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

[anian]

What "realism" are we talking about, when you heal by standing behind cover? Removing the crosshair is a mechanic, that stops fast and pretty strange kills (someone mentioned Unreal Tournament etc.) and forces players to slow down and aim, I am fine with that. But if it's so then why the hell is the rifle positioned that way on the HUD, it's aiming at the middle of the screen at a strange angle, you'd never fire a weapon like that - and I'm not talking about "realism", but if you pick up a gun you just wouldn't carry like that cause you wouldn't be able to hit anything, it would at least be in front of you or in the line your hand makes...yes, I guess you could hold it like shown but it'd be impractical. I mean you can try shouting a gun from your hip but fat chance you'd hit anything.

It is a matter of getting used to it I guess and CoD is realitvly ok, in comparison to say Killing, floor, half the time I'm not sure I'm hitting anything, add to that no easily seen damage signs and that gets annoying fast, plus it does matter to know if somebody else is shooting at the same target cause you get points/cash for kills.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

It came in before Call Of Duty. Did a couple of minutes of Googling and someone says Vietcong (a PC game by Gathering Of Developers) was the first to introduce the concept of aiming down the sights for accurate shooting and shooting from the hip for inaccurate.

All of which is just part of the genre's steady march toward "realism". Reloading, two rifle limit, iron sights, realistic item placement, realistic locations, etc.

I don't particularly like the notion of inaccurate firing when shooting straight from the hip, but as a console convert, I'm okay with some sort of aiming button that slows cursor movement, whether it be a slight zoom or looking down the sights. I generally don't use it unless I have the time to carefully place my first shot in an encounter. Call Of Duty 4 was one of the exceptions since the snap-lock when using iron sights made the game faster paced and more fun.

Really comes down to picking the best bits for the type of game you're playing. Fallout is more of a pack-rat sort of game, so I'd be annoyed if they limited me to two weapons, even though I'm more accepting of other realistic elements. Games with alien weapons also annoy me if they have a weapon limit, because I like to be able to experiment with said weapons at my own speed instead of committing to it (one of my few complaints about Gears Of War). Iron sights are the same with me. I think Call Of Duty makes it work. Far Cry had so many elements affecting your aiming that I fully accepted iron sights in it.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

My personal assumption is it lets non gun owners feel big and bad in a video game wihtout having the realistic shooter experience. I get what your saying, I shoot 1861 Colt Navys and Army Models, as well as Winchesters (I like to go old school), and there's nothing like holding the gun. its something a videogame will always fall short of. Its also like the sword fighting for the wii, for me. I fence, and that little remote control is nothing like fencing.

So I think its more the for benefit and enjoyment of casual gamers or hardcore gamers who dont shoot guns in real life. That... and you know, its kinda like tradition. It'd be weird to not see those in a game, you had to admit.

 

[Delusibeta]

Would I be right in saying that Iron Sights was an innovation from PC gaming? Certainly, the first CoD game was a PC-exclusive, and I think they had them...

 

[kommunizt kat]

\every game seems to have "iron sights" when you aim, what was wrong with the damn cross hairs spread when normal and tighter when pulled in?

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.

Okay, I dont get what you're driving at sorry... First of all, why not the iron sights, it's a game mechanic that helps immerse the player, something that games try to do which leads me to my second point, just that the game can never and will never emulate what goes on it real life, the point is that it tries. The point of some of these games is that they try their best to bring the player in to the experience, true like you said, they will not "feel" the same stress induced by shooting like breathing, posture, fatigue, shooting with both eyes open, recoil, muzzle climb, zeroing in your sight, and et cetera but at least they get the feel of taking the time to aim down their sights, shooting under "stress" (yeah I think it counts as stress) and shooting something without actually shooting something. Maybe its preference and that's a legitimate reason but I don't think that because they cant fully replicate the real thing is a good reason, sorry.

 

[Netrigan]

Would I be right in saying that Iron Sights was an innovation from PC gaming? Certainly, the first CoD game was a PC-exclusive, and I think they had them...

There's very little in the FPS genre that isn't a PC innovation.

The stuff that was popularized by console gaming was the two rifle limit, recharging shields/health, and dedicated buttons for melee & grenades. Most of that stuff can be found in PC games prior to that, but there's a one-word console explanation for why so many games have those things today.

The whole realism path is something that PC gaming has been moving down for a long, long time. 1998's Rainbow Six is probably the game where the trend began in earnest. Same year, we have Half-Life health & shield recharge stations, a solution to the problem of why there were all these health and shield power-ups littering the place.

I keep hoping a good arcade FPS becomes a big hit. The industry needs a mega-hit along the lines of Serious Sam. Would be strange if Duke Nukem helps deliver us from the bondage of realism.

Like I said, I don't mind realistic shooters, but I think each game needs to make these decisions based on what does and does not fit with their game.

