Kamiya: "Brainless camera whiners... Over the shoulder cam is fine."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:
Run n gun aiming *should* technically be less accurate than a focused aim though. That?s what adds to the strategy. It would get old pretty quickly if people could just run around shooting each other with no accuracy differences based on distance and aiming method.

Fun trumps realism. My brothers and I were never bothered about realistic accuracy when we shot at each other in GoldenEye, Banjo Tooie and Donkey Kong 64. It doesn't get old that quickly. I like the way MP3 does it. Your accuracy is higher when using ADS, but run and gun accuracy is still pretty good. Crysis' hip accuracy isn't too bad either, but I would prefer it to be higher.

This is the equivalent to me of playing a racing game and wanting to get through every course without hitting the brakes. I like the added strategy of needing to adjust aim past a certain distance. Playing STALKER SoC before having the aiming modded it was odd being able to headhshot people from 50yds using hip fire, but miss around 80% of the time using ADS.

In more arcade like shooters it?s no big deal though I will agree.

What Bad Jim said above me. There's nothing hard about having to stop and shoot. Shooting running targets takes more skill. I would actually like it if Max Payne's enemies could shoot dodge, roll and slide around just like him. In Hard Boiled, it wasn't just the heroes who could do that.

Bad Jim:

hanselthecaretaker:
This is the equivalent to me of playing a racing game and wanting to get through every course without hitting the brakes.

Not really. If you can get round every corner in a racing game without braking or even taking your foot off the gas then the skill ceiling is much lower, and you will only overtake a noob in front of you if he collides with something. It would be hard to defend that design choice as 'fun'. But many shooters without ADS have very high skill ceilings, and are fun in a way that ADS shooters aren't.

"Wanting to" is independent of it actually being a practical design choice. I think it would be very difficult to complete Nurburgring for example without some braking. I'd say the skill ceiling could be as high as the competition makes it for something like that.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:
Fun trumps realism. My brothers and I were never bothered about realistic accuracy when we shot at each other in GoldenEye, Banjo Tooie and Donkey Kong 64. It doesn't get old that quickly. I like the way MP3 does it. Your accuracy is higher when using ADS, but run and gun accuracy is still pretty good. Crysis' hip accuracy isn't too bad either, but I would prefer it to be higher.

This is the equivalent to me of playing a racing game and wanting to get through every course without hitting the brakes. I like the added strategy of needing to adjust aim past a certain distance. Playing STALKER SoC before having the aiming modded it was odd being able to headhshot people from 50yds using hip fire, but miss around 80% of the time using ADS.

In more arcade like shooters it?s no big deal though I will agree.

What Bad Jim said above me. There's nothing hard about having to stop and shoot. Shooting running targets takes more skill. I would actually like it if Max Payne's enemies could shoot dodge, roll and slide around just like him. In Hard Boiled, it wasn't just the heroes who could do that.

It's not about making it harder. The whole reason for ADS is to give a more fine tuned aiming mode. It can be done very quickly like flipping a switch between that and hip fire anyways, so I never saw the problem. I like the act of aiming and shooting a weapon be it real life or a game. I personally just feel like a part of the mechanics are missing if the player can simply hover a cross hair on someone while jumping around and whatnot regardless of range. Of course, this applies primarily to FPS since in TPS it's not usually even possible to use ADS correctly. Sniping would be an exception.

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

This is the equivalent to me of playing a racing game and wanting to get through every course without hitting the brakes. I like the added strategy of needing to adjust aim past a certain distance. Playing STALKER SoC before having the aiming modded it was odd being able to headhshot people from 50yds using hip fire, but miss around 80% of the time using ADS.

In more arcade like shooters it?s no big deal though I will agree.

What Bad Jim said above me. There's nothing hard about having to stop and shoot. Shooting running targets takes more skill. I would actually like it if Max Payne's enemies could shoot dodge, roll and slide around just like him. In Hard Boiled, it wasn't just the heroes who could do that.

It?s not about making it harder. The whole reason for ADS is to give a more fine tuned aiming mode. It can be done very quickly like flipping a switch between that and hip fire anyways, so I never saw the problem. I like the act of aiming and shooting a weapon be it real life or a game. I personally just feel like a part of the mechanics are missing if the player can simply hover a cross hair on someone while jumping around and whatnot regardless of range. Of course, this applies primarily to FPS since in TPS it?s not usually even possible to use ADS correctly. Sniping would be an exception.

