Higby Wants Your Thoughts on Iron Sights for FPS.....

[T MAN]

While I've been giving certain FPS design decisions a thought lately, I came across several people talking about their issues with iron sights. One guy in particular was saying that if Half Life 3 is released, it should add iron sights as otherwise it would feel antiquated and lacking. Which is curious as never have I felt that Half Life or TF2 or all valve game needed iron sights.

Also saw the latest planetside 2 video at the9 and the iron sights particularly stood out to me and im sorry devs but i did NOT like them at all. If you cant make them better then I'd say remove them all together and make it like
Halo. they were just too 2d or something i dont know like no movement or recoil. if you go watch the video then compare them to other fps Cod, BF, Crysis 1 or 2 you'll see what i mean.

Iron sighting, from what I've seen, slows everything down. Some games have iron sightng with much more insane recoil even while iron sighting so there is still involves difficulty in aiming. Then CoD, with it's often tiny maps with extremely limited pathways and sluggish movement and iron sighting which has almost no recoil at all and instant deaths, just screams "easy" to me. And in my experience, it is easy.

Although that most likely is the problem with CoD on it's own rather than just Iron sighting. But from what I've experienced, over-reliance on iron sighting mechanics have a very profound effect the flow of gameplay, and it slows it down immensely.

I don't mind iron sights, really, and I can jump right into any of the newer iterations of CoD, BF or MoH and feel right at home. But while playing CS 1.6 the other day after a long time, I kind of remembered what I miss in modern military shooters - mobility while shooting. I did a fair share of strafing and bunny hopping while shooting in CS to make myself a harder target to hit, which I almost never do in CoD (unless I'm using a shotgun) or BF3 because your movement is restricted with your sights up.

While iron sights are a commendable feature for some (mostly tactical) manshoots (it was a welcome addition in New Vegas), I say bring on some FPS titles without it. This is precisely the reason why, which doesn't involve standing around during the shooty bits but a quite a large amount of dodging, running, circle strafing and jumping.

Higby also tweeted talking about adad in fights=fun, with iron sights then there will be no adad fights cause iron sights make mobility slower and combat slower."Skill" wasn't about who could fire off a shot first, it was about who could keep their target under the cross hairs while also keeping yourself out of the enemy's cross hairs. The ability to simultaneously sustain your aim and continuously dodge the attacks against a fast moving enemy who is also fighting back and dodging your projectiles at the same time was a demanding one.

Here's a good explanation of all the aim systems in fps: http://technicalgamedesign.blogspot....-shooters.html

From a purely gameplay perspective, what's your view on iron sights?

Here's some quotes from what other people think about iron sights in fps

"Iron sights generally make combat less mobile, which is more realistic and helps balance stuff like snipers, but can also be a lot less fun. Honestly, I think there's room for both, but some games (bulletstorm, borderlands) would be better served by something like an alt-fire"

"Ever played an old school FPS like Quake, Enemy Territory or Counter Strike that lack ironsights, or even Halo? They take much, much more skill than any of the games that are overly reliant on them such as CoD of BFBC2. It's not the actual act of aiming down the sights that sucks the skill out, it's the way everyone moves slower with them up and can't hit anything without them"

"iron sights make gameplay more camp-happy as opposed to run-n-gun twitch shooters that I love so much"

"Either give me a scope, or lemme shoot from the hip. I don't do middle grounds"

"It depends on what type of gameplay the developers are seeking, you have something like COD where you must slow down to be accurate or something like Halo where you can shoot while you run and still be accurate"

"I'm not fond of Iron Sights. Sometimes they're so badly designed and zoomed up so large on the screen they get in the way"

"Iron sights usually are there to force the player to slow down, although in some other games like Counter-Strike if the player is still not used to the game he will still have to slow down to have better accuracy"

"Iron sights aren't needed at all. Not that they're a bad thing. Just depends what sort of game you want to play, really"

"In my opinion, Iron Sights can define the type of shooter your going for. Include them, and your looking for something that's slower paced and more cover based. Keep them out, and your looking to achieve something that's fast paced and more dodge happy"

"If it works well, like in CoD, then yes, I like it. If it would bring nothing, like if it were added to Serious Sam, then no, never do this shit"

"Iron sights are cool, but you don't need them. See Halo, or as you said all Valve games. None of those feel like they need iron sights"

"Some games are good with iron sights, some aren't. COD is fun with it"

"hate iron sights as they promote slower gameplay. Also I don't think they add much except for "realism". I don't like any game currently that has iron sights"

"Iron sights was only used to create more realism in FPS games, but now it's like all FPSs need to have it by law (I'm looking at you Bulletstorm). I'd prefer if games didn't use it because it just slows the game down"