 

[WanderingFool]

I like the Iron sights because it give me a sense that I am shooting accuratly. Onc I startd playing games with iron sights, I found that I couldnt stand having just a zoom in with crosshairs.

And this may nullify my comment with alot of people, but fuck it, I cant stand counter-strike, in and of its self. So I hate it when people, and it seems to be mainly PC gamers, keep bringing it up.

 

[zombays]

Yeah, only Bungie, most FPS indie developers, and Valve don't use ironsights. Except for Day of Defeat, but that can be considered the scope.

 

[binvjoh]

I think it's there as a gameplay-mechanic, not to make the game any more realistic.

To some degree it counters spray and pray.

 

[XT inc]

I agree with OP I've fired shotguns and games don't do them justice at all, and those are just sporting guns not ones made for assaulting foes. Trust me it would never take more that 1 shot with a shotgun at a reasonable distance to kill someone. That whole 2-3 shots in a game would be such vast over kill its not funny.

My main issue with games with iron sights is when they are screwed up like in cod, where you can look down the scope of the gun fire and not hit your target. I mean weapon bloom is fine when it is designed right, but when my scope says I am staring dead on at my target it should hit everytime, I mean if it pulls because of recoil I understand, but not when the visuals say I am aiming true.

 

[toastmaster2k8]

Because is Real Life, When you want to hit something. you aim down the sights.

You Said "Realism" and thats you answer.

 

[Netrigan]

And this may nullify my comment with alot of people, but fuck it, I cant stand counter-strike, in and of its self. So I hate it when people, and it seems to be mainly PC gamers, keep bringing it up.

Well, it is/was insanely popular on the PC. Keep in mind, the three most successful FPS franchises are Call Of Duty (by a wide margin), Halo, and Half-Life (which includes Counter-Strike). And it wasn't until Halo 3 that it passed up Half-Life. Both major Half-Life releases have sold in excess of 8 million copies. This is a major franchise, albeit one console players typically don't play.

 

[MrJoyless]

every game seems to have "iron sights" when you aim, what was wrong with the damn cross hairs spread when normal and tighter when pulled in?

.

Well, here's a few reasons I would imagine it exists:

1. It feels good. Left trigger to zoom, right to fire.... it's a simple mechanic that feels good to a lot of gamers.

2. It's more natural. I feel wierd when I zoom in and the crosshairs just gets smaller as the gun sits on the right of the screen. It just doesn't feel as immersive.

3. It's a tactical mechanic. You sacrifice movement speed for greater accuracy.

1) Would work the same with cross hairs that get tighter.

2) Make it an option then.

3) So? I don't see why it couldn't work with crosshairs.

if you want tighter cross hairs when you aim try using a shotgun with solid slugs in BFBC2 its the only weapon type that does the kind of non iron sighted aiming you are looking for

 

[WestMountain]

Iron sights bring a whole new dimension to guns, a good gun with good damage and low recoil can be made pretty bad, for example the G36 from CoD4, that iron sight was like looking through a keyhole but if you slap a red dot on it it will be a really good gun.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

2) Make it an option then.

Well, in a crosshairs VS. iron sights comparison, if you were to have that option in multiplayer crosshairs would have the unfair advantage of now being slowed down while aiming, as well as being able to aim finer in a much faster time than the animation of iron sights putting the sights into the other players' perspective. That would be just idiotic to have that option in at least multiplayer games.

 

[Alluos]

I understand they're to give a feel of realism and a choice between accuracy and all that jazz, but often I'll find myself using iron sights for half a second to pop some-one's head off, in only a few situations have I found myself actually using the iron sights for long distances.

If iron sights are for accuracy I think it'd be a lot more appropriate and fun if they were only useful when I need to be DEADLY accurate, rather than just running and gunning.
I can stand them, they aren't game-breaking just taking out the fun of deadly accurate shots when they can be taken in such a short amount of time.

At least, that's my 2 cents.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

You do know wind that affects the bullet is quite impossible to implement with our technology right? Wind, at least from what i have seen, is merely decoration used for levels. It has almost no tangible effect with bullets.

Mate you are way off the mark there, adding a wind or gravity factor to the trajectory is the simplest thing possible, and the calculations for all that are millions of times less taxing then model animations.
Games simply don't have any of that because it's far less fun.

Yes adding a factor to a trajectory is easy, but not an actual dynamic wind like i am talking about. I never seen an actual dynamic wind that changed realistically. I seen a SET wind strength for levels but not anything that changed realistically and dynamically. At least not "true" dynamic as some are mere imitations of a dynamic wind.

Um, any golf game withing the last 10 years has done just that...

 

[Terminate421]

It makes it so you can aim at farther targets

 

[AtillaBosma]

What if we all go back to 2d shooting.
Go to the right and keep shooting!