Support NeoGAF

[SaganIsGOAT]

I was just playing the Destiny trial on Xbone and laughed when I aimed my pulse rifle. Seems like the goal of an fps would be to allow the player to see as much as possible on screen at any given moment by creating nice, clean models, not cover 2/3rds of it with goofy looking sights.

It is no wonder people love Hand Cannons. lol

 

[Orayn]

That is a bit of an anomaly, most Destiny weapons aren't anywhere near that bad.

 

[KevinG]

Never detracted from my gameplay experience. To each his own.

 

[dhonk]

This has been an issue with lots of games I've noticed, well maybe not specially the sights but the huge fucking size of the viewmodels. They cover an immense amount of screen.

 

[Nephtes]

Yes, the standard pulse rifle iron sites in Destiny are awful. They're the reason I went Auto-rifle and Scout rifle...
Even though the pulse rifle is supposed to hit that battlerifle sweet spot.

 

[RedAssedApe]

Increased accuracy at the expense of obscuring some parts of your vision a bit. Don't see what the issue is. Most iron sights aren't as obnoxious as that particular gun. there is usually a balance reason for it though. Although your screen looks like you are mounting a turret lol

 

[Piggus]

This has been an issue with lots of games I've noticed, well maybe not specially the sights but the huge fucking size of the viewmodels. They cover an immense amount of screen.

Well, shooting a real gun also takes up a large portion of your vision when you're aiming down the sights. The problem in games though is the lack of peripheral vision.

 

[Leyasu]

Loved it in halo 5..

 

[Santiako]

All iron sights are obnoxious.

 

[psylah]

Bad Juju pre-patch was extra-bad, green smoke all up in your line of sight and shit

 

[Coxswain]

I guess if you're already covering up 2/3 of the screen by zooming in, you might as well cover up 1/3 of the third that's left.

 

[Seanspeed]

Seems like the goal of an fps would be to allow the player to see as much as possible on screen at any given moment.

So logically, they wouldn't have the gun on screen at all, just the reticule, right?

 

[The Albatross]

Well, shooting a real gun also takes up a large portion of your vision when you're aiming down the sights. The problem in games though is the lack of peripheral vision.

It's just not analogous to reality. When aiming down the sights of a gun in a game, the only way to aim at another target is to scan the arena while aiming down the sights of the gun, physically moving your entire body... arms, legs, head, etc. This is not how you would do it in real life, where you can scan the arena using your eyes, but keep your head fixed and in a position to continue looking down the sights.

 

[Tigress]

I honestly like iron sights and dislike when a game doesn't have it. I like to feel like I'm actually aiming the gun, not just putting a target dot onto what I want to shoot and shooting (this is a big reason why I prefer gunplay on Fallout New Vegas over Fallout 3. Fallout three just felt like "put x here and shoot." Vegas felt like it was simulating trying to take aim at something (Well as well as you can with a controller ).

 

[xHiryu]

I don't mind ADS as long as I can see the target but shit like this, idk why you would make the gun take up a majority of the screen.

 

[Orayn]

So logically, they wouldn't have the gun on screen at all, just the reticule, right?

Well, that is an option for some games, mostly hardcore competitive multiplayer shooters.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

So logically, they wouldn't have the gun on screen at all, just the reticule, right?

Logically, it means create weapon models that don't detract from gameplay like that pulse rifle I posted.

 

[Seanspeed]

It's just not analogous to reality. When aiming down the sights of a gun in a game, the only way to aim at another target is to scan the arena while aiming down the sights of the gun, physically moving your entire body... arms, legs, head, etc. This is not how you would do it in real life, where you can scan the arena using your eyes, but keep your head fixed and in a position to continue looking down the sights.

This is a bit of a slippery slope argument. "Oh its not *exactly* like reality, so there's no point in striving for any realism whatsoever." I mean, the whole point of having a gun on-screen in the first place in FPS's is to make things seem more realistic and immersive. It doesn't matter that it isn't 100% authentic. There will *always* be an argument about how something isn't perfectly realistic up til we get perfectly simulated holodecks.