The fine tuning was long present in shooters before ADS took over the entire genre. You just zoomed in slightly instead, which was better, since it didn't cut off so much of your view and the regular accuracy wasn't so bad and there wasn't the pretension that ADS makes sense in a game where the gun is always steady and pointed straight anyway. You could see your surroundings better with the wider field of view while shooting and could count on your bullet hitting what your gun was aimed at. The modern third person shooters have a similar problem. I remember that in one of the most recent ones I played, I was struck from outside the zoomed camera. I don't want to be forced to use that in an action game. I generally don't like the term "arcade game", because the person saying it usually wants to suggest that the generic pretend military shooter has more depth, which often isn't true.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:
What Bad Jim said above me. There's nothing hard about having to stop and shoot. Shooting running targets takes more skill. I would actually like it if Max Payne's enemies could shoot dodge, roll and slide around just like him. In Hard Boiled, it wasn't just the heroes who could do that.

It?s not about making it harder. The whole reason for ADS is to give a more fine tuned aiming mode. It can be done very quickly like flipping a switch between that and hip fire anyways, so I never saw the problem. I like the act of aiming and shooting a weapon be it real life or a game. I personally just feel like a part of the mechanics are missing if the player can simply hover a cross hair on someone while jumping around and whatnot regardless of range. Of course, this applies primarily to FPS since in TPS it?s not usually even possible to use ADS correctly. Sniping would be an exception.

The fine tuning was long present in shooters before ADS took over the entire genre. You just zoomed in slightly instead, which was better, since it didn't cut off so much of your view and the regular accuracy wasn't so bad and there wasn't the pretension that ADS makes sense in a game where the gun is always steady and pointed straight anyway. You could see your surroundings better with the wider field of view while shooting and could count on your bullet hitting what your gun was aimed at. The modern third person shooters have a similar problem. I remember that in one of the most recent ones I played, I was struck from outside the zoomed camera. I don't want to be forced to use that in an action game. I generally don't like the term "arcade game", because the person saying it usually wants to suggest that the generic pretend military shooter has more depth, which often isn't true.

I remember, but there really didn't seem to be much point in zoomed view either, since it was basically the same thing but worse. I don't get that ADS is only there because of slow console aiming, since they are generally full of aim assist regardless. It is merely an added mechanic for specific situations that's only been more recently implemented due to early 3D gaming's rudimentary technology.

Say you're in a building and need to shoot out of a window at someone in another building. You just switch your view for that instance, and then go back to hip fire for clearing out an adjacent room full of baddies. As for accuracy it should only be representative of the weapons in question; nothing more, nothing less. That's where my "arcade" comment comes in, because usually this game style disregards or minimizes the impact of such stats since they don't make much sense contextually.

Of course it doesn't mean one is less skill-based than the other. More like a different kind of skills being put to use. Like how God of War or DMC differ to something like Dark Souls or Kingdom Come: Deliverance in terms of melee.

There's no such thing as any mechanic being unilaterally bad. Saying such and such is better because it's more fun is extremely flawed because fun is obviously subjective; some people don't find any shooters fun thus would be of the opinion that devs shouldn't waste their time making any shooter. I could make the argument that no melee combat system should ever forbid animation cancels because it's not fun being stuck in an animation and it also makes the game play slower when a faster pace is more fun. I could say 1st-person camera is extremely flawed (which I have before) because you're field of view is less of that of human vision, but there's tons of 1st-person games that are great games and I don't write off a game because it's 1st-person. Even though I much prefer 3rd-person, there is one thing it allows for that I could see being a deal-breaker to others and that is that you can look around corners not physically exposing yourself. To remedy that inherent camera issue, 3rd-person shooters must have other mechanics in place like just being a high-health shooter or allow for quick bursts of movement to enable players to go around corners quickly not being sitting ducks or having a way to expose enemy positions (get intel and whatnot). Every mechanic in every game should be there because they work off of each other and/or remedy flaws inherent to a certain mechanic. Most games just put in mechanics because they are the "flavor of the month" instead of utilizing what best fits the game.

Anyway, onto OTS/ADS vs run and gun. Again, both have their pros and cons while allowing for different types of gameplay. The stop and shoot gameplay of OTS/ADS greatly rewards skills like positioning, awareness, and time management. There's tons of times when I go to shoot at an enemy and I see another enemy coming on the left (or in another gunfight or many other things), and I know that I'm only giving myself 2 seconds to get the kill or I have to back off because by that point the 2nd enemy should be reacting to me. Or just simply the fact that you should position yourself in a manner that you can only get shot from in front of you. Complaining that your field of view gets restricted in OTS/ADS means you aren't using all the tools available to you because you shouldn't be getting shot from off-screen because you should know where the enemies are before even shooting. Pay attention to your radar and the surround sound along with teammate call-outs (if playing online); you should rarely get shot at from off-screen. Basically, you should have mental snapshots of the battlefield and should know generally where your enemies are; a great way to know where enemies are is just by looking at where your teammates are and you'll almost certainly find enemies where they ain't (like if your left side of the map is unguarded, the enemy most likely has at least one player flanking your left side). Run and gun pros are a faster and more kinetic pace where