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

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by bmfof

I'm afraid your conclusion is brough up due to a severe lack of experience.

Red Orchestra 2 Heroes of Stalingrad MG-34 gameplay - YouTube

So what exactly is the point you're trying to make with this video? That it's easy to gank lots of enemies from behind at short range with an LMG when they don't know you're there? That a poorly-balanced LMG can become OP'd in a game that has multiple firing modes where every single weapon is OSOK? That Russians sound like they have permanently stuffed noses when they talk? What?

[goneglockin]

Originally Posted by XLynxX

Ironsights slow down gameplay by a milisecond, if you think otherwise then obviously your right mouse button is broken.

Iron sights cause you stop moving. If you could run full speed while aiming down the sight, they wouldn't be iron sights as gamers know them. There is a purpose for that.

Today's games find every way imaginable to get you to stop moving. CoF too wide? Stop moving. Still too wide? Take a knee? Still have bullets exiting at a right angle from the muzzle? Aim down sights.

It's all designed to make you stop moving so tween who can barely go to the bathroom by himself can shoot you in the back.

Why? Because if these games were actually difficult and challenging, they'd therefore be less enjoyable and would therefore sell less copies.

FPS has only become a household item with the arrival of xbox and a market made of everyone, almost literally every cross section of population. As such, FPS games had to be made so *everyone* could play.

Usher in the age of iron sights, ADS, whatever you want to call it. Games designed to make sure everyone gets kills are watered down garbage.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

stuff

I fully agree

[Neksar]

I grew up with Unreal Tournament, and I still like the idea of iron sights. When did the goal of a game stop being 'to have fun' and start being 'to make people feel like they're better than everyone else?'

Now, what might be fun to you might not be fun to enough other people to justify making a game around it, but if you're going to be playing a game competetively, why even bother playing a game like Planetside at all? It doesn't become competetive until the game starts to dwindle in popularity and only the hardcore players remain. You'd be better off playing something like Counterstrike.

[Garem]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

Iron sights cause you stop moving. If you could run full speed while aiming down the sight, they wouldn't be iron sights as gamers know them. There is a purpose for that.

Today's games find every way imaginable to get you to stop moving. CoF too wide? Stop moving. Still too wide? Take a knee? Still have bullets exiting at a right angle from the muzzle? Aim down sights.

It's all designed to make you stop moving so tween who can barely go to the bathroom by himself can shoot you in the back.

Why? Because if these games were actually difficult and challenging, they'd therefore be less enjoyable and would therefore sell less copies.

FPS has only become a household item with the arrival of xbox and a market made of everyone, almost literally every cross section of population. As such, FPS games had to be made so *everyone* could play.

Usher in the age of iron sights, ADS, whatever you want to call it. Games designed to make sure everyone gets kills are watered down garbage.

You can't seriously think that ADS was added to the game to help young folks play... since it requires additional hand/finger movements (read: hand-eye coordination), finesse in aiming, and patience to do properly after all.

Regardless of how it changes the game I just don't see any argument that it was added for any other reason than to promote realism. Shooting game in the style of Planetside 1 and Halo bear no resemblance to actual firearm use whatsoever.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Garem

You can't seriously think that ADS was added to the game to help young folks play... since it requires additional hand/finger movements (read: hand-eye coordination), finesse in aiming, and patience to do properly after all.

Regardless of how it changes the game I just don't see any argument that it was added for any other reason than to promote realism. Shooting game in the style of Planetside 1 and Halo bear no resemblance to actual firearm use whatsoever.

ADS was added mainly because consol control units can't handle fast moving targets, it was added to slow the game down so it works on the xbox

[Neksar]

It seems like they were also added to increase the effective range of many weapons in a way a straight cone of fire can't. In Halo, for example, your weapon is only as accurate as its CoF. ADS negates that by giving weapons two modes of fire and consequently two levels of accuracy.

[Graywolves]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

Iron sights cause you stop moving. If you could run full speed while aiming down the sight, they wouldn't be iron sights as gamers know them. There is a purpose for that.

Today's games find every way imaginable to get you to stop moving. CoF too wide? Stop moving. Still too wide? Take a knee? Still have bullets exiting at a right angle from the muzzle? Aim down sights.

It's all designed to make you stop moving so tween who can barely go to the bathroom by himself can shoot you in the back.

Why? Because if these games were actually difficult and challenging, they'd therefore be less enjoyable and would therefore sell less copies.

FPS has only become a household item with the arrival of xbox and a market made of everyone, almost literally every cross section of population. As such, FPS games had to be made so *everyone* could play.

Usher in the age of iron sights, ADS, whatever you want to call it. Games designed to make sure everyone gets kills are watered down garbage.

/sign

Do people still do /sign? Does this apply?

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

Iron sights cause you stop moving. If you could run full speed while aiming down the sight, they wouldn't be iron sights as gamers know them. There is a purpose for that.

Today's games find every way imaginable to get you to stop moving. CoF too wide? Stop moving. Still too wide? Take a knee? Still have bullets exiting at a right angle from the muzzle? Aim down sights.

It's all designed to make you stop moving so tween who can barely go to the bathroom by himself can shoot you in the back.

Why? Because if these games were actually difficult and challenging, they'd therefore be less enjoyable and would therefore sell less copies.

FPS has only become a household item with the arrival of xbox and a market made of everyone, almost literally every cross section of population. As such, FPS games had to be made so *everyone* could play.

Usher in the age of iron sights, ADS, whatever you want to call it. Games designed to make sure everyone gets kills are watered down garbage.

Iron sights slow down the game to make it way less about the twitch skills and more about working as a team and using tactics. There is a reason Operation Flashpoint had iron sights in 2001. Nobody else was using them but they saw the obvious advantage of making their game more tactical by adding them.