Aiming down the sights is still more realistic than shooting everything from the hip.

 

[jelly]

Not a great fan but they are usable in most cases, some sights are awful though. What I do dislike immensely is lack of peripheral vision, I feel more rooted and unaware.

 

[Steel]

Bad juju in Destiny was hilariously terrible even before you went into ADS.

 

[BGMNTS]

Isn't it also the case that in most FPSs you shoot from the face or something, making iron sights a pretty good feature?

 

[_machine]

Logically, it means create weapon models that don't detract from gameplay like that pulse rifle I posted.

I wouldn't say it's detracting anything from the gameplay, actually vice versa it's creating more meaningful choice in the weapon mechanics as it will balance the positive aspects of said guns. Gameplay isn't just about how easy it's for you to play, it's about what rules and consequences, positive and negative, it creates for the player, it's about meaningful choice, immersion, world experience. Straight out calling it bad is an extremely shallow way to approach a single aspect of the game that actually runs very deep in the game experience.

EDIT: to go quickly over those two examples from a game design perspective (without actually having played Destiny much), let's look at how it affects the gameplay and the experience:
-variation in terms of weapon balance when aiming as evidenced by a clear advantage for the hand cannon in this aspect of aiming (which is just the peripheral vision)
-immersion or feel created by the gun being so visible and recoil most likely feeling stronger
-better pinpoint aiming for the rifle as your eyes will focus more easily on the precise target (it's a small thing, but a real physical thing that happens with ADS mechanics)
-more variation in just the view as players will see very clear differences in how the guns look when aimed

Now that naturally doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing, but should give you an idea why some developers go such lengths with ADS.

 

[Seanspeed]

Logically, it means create weapon models that don't detract from gameplay like that pulse rifle I posted.

Ok, I gotcha. Your beef isn't with iron sights in general, just ones that cover way too much of the screen?

I get that. And I admit, I do shy away from certain guns, like LMG's, in many games if they take up a ton of the screen, although that's not necessarily just when aiming down the sight.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Ok, I gotcha. Your beef isn't with iron sights in general, just ones that cover way too much of the screen?

I get that. And I admit, I do shy away from certain guns, like LMG's, in many games if they take up a ton of the screen, although that's not necessarily just when aiming down the sight.

Precisely. With games that have iron sights my gun choice is limited to guns that I can tolerate. Kind of a bummer.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Nothing beats the iron sights of FAMAS in Battlefield 3.

 

[Reebot]

This is a bit of a slippery slope argument. "Oh its not *exactly* like reality, so there's no point in striving for any realism whatsoever." I mean, the whole point of having a gun on-screen in the first place in FPS's is to make things seem more realistic and immersive. It doesn't matter that it isn't 100% authentic. There will *always* be an argument about how something isn't perfectly realistic up til we get perfectly simulated holodecks.

Aiming down the sights is still more realistic than shooting everything from the hip.

You literally used the slippery slope argument with your silly "no gun" play - can't turn it around now.

 

[Seanspeed]

You literally used the slippery slope argument with your silly "no gun" play - can't turn it around now.

That's not a slippery slope, though. That is *the* logical solution.

Precisely. With games that have iron sights my gun choice is limited to guns that I can tolerate. Kind of a bummer.

I can agree with that. Like those sideposts in the example you posted, where they turn into giant obstructions when aimed. Seems quite unnecessary.

 

[cakely]

Bad Juju pre-patch was extra-bad, green smoke all up in your line of sight and shit

^ This. It was hilarious.

Also, pre-patch that thing was sad garbage. And it was the reward for a fairly long exotic quest.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

I wouldn't say it's detracting anything from the gameplay, actually vice versa it's creating more meaningful choice in the weapon mechanics as it will balance the positive aspects of said guns. Gameplay isn't just about how easy it's for you to play, it's about what rules and consequences, positive and negative, it creates for the player, it's about meaningful choice, immersion, world experience. Straight out calling it bad is an extremely shallow way to approach a single aspect of the game that actually runs very deep in the game experience.

