lore says there's no need for it since the soldiers know exactly where their guns are aiming without having to aim down sights. The only exception are guns that have scopes.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't really see how ADS vs no ADS is all that different. You will still aim and shoot the same regardless. You center the camera on the enemy and fire with or without ADS. I never got why hip-fire in most games is so inaccurate, I understand having more deviation and less accuracy when moving but I never got why ADS is more accurate as you aim in the same manner if you aren't using ADS anyways. ADS is nice for giving you a different sensitivity to correct your aim and stay on a target as the speed and acceleration is different (slower and more fine tuned) when using ADS vs just using the camera.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I'm not generally a fan of aim down sights for several reasons, but I think most of it comes down to me just being plain sick of the mechanic. I just feel like it's in too damn many games, and has been for too damn long. The mechanic, for me at least, has the tendency to make games feel very similar to one another (which is compounded by the fact that I don't play that many shooters, so I don't notice the subtle differences between games). Also, I just tend to prefer more movement focused games where you don't slow down to aim, which really doesn't lend itself well to aim down sights, in my opinion.

That's not to say that it's a bad mechanic. Killing Floor, for example, is a game that I think is greatly improved by having aim down sights. I just wish we had a bit more variety, is all.

 

[Evonisia]

ADS is fine, but in the case of Halo it really wasn't necessary. The guns were either accurate enough or they had a scope. Introducing ADS was just one of my factors that shows that Halo is desperately trying to become like Call of Duty (something that began in Halo: Reach, mind) and at this point it may as well be called Titanhalo of Duty.

I will stand up for CoD all day, but I'm not fond for when cowardly developers think that a game that's guaranteed to sell millions needs to do this.