"cannot stand iron-sights. Here's why - they cover up half the damn screen, aiming is much slower, and movement speed is far slower. It might be more realistic, but I just can't stand it in a shooter"

"I don't mind iron sights, but they do "dumb-down" shooters (aka make them more accessible)"

"It's not a deal breaker for me.I actually enjoy more the red dot sights or the holographic instead"

"I rather hate iron sights,mainly due to the fact is that when you aim and try to look through it,it takes up way too much space in the middle and makes the target that you are trying to hit from a distance barely visible"

"Its ok if a game chooses to not have iron sights, many games don't have them because it makes you ignore 3/4 of whats on the screen in exchange for a blurry gun silhouette, if it does it has to be for a good reason, and the hip firing has to be a reasonable option. I got so fed up with Black Ops after firing a sniper rifle into someones brain from point blank and missing because of the absurd >45 degree spread it got. I like how I can fire on the run in L4D2 because it makes the game much faster paced, I also like aiming down sights in New Vegas because of the sense of realism it provided. I don't like be railroaded into a fighting style because the designer thought that somehow aiming down the sights of a shotgun made it shoot tighter"

"Nope. Actually, iron sights would suck on a game like Halo. It's all relative really. It works on COD because it needs to work on COD"

[Coreldan]

Personally I wouldnt even play a modern FPS without them. PS is forgiven, cos its so old and they werent that common back then.

If wanted, some CQB weapons can be made operatable without ironsighting to give them the mobility they deserve.

But overall speaking, for most weapons ironsighting should be a must. But at "in your face" range, shooting the weapon shouldered only needs to be an option too, but still, for most engagements ironsighting is IMO a must.

When talking about shotguns especially, for those it really shouldnt be required/matter. Some goes to some extent/soem range for SMGs imo. SMGs could also have more movement speed than most weapons if they decide to go for ironsighting if they need a tad more accuracy at range.

It can really be solved with weapon specific variables. I wouldn't lock the game to the ancient no ironsight-mode or optionally lock all weapons including shotguns into ironsighting just cos of a single weapon model.

APB is a third person shooter, but it has a pretty good example of just this. CQB weapons have their movement accuracy way higher than other weapons, then agian they dont really gain anything from going into ironsight-mode. On the other hand, most other weapons wont hit anything on the move, but gain way more accuracy while in ironsights.

I really don't want this game to be some really arcade run and gun game. Taking cover, aimed shots, etc, thats what it should be about IMO

All this said, there is a HUGE difference in firing from the hip and firing the weapon shouldered without ironsighting. You can still be fairly accurate with the shouldered hip firing to some 5-10 meters and it's much faster and done in IRL too. Insurgency mod for HL2 did this fairly well IMO, then again it was one of those 1-shot-kill damage models.

I can't believe anyone found ADAD while fighting fun, though.

[Death2All]

I despise iron sights in my games. It's just a generic modern FPS staple that they put in all games. They put iron sights in Gears of War 3, a third person shooter. It was only for one gun, but it was still strange none the less.


Unfortunately, I think it's too late in the game's development to take something that imperative and fundamental to all the games mechanics out. Based on what little gameplay we've seen of people shooting/killing eachother it doesn't look quite like CoD. They hit the nail on the head with "Not as fast CoD and slower than BC2". I really hate instant TTKs, it looks they have a sweet spot...Again, at least off of what 4 seconds I've seen from a really low resolution video on a Chinese website.

[SKYeXile]

I agree with all your points, in fact iv said the same things on many occasions. It does certainly slow down combat and reduce movement, which most people who played planetside will praise, but thats because they don't understand netcode and why people warp in planetside and they fear movement in PS2, but they're idiots.

Halo, CS(S) and TF2 are some of the most popular shooters, along with oldschool games like unreal and quake and they;re all mazing, they dont need ADS to make the game feel more "real"...its a game afterall.

I dont understand they plan to make this "light assault" class then give it a rifle feat: ADS and reduce it movement? seems kinda pointless to me.

I loved planetsides combat, the heavy armours bursting through a door, shots going everywhere, people strafing allover the place, the sounds of MCG's mowing people. all epic stuff. I hope they keep the TTK higher so each individual fight is abit more meaningful than a quick twitch of the wrist and a tap or 2 of a button and less about who got the jump on who first.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by GTGD

2. GET RID OF ADADADADADAD. As a product of CSHD, it was the #1 worst part of PS. Strafing is fine, but warping around like a moron is just frustrating. Also hopefully momentum will be implemented so that you can't still mash the buttons with zero momentum loss. I don't anticipate this to be a problem with PhysX but it is important to prevent ridiculous movements of characters.

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

I agree with all your points, in fact iv said the same things on many occasions. It does certainly slow down combat and reduce movement, which most people who played planetside will praise, but thats because they don't understand netcode and why people warp in planetside and they fear movement in PS2, but they're idiots.

