What's with "Iron Sights" in today's games?

[GloatingSwine]

Iron sights aren't about realism, they're about game balance.

By aiming using the iron sights you sacrifice mobility and field of vision to gain accuracy. You make yourself more vulnerable in order to increase your own attacking capability.

 

[TiefBlau]

It goes without saying that some games are meant for realism and some aren't. I expect iron sights on games like Call of Duty and Battlefield because realism is their thing, and iron sights really aren't all that inconvenient. I'm willing to take that sacrifice in sight range because aiming down the sights is an interesting gameplay mechanic and aesthetic in these games.

In Team Fortress 2, it's natural that you don't have to aim down the sights of your flamethrower or rocket launcher, or really anything besides the sniper rifle. And that's normal because Team Fortress 2 is focused on pure, unmolested fun.

They're different cups of tea. Deal with it.

 

[Eruanno]

I'm annoyed by iron sights, actually. Are you saying my accuracy is better when I'm holding the gun closer to my face, game? Maybe, but I can't bloody see my target, because there is now a big freakin' gun covering half my screen. Oh crap, he moved to the left! Where is he, I can't see! There's a gun blocking my vision!

Of course, some might enjoy these "realistic shooters" (Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, etc.), but I just wish the industry would get over itself and start chugging out something new instead of remaking what is basically the same game (with slight adjustments) over and over.

 

[brazuca]

Iron sights aren't about realism, they're about game balance.

By aiming using the iron sights you sacrifice mobility and field of vision to gain accuracy. You make yourself more vulnerable in order to increase your own attacking capability.

I concur. Also aiming down the sight was created to avoid spray and gunning. Take a game like BFBC2 and put those maps on Source engine. With the gameplay of CS. What will happen? Players will start running and gunning. No more troops moving from cover to cover. What I want from these games is that you can select fire mode. Automatic fire sometimes in games only complicates thing even further.

 

[ultrachicken]

Developers put iron sights in games because the majority of their customers like them. People who've never fired a gun before won't care if it isn't actually realistic, as long as it seems realistic.

Personally, I like ironsights.
What I DON'T like is when a game forces it down your throat.

You can notice this in Bad Company 2, where firing without using the ironsight mechanic causes your gun to become a saltpeter musket.

Actually, I find the bullet spray caused by firing from the hip to be useful, especially when using an LMG.

Yes but you look like a fool when you try it with a pistol.
Of course you could say it's foolish to be using the pistol but then I would say that I use it because it looks cool followed by me questioning your sexual orientation.

That just depends on the pistol. The (Something rather)Rex is quite accurate and powerful when fired from the hip, for example.

 

[Dana22]

It's a Call of Duty thing. I guess they wanna imply that with sights your aim isn't as crap as without them which is true in -some- cases, but in the end merely makes me want to punch the developer and force them to play some Counter Strike. Games are meant to be -fun-. And if realism makes it -less- fun, then realism needs to go.

Call of Duty invented ironsights in games.

 

[minimacker]

Shoot a guy in the guy with a pistol in GTA 4 and he clutches his wound and falls to the ground, begging for mercy in the fetal position.

To be fair, he doesn't really fall over and initiate fetal position. He staggers from the Euphoria engine a bit then returns to his firing animation.


Edit : A lot of positive reaction from my swaying-invisible crosshair suggestion. Yay!

 

[SalamanderJoe]

Probably a realism thing. In real-life soldiers don't hold the gun at their hip and fire. Simple as.

 

[ultrachicken]

Developers put iron sights in games because the majority of their customers like them. People who've never fired a gun before won't care if it isn't actually realistic, as long as it seems realistic.

Personally, I like ironsights.
What I DON'T like is when a game forces it down your throat.

You can notice this in Bad Company 2, where firing without using the ironsight mechanic causes your gun to become a saltpeter musket.

Actually, I find the bullet spray caused by firing from the hip to be useful, especially when using an LMG.

Yes but you look like a fool when you try it with a pistol.
Of course you could say it's foolish to be using the pistol but then I would say that I use it because it looks cool followed by me questioning your sexual orientation.

That just depends on the pistol. The (Something rather)Rex is quite accurate and powerful when fired from the hip, for example.

