Are AAA first person releases ever going to start moving away from having aim-down-sights (ADS) as a feature?
ADS works in some games like STALKER, ARMA, Metro, or really anything kind of slower paced and where each bullet is meant to matter more, but in fast paced hyperactive bulletfests, it just ruins the pacing and makes different weapons more samey than they really should be.
I know that "console players need ADS+autoaim to make up for joystick aiming" is the justification often given, but Halo is a major console title that doesn't use ADS. But other releases aren't following its lead in weapon handling design.
ADS really takes away a lot of the personality of weapons, both visually (in every COD or whatever, the scopes are interchangable and you are looking down a generic scope or red dot 90% of the time) and mechanically (recoil and spread).
Some games have weirdly even included ADS when the game design pretty much goes against the player using it, and when ADS wouldn't even be missed- thinking Borderlands and RAGE.
I'm currently replaying Far Cry 1, and it has the "Eye zoom'o'vision" instead of ADS. It seems a little hokey at first, but I got used to it and still like that over ADS.
>but Halo is a major console title that doesn't use ADS
Not that dude but we're not playing realistic games here, that's the entire problem. It's essential in realistic games and it's mechanically degenerative in games that are supposed to be reasonably fast; all it really does is give the vague sense of realism without actually approximating real combat at all.
I mean shit if you want realism, play insurgency.
>ADS works in some games like STALKER, ARMA, Metro, or really anything kind of slower paced and where each bullet is meant to matter more, but in fast paced hyperactive bulletfests, it just ruins the pacing and makes different weapons more samey than they really should be.
>where each bullet is meant to matter more
>we're not playing realistic games here
but you're not playing fast paced arena shooters either
irons are used in Borderlands and RAGE so they guns actually feel like guns, not because they're trying to be milsims
I find it perplexing that you bring up rage, which was just generally awful, and borderlands, which...is similarly awful but people think it's kind of funny.
I'm not op, incidentally, but I specifically am referring to games like CoD which actually is rather fast paced
The problem with aiming down sight is that it's usually badly implemented since it's nothing like actually aiming down the sights of a real weapon due to a lack of spatial vision.
In flight simulators it works fairly well, since the player can actually move his head naturally, e.g. using track-IR or adjusting the head position manually in order to actually line up with the sights presented (e.g. in games like Rise of Flight using iron sights, or WW2 sims using reflex sights), in FPS however it's usually done really badly, since it's a binary action which "zooms in" the view, and obstructs most of the field of view with "sight". The idea that this was more realistic is nonsense. At least in the way it has been implemented up to this point.
>I find it perplexing that you bring up rage, which was just generally awful, and borderlands, which...is similarly awful but people think it's kind of funny.
OP brought them up
>I'm not op, incidentally, but I specifically am referring to games like CoD which actually is rather fast paced
CoD used to be slower, you could argue that post MW2 CoD doesn't need irons but then it wouldn't really be CoD anymore
It's actually kinda crappy in comparison with games like Arma. It's neither fully realistic nor does it provide a competitive challenge like games such as Quake, UT or Counter-Strike.
It's a tactical tradeoff anon. Here I made a handy-dandy mspaint drawing to illustrate.
ADS lets you trade mobility & vision for accuracy, allowing you to squeeze out those last few yards of range or guarantee more lead on target when it counts.
I think it's cute how you lose the ADS argument so you try to tie it to hitscan.
The issue is that it makes no sense. It only artificially gimps the player by making the weapon magically inaccurate when not aimed down sight. A weapon should always fire the same. The sights don't serve to reduce spread, they should serve to help you aim. The problem is that in most games they don't actually do that, because games take place at really short distances where you don't even need to aim down sights. That is why developers build in an artificial bullet spread that wouldn't exist in the real world.
In flight simulators you actually NEED the sights in order to estimate distance and in order to tell where your shots are likely to go.
In FPS they ONLY serve as a meta element that magically reduces your bullet spread, but they don't actually help you aim, because at close enough distances, pretty much anyone could point at the enemy without having to aim down sights and still hit with reasonable accuracy.
Have you tried firing a weapon from the hip anon?
It's not as accurate as firing from the shoulder. Hipfire 'spread' simulates this.
This 'should' bullshit sounds like autism.
When you're in close-quarters, you're /supposed/ to hip-fire. That's the point.
I was playing Bulletstorm recently, now thats a game that really didnt need ADS since its so fast paced that slowing yourself down to aim in a slide and kick simulator is no fun.
I generally dont tend to use ADS in FPS games, unless im sniping or the bulletspread is really bad. But yeah most of the time its 'zoom the camera in while slapping an ironsight overlay on your face.' But i think most of the time you can ignore it.
Btw what's hitscan exactly?
Oh, I see, thanks.
The way I see it, fast paced games like arena shooters should use hitscan, and realistic shooters should use ADS with proper bullet flight time and proper aiming. But of course that requires having a realistic first person view where you dont see just your palms and when youre aiming you dont smack the gun right in front of your face.
I still find astounding that in most 'realistic shooters' you hold your gun so close to you that you can only see your palms. So youre either hugging it or its stapled onto your chest. Why cant developers get it right?
A weapon fires where it's pointed. What makes it inaccurate is not the weapon itself but your lack of ability to line it up properly - for which you use the sights. In a game the sights don't serve that purpose though, they're a meta-game element of reducing bullet spread.