EDIT: to go quickly over those two examples from a game design perspective (without actually having played Destiny much), let's look at how it affects the gameplay and the experience:
-variation in terms of weapon balance when aiming as evidenced by a clear advantage for the hand cannon in this aspect of aiming (which is just the peripheral vision)
-immersion or feel created by the gun being so visible and recoil most likely feeling stronger
-better pinpoint aiming for the rifle as your eyes will focus more easily on the precise target (it's a small thing, but a real physical thing that happens with ADS mechanics)
-more variation in just the view as players will see very clear differences in how the guns look when aimed

Now that naturally doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing, but should give you an idea why some developers go such lengths with ADS.

I would argue that Iron Sights LOWER the possibility of skilled plays. Modern FPS punish movement and shooting. They reward the Aim Down Sight mechanic becdause they have built it this way. In say, Halo, you are always accurate from the Hip. You can jump and strafe while maintaining accuracy. Now instead of players slowing down to attack you, you can 1 v 1 s where players are moving and requiring their opponents to track them.

In my honest opinion, a game like Titanfall would have benefited EXPONENTIALLY if it didn't require ADS for accuracy. That game has such a beautiful flow to its movement that was ruined by ADS. If you aim, you stop. Sure the SMG had the hip fire perk, but even that was lacking. If you could wall run, jump, spot an enemy and begin shooting them in mid air, hit a wall and run again all while still being able to accurately hit that enemy, the skill gap would increase in an instant. You would no longer lose the flow of parkour, wall running, and combat. It could all blend seamlessly.

 

[Steel]

^ This. It was hilarious.

Also, pre-patch that thing was sad garbage. And it was the reward for a fairly long exotic quest.

That gun was actually the last straw for me and destiny. I had finally gotten an exotic questline after getting almost nothing from doing raids several times. Then ended up going through a really painfully grindy questline to get a gun that had absolutely no redeeming qualities, It was a fitting summary of my experience with the game in the form of a single gun.

 

[Bold One]

never got the constant iron sights complaints in games

 

[RazielCuts]

I remember seeing this and thinking, damn that's some big scope you got there Halo 5.

 

[Grimm Fandango]

Sometimes it's intended by the dev to be obnoxious and to make you take a different approach. The rocket launcher in Halo takes up a bunch of screen space "forcing" you to use other weapons briefly.

 

[Madness]

I hate ADS. I hate how one game had it, and then every game needed to have it. I hate the folks who couldn't play games without it. It's not realism that every weapon magically goes in the middle of your field of view every time you aim.

In Halo, we actually went from a more futuristic look at weapon aiming, with your advanced helmet doing reticle tracking for you. Why awkwardly look through sights of a weapon when you can just point and shoot and know it'll land where the reticle is. This was backed by a lore perspective. But no, people needed the loss of vision, going against lore, so that for some reason, Spartans who could see clearly before, now need giant scopes and sights blocking most of their field of view.

I'm guessing eventually this trend will die when VR comes out and people see the need for clear vision, easy lines of sight and the ability to see more on screen than a static image of a weapon.

 

[CamHostage]

When aiming down the sights of a gun in a game, the only way to aim at another target is to scan the arena while aiming down the sights of the gun, physically moving your entire body... arms, legs, head, etc. This is not how you would do it in real life, where you can scan the arena using your eyes, but keep your head fixed and in a position to continue looking down the sights.

So, there are two ways to respond to this...

One is to agree, and to say that it'd be great if a game came along that had a new mechanism for shooting, because TPS or FPS, ADS or reticule or however they handle it, our games are not really much like what handling a weapon is like. I think adding more authenticity (even if they had to add more artificial mechanics to pull it off) might make for a fun new variation in a game. Taking cues from reality has made video games more fun time after time.

But the second way is to point out that video games are first and foremost "games", they are their own thing with their own methods and rulesets. They do not ape reality so much as they substitute a reality of their own. And ADS, despite the reasons it is hated by some (I'm not sure I understand it myself; some graphics above do show how ADS has been done badly and maybe this thread could explain a bit further,) it so far has succeeded as a way of adding accuracy and challenge and "realism" and visual appeal to the shooting experience all at the same time. It may not be the ultimate means of targeting in a shooter, but it has so far worked and been received well in the types of shooters we are interested in right now.