I haven't played BBC2 I was just referring to FPS games in general. The pistol usually seems like the most fun.
Kind of underpowered in many games but I love that occasional game (GTA 4 is the only one that comes to mind) that gives even the weakest firearms a sense of power and deadliness. Shoot a guy in the guy with a pistol in halo and the thing will run up and bash your head in or shoot you. Shoot a guy in the guy with a pistol in GTA 4 and he clutches his wound and falls to the ground, begging for mercy in the fetal position.

Well, you made reference specifically to BFBC2, so I assumed you played it. But, if what happened in GTA 4 happened in all shooters, they would have extremely easy campaigns. Though I agree that Halo's weapons don't really feel like they have any kick.

 

[themrwinkleman]

For those of you without any direct experience with iron/open sights the 'bullet' or round, should impact on the target just above the top of the front sight. With a scoped weapon the round should impact in the exact centre of the scope, where the 'crosshairs' or reticles meet. (Sorry, it's just I'm confused as to some earlier posts suggesting that the round leaves the weapon through the scope/sight and am unsure as to what the author was intending to say)

Online multiplayer FPS games are played by two types of people. Those that run around without regard for their lives and attempt to kill/destroy the opposing players as quickly as they physically can (shock and awe if you will). The other type, those people that attempt to mimic real life by being cautious with their own lives and using the capabilities of their weapon/equipment loadout (softly, softly catchy monkey).

The former type have no need for iron/open or even an optical sight. They have an unlimited amount of respawns. They don't care for any 'realistic' option developers put into games. They simply use the game mechanics to their advantage to gain points/kills/advance in level. The latter are cautious, they use cover to advance, they may operate with other team members, they may flash-bang/frag a room or corner before advancing, etc. This arguably, is a 'realistic' approach/method on how to play games. Both approaches are valid and players are free to play in either style, though both are heavily open to criticism. How many times have you been stabbed by a Marathon Pro/Commando Pro equipped 'run-gunner' or blown up by a Scavenger/Danger Close/Sitrep Pro/Under barrel Grenade launcher equipped 'noob-tuber' in MW2?

A truly 'realistic' combat simulation would simply be impossible to fully realise. Therefore any one thing developers introduce in order to mimic an authentic combat experience (however small) will be welcomed by only half of the gamer population (and certainly by this writer) but not economically viable. Combat has often been described as 90% boredom/waiting around and 10% oh s**t/action. Can anyone truly replicate this in a game?

 

[RobCoxxy]

I love them! Make's it realistic and not a pain in the ass to use.

I like lining up a headshot as well rather than spraying from the hip.
Although on COD (always) and sometimes Bad Company spraying works better. WTF.

 

[thahat]

My personal assumption is they are going for realism with the firearms, but speaking as someone who grew up around guns, used them for sport, and competed in competitors I can safely say that no freaking games I've ever played has ever, or will likely ever, get the feel "real", the sound, the smell, the feel of kick, frankly the sights in the game are just annoying, and this coming from a man who prefers that type of sight on his rifles over a scope.

I don't think video games will ever capture "the smell" of anything. Nor would I want them to

I can't say I want to feel any kick from video games either. "Force-Feedback" controllers vibrating while playing games was a concept that is almost as stupid as the Kinect.

Your assumption of an effort for realism in battlefield via iron sights, in my opinion, is very far off the mark.

The aspect of BFBC2 and its use of iron sights is a mechanic which requires players to *either* shoot effectively, or move. Not both.

You have to use cover effectively, move regularly, and aim carefully in order to be a good player.

I find it ironic that someone who claims to use firearms IRL thinks that aiming from the hip with crosshairs is acceptable. I don't find that to be the case at all. There is only one way I fire my weapons -- front sight on the target. I don't hold two handguns in each hand like a jackass, wasting ammunition. I don't "shoot from the hip" either. That clown business belongs in movies.

or people giving covering fire., in real life or games.

 

[AllLagNoFrag]

I honestly doubt that any fps game would ever be close to realistic... or ever want to be. Just take this for instance, a grenade in real life is far more deadly than portrayed in games as shrapnel could tag you right across the "map". One bullet hitting you WILL slowly kill you and not make you shoot effectively, or want to at all. Take this from someone that is in the army. I like fps's the way they are and pray that the most real they get is around ARMA2.