Like i said Idiots... warping in PS2 is the result of Planetsides movement prediction system(It predicts, unlike other games that dont predict, they render movement at a delayed pace between the last packets received) and the game running at 5 ticks per second, most FPS games run at around 30. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CSHD.

Also again, Halo series is the highest selling series of alltime it does not have ADS
Counter strike is the most popular computer FPS on PC...still.
TF2 is still very popular, just as popular as MW3 infact even though the games is alot older...anyway...the stats speak for themselves, games with COF aiming are timeless, ADS games get thrown out every year.


It probably says something by itself that valve exclusively use COF.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

games with COF aiming are timeless, ADS games get thrown out every year. It probably says something by itself that valve exclusively use COF.

Planetside had COF aiming, and it wasn't timeless. And no it says nothing. Game's like Counter Strike and TF2 are popular for their communities and their game play, as much as Modern Warfare and Battlefield are. Their aiming systems are about .02% of game play.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

Planetside had COF aiming, and it wasn't timeless. And no it says nothing. Game's like Counter Strike and TF2 are popular for their communities and their game play, as much as Modern Warfare and Battlefield are. Their aiming systems are about .02% of game play.

cool stat's you madeup there bro...care to review the real stats above again?

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

cool stat's you madeup there bro...care to review the real stats above again?

Why doesn't SOE release a game with a black room, nothing in it, give the players a COF system and only 1 gun to play around with. It'd be a commercial success according to you.

[Arrow]

Still that CoD video doesnt really do any justice. Complete different gameplay. Planetside definitely had the arcadey feel to it.



Watch both movies and look at what takes more skill? I personally find the battlefield games boring cause they provide no challenge. Dying in one to 2 shots is extremely frustrating and to accomplish-able by any individual playing the game. To be good at quake or even planetside it didnt necessarily take a lot of time and effort but there was a nice learning curve that always had you challenged. The need for you to want to land every shot as opposed to dumping a clip down an alley way while going prone to spray your enemy down does not appeal to me in any fashion.

[Coreldan]

It would be interesting to see how it would work if ADS allowed quite fast movement speed, and you would naturally always be more accurate than outside ADS, but you would be more accurate the slower you moved.

However with no analog controls for most people, it would be hard to do, this way you could choose your movement speed according to your situation.

To add to my earlier wall of text, I'd pretty much also remove crosshair for at least most weapons outside ADS, with the exception of CQB-intended weapons, perhaps. But I guess this is just me and my background with games with realistic damage models and stuff.

Slowing down isn't outright bad. I for example have NO interest whatsoever to play a Tribes/Quake like games. I don't need ARMA-like realistic, but I have some limit how ridicilously arcade gameplay I can manage.

That said, PS is still quite manageable, since the movement speeds are fairly low and at range you still need to pretty much stop and crouch. The bigger problem is the ADAD netcode, but I dont have a problem with CQB fighting happening outside ADS, thats how you would do it in real life too.

[Shogun]

i like the rambo style run and gun type of fps.
and i would like to do hipgunning and optional ironsighting for better accuracy.

as somone already mentioned, some weapons really don´t need ironsights at all, like shotguns or the thumper. please don´t put ironsights in for every weapon just because modern shooters have those things!
it makes sense for rifles and optional for pistols to be able to hit long range but when i run and gun in close quarters, i prefer the good old retro rambo style

oh and to the original poster: don´t abuse higbys name on topictitles just to get more views!

[CutterJohn]

I would like an option like Crysis had, where you could choose whether you went to the sights view, or just got a zoomed in reticle and slowed movement speed. Note that the below only occurred with pure iron sights.. If you put on a red dot sight or scope or anything, it would revert to that view.




I don't much mind the mechanic of iron sights, but I do really hate the view itself.


As for how they handle, should benefit you some, but not a lot. Something thats a benefit to use, not an absolute requirement. And ideally a minimum of screen shake. I loathe screen shake. And depth of field.. not at all a fan of depth of field. The game doesn't know what I'm looking at.

[morf]

I see iron sights as a way to possibly cut down on that guy... You've seen him before; the guy who sees the enemy line, runs to it and ADADADADAD right in front of them while the 20 people behind him are facepalming because they can't get a shot in.

Anything that means less of that guy is a great change imo.

[NewSith]

If my opinion matters, I say - "I don't care". Even PlanetSide had iron aights, because you could zoom anything in, including rek. It didn't have any effect on accuracy, but fact is a fact.

[Bittermen]

Originally Posted by morf

I see iron sights as a way to possibly cut down on that guy... You've seen him before; the guy who sees the enemy line, runs to it and ADADADADAD right in front of them while the 20 people behind him are facepalming because they can't get a shot in.

Anything that means less of that guy is a great change imo.

Ironsights please.