Lining up sights is again a binary option though, which makes it a bit unintuitive. Ideally they'd be making use of something like track-ir to move the head position in order to make lining up sights more life-like. The way it's now, it's simply a bit clunky due to the binary state. You either have the weapon fully down or fully raised. In reality, there would be intermediate states, e.g. having the weapon raised but looking above the sight, and so on. Reducing it to a binary state of fully down / fully raised (viewport obstructed) doesn't feel natural.
Yeah, you've got the autism.
>Hipfire 'spread' simulates this.
Do you understand what 'simulates' means?
RO2 & insurgency would apparently butter your biscuit, but increasing the spread for hipfire is just a lazier way to accomplish the same thing anyway-
>without ADS your bullets don't always go where you're aiming
If you can't grasp this, I'm afraid I can't help you.
>this whole thread
Are you FUCKING SERIOUS
Are you all fucking 15? ADS is a TERRIBLE thing to happen to fps
And you faggots actually WANT THEM?
No fuck this i am done with this place being overrun by casual shitstains, i give up
That's why flight sims tie your head movement to your actual head movement through track-ir. You can actually look around the sight, shift your head away from it, etc. - you have more spatial awareness.
It's not just a texture in front of your face - the sight has a location in space and you can freely line up with it in order to aim. It's used naturally, like a sight is used in real life. In FPS, sights are usually just used as a meta-game element which reduces spread - that's the only reason why people use it. If weapons were as accurate without it, people wouldn't aim down sights because all they do is obstruct your field of view. That's not what sights do however. Most FPS have failed to implement sights the proper way. This also has something to do with FPS not using proper ballistics of course.
You usually use guns by aiming down the sights. The act of lining up a shot and then shooting is fun and immersive.
ADS itself does not need to have any impact on accuracy or zoom or what have you. Halo had zoom long before it had ADS, and they both basically do the same thing in that game.
Other games implement ADS just because their executives are retarded and try to imitate Call of Duty, but poorly and often in only superficial ways.
Also, gun sights would be better in Far Cry. For instance, see Crysis.
ADS adds much more to the realism. Crosshairs should be removed entirely, it breaks the immersion.
I loved MGS 2 and 3 for this exact reason, the third person to move and fps mode to aim and shoot was simply perfect.
slow paced, realistic shooters. ads are nice. either for immersion or for more stable shots. it can also be used to prevent spraying and run n' gunning in those games.
but they have ruined the competetative fps scene. they slow down games that are supposed to be fast paced. they're only there because "tacticool"
Let's be realistic here. The average bullet travels so fast it may as well be hitscan if it was in a video game.
An assault rifle bullet can travel around a km in a second. In most of these games you're not even shooting at someone 50 meters away.
Lets put it this way. If you use an assault rifle, and shoot someone 50 meters away and the game is running at 60 FPS. It'd take 1 frame for the bullet to hit them.
>The average bullet travels so fast it may as well be hitscan if it was in a video game.
Not in good fps games.
>Muzzle velocity is the speed a projectile has at the moment it leaves the muzzle of the gun.
You're being retarded on purpose, right?
Hip firing is only done in movies. At no point is anyone trained to fire from the hip, they are taught to shoulder the weapon and then either aim with the sights or just point the weapon where you want to shoot. Both of which never result in bullets flying off in 45 degree angles from the gun
It's modified call of duty. The only difference is the guns and damage, which isn't even that reliable. "Yeah I know you hit him in the face but he has heavy armor so he can take those 5 9mm bullets."
Hip fire only shooters just lose so much immersion . Like if I'm in a tense situation I want to be aiming down sights, it just makes you feel so much more into the game. Like it adds another level of intimacy.
Muzzle velocity is the speed at which the projectile leaves the muzzle not the speed at which the round travels.
Please do more research. If you knew anything about physics you would know that the father a bullet travels the slower and more unstable it becomes. It losses is spin which makes it wobble increasing wind resistance slowing it down even more.
Assault rifles used by modern military forces all over the world.
Only the AK-74 doesn't exceed 900 m/s.
Ok. Let's use your logic.
Eventually every bullet fired from a gun will stop. Even if it hits nothing, it will stop due to air resistance.
Therefore I have concluded bullets don't move.
Try playing a non-casual game sometime.
Muzzle velocity lasts the instant it leaves the muzzle. After one millisecond it will have slowed down slightly, and then continues to slow down proportionately, as in the speed halves with each unit of time. Muzzle velocity means shit all as it doesnt travel at 1km a second for even a full second.
Simply devs fucking with mechanics to make their games feel better. Arma 2 felt great for long range squad on squad hillside shootouts, but Arma 2 has an engine capable of carrying out those shootouts, whereas Frostbite cant render sniping at a distance where bullet mechanics should work properly, but gimped the speed to make the distance feel greater.
Instead, they end up with people used to realistic shooting wondering why each bullet moves so slowly
The pistol and sniper had zoom.
Halo doesn't strictly have ADS plot-wise, as the Spartan suits are connected to the guns and the idea is that your suit's visor shows you what can be seen through the gun's scope without holding it to your face.
This is why scope is traditionally a one-button command (right thumbstick) that is toggled on and off, and shows no animation.
>Size != good
Depends on what you want to achieve with the game. Open world games wants give the feeling your travelling an entire sprawling world.
That's not the priority of battlefield. It's a multiplayer game so the pacing has to be faster, hence smaller maps while making it feel like a large scale battle. Therefor:
>Bigger maps than COD
>Smaller maps than GTA
The minimum engagement range of most armed conflicts is larger than the largest maps you find in FPS games.
What's the point in getting within 20ft of someone when you have a gun that can shoot and kill them from 300 meters away?