Modern FPS punish movement and shooting. They reward the Aim Down Sight mechanic because they have built it this way.

Well, life punishes movement and shooting, but again, two ways of looking at that: reality versus gaming reality. We had shooters in the past that were masterful presentations of gaming reality, and now even games of that era have been affected by the ADS trend.

And I liked your breakdown of Titanfall, how it should maybe have dropped movement punishment because the frenetic kineticism is the reason why Titanfall exists at all.

 

[Tomash]

MW2

Black Ops

ADSing with BO's Uzi was suicidal. Ugly sights, blinding muzzle flash paired with huge recoil.

 

[HTupolev]

I'm guessing eventually this trend will die when VR comes out and people see the need for clear vision, easy lines of sight and the ability to see more on screen than a static image of a weapon.

Or devs will just block off 99% of our vision with the image of a scope.

Hhhehehe

 

[visiblemode]

ADS is essential, imo. Sometimes it's really badly done, but usually it's fine.

Even when it's kinda annoying but historically accurate, I'm still ok with it. Is part of what defines favs in historical shooters.

 

[Reebot]

That's not a slippery slope, though. That is *the* logical solution.

Logic doesn't mean hyper rational or devoid of context. So, no, it's not "logical," and I really hate how the internet has turned that word into a farce echoing robot-Spock rather than actual logic.

 

[RooMHM]

Disgusting...

 

[Springy]

ADS is essential, imo. Sometimes it's really badly done, but usually it's fine.

Essential? I mean, would Unreal Tournament be improved by ADS?

 

[Duxxy3]

That abomination.

 

[Snacks the sober sea lion]

I figure that you ARE looking down the sights, not merely shoving the gun in the middle of your field of view. And you don't hold a pistol the way you would a rifle. Even between guns within the same game, iron sights seem to vary between "the gun is now attached to my chest" to "I am literally shoving the gun up against my face." What would even be the proper, most accurate position for looking down a rifle's sights?

And there are also scopes, where the entire screen magically zooms in, including the parts that you aren't looking at through the scope. Only a few games seem to avoid doing that, and since most "zooming" seems to be a trick with reducing the FOV, I can imagine it's not super easy to spend so much time on a detail most people don't even notice.

 

[plasmawave]

Killzone 2 was my favorite.
You can see what you're shooting at!

 

[Sai-kun]

aaaahahahahahahaha

 

[Raide]

Unless a game can do realistic ADS, they should not bother putting it in. Most shooters, including Destiny make it looks like the player is resting his chin right in the middle of the gun. Do it accurately, it don't do it at all.

 

[TalonJH]

Increased accuracy at the expense of obscuring some parts of your vision a bit. Don't see what the issue is. Most iron sights aren't as obnoxious as that particular gun. there is usually a balance reason for it though. Although your screen looks like you are mounting a turret lol

Yeah, I always thought that was the point. IDK, I'm not the biggest FPS player but I enjoy their campaigns.

 

[Welfare]

Abomination. The fixed DMR scope should be the first thing 343 show when talking about Halo 5 changes.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Sometimes it's intended by the dev to be obnoxious and to make you take a different approach. The rocket launcher in Halo takes up a bunch of screen space "forcing" you to use other weapons briefly.

A rocket launcher makes sense, that is a power weapon. Make it a bit unwieldy. Standard weapons should not see such a lack of clarity.

 

[clove]

I think ironsights are a really elegant, intuitive design. I don't give a shit about realism, it's about providing a bit of additional player agency. Do I slow down for greater accuracy (and a better chance at a kill), or maintain mobility and greater visibility?

If you still had perfect visibility there wouldn't be a forced tradeoff, and the feature would be pointless.

Obviously it's not for all games - twitch shooters wouldn't make any sense, and I mostly agree with the comments about Halo (which tends to be much more about positioning than aiming).