The original Call of Duty (2003) for the PC implemented them because they saw the value of forcing the player to observe their surroundings now that they weren't making an arena shooter. Battlefield 2 was the next major FPS to implement them, that was in 2005 and was strictly for the PC. Games like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six for the PC used exaggerated cone of fire that would force the player to slow down so that they would make themselves vulnerable. This vulnerability meant that players needed to be more observant of their surroundings. An iron sights method replaces the cone of fire method and feels a lot more natural than watching expanding crosshairs.

In arena shooters, you just had to memorize the map and weapon spawn locations. In these newer shooters, it was much more about observing your surroundings, knowing your distance from the enemy, knowing your angle of elevation, watching your flanks, and making sure your rear was secure. In an arena shooter with no iron sights, you just bunny hop through the environment shooting at anything that's not on your side. Go play Tribes Ascend if you don't believe me.

Iron sights only got popular on the consoles because of the insane popularity of CoD 4. Before that, very few console FPSs bothered with iron sights. Timesplitters, Halo, Red Faction, Goldeneye... the list is pretty large. Iron sights weren't made popular because they slowed the game down for a console, they were made popular because they offered drastically different gameplay to the arcadey arena shooters. They were challenging in their own way and took a different set of skills to be good at them.

Unlike the modern CoD games where they mixed the arena shooter gameplay with that more tactical model and came up with something that gives people easy kills, Planetside 2 will use this mechanic to make people engage enemies from covered positions, from their flanks, from elevated positions. Unlike CoD where the skirmish is decided on who can pull the trigger first, Planetside 2 will be on who has been smarter with their location and choices of weapons for the engagement. With the new grid based capture system, I'll bet we see a lot of players dig into the environment and make temporary FoBs which they will defend. They won't just bunnyhop down the hill and create a cluster every skirmish. The iron sights will force them to take up positions and properly fight for land.

The fact of the matter is they are going to put them in Planetside 2. You can continue to not see the value and want every game to play like Unreal or Quake. The rest of us will move on.

[FastAndFree]

I would like to point out that (mostly) PC exclusive simulation games like Operation Flashpoint/Armed Assault, that are on the very opposite end of the spectrum than "watered down xboxlive genericmodernshooters", also have ADS


edit Damn, ninjaed :/

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Neksar

It seems like they were also added to increase the effective range of many weapons in a way a straight cone of fire can't. In Halo, for example, your weapon is only as accurate as its CoF. ADS negates that by giving weapons two modes of fire and consequently two levels of accuracy.

I think they just need to find a balance, i've no problem with needing to scope to hit targets across a CY, i just don't want to have to quick scope at <10 meters

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

Iron sights cause you stop moving. If you could run full speed while aiming down the sight, they wouldn't be iron sights as gamers know them. There is a purpose for that.

Today's games find every way imaginable to get you to stop moving. CoF too wide? Stop moving. Still too wide? Take a knee? Still have bullets exiting at a right angle from the muzzle? Aim down sights.

It's all designed to make you stop moving so tween who can barely go to the bathroom by himself can shoot you in the back.

Why? Because if these games were actually difficult and challenging, they'd therefore be less enjoyable and would therefore sell less copies.

FPS has only become a household item with the arrival of xbox and a market made of everyone, almost literally every cross section of population. As such, FPS games had to be made so *everyone* could play.

Usher in the age of iron sights, ADS, whatever you want to call it. Games designed to make sure everyone gets kills are watered down garbage.

I'm sorry, but outside of the first paragraph your post is utter crap.

The decision to include ADS in "modern" console games may have been influenced to some extent for the reasons you mentioned, but that's not why it was designed to begin with, and I'd bet it's not even close to the main reason it's put into modern FPSes. And it sure as hell isn't why so many people like playing games that implement it.

Don't believe me?
What you are watching is gameplay footage from the original Call of Duty PC game, released on October 29, 2003. It in you'll see ironsights being used. And guess what platforms it wasn't written for: You got it: consoles.

COD1 was released for the PC and OS X only. That's it. And one of the great new features it introduced and that reviewers raved about was the ironsights, which added a new tactical dimension to arcade-style FPS shooters.

Ironsights was added into the COD series for the enhanced gameplay it provides. Period. Slowing down gameplay is an after-effect of its implementation at best.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Erendil

stuff

That was just a load of really dull quick scoping..... i hope that's not how they implement ADS in PS2

[bmfof]

Originally Posted by Erendil

So what exactly is the point you're trying to make with this video? That it's easy to gank lots of enemies from behind at short range with an LMG when they don't know you're there? That a poorly-balanced LMG can become OP'd in a game that has multiple firing modes where every single weapon is OSOK? That Russians sound like they have permanently stuffed noses when they talk? What?

The point is that mobility will always win over the fabled "tactics" you all seem to think iron sights add. It's one thing to pretend you're a super badass specop going in corners slowly with your weapon up, completely something else to pick up the most arcadey weapon in the game and just run around like a madman twitching everyone into submission. Unless a game removes all possibility for weapons to be even remotely useful at short-mid range, then those weapons will always dominate the game in these encounters in the right hands.

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by bmfof

The point is that mobility will always win over the fabled "tactics" you all seem to think iron sights add. It's one thing to pretend you're a super badass specop going in corners slowly with your weapon up, completely something else to pick up the most arcadey weapon in the game and just run around like a madman twitching everyone into submission. Unless a game removes all possibility for weapons to be even remotely useful at short-mid range, then those weapons will always dominate the game in these encounters in the right hands.

You're assuming the pace of the game is quick and that PS2 is going to have a lot of really close quarters fighting.

From what I can tell, everything is a lot bigger than PS1. Also, if implemented right, somebody taking a corner smart can beat out somebody just sitting there without the iron sights waiting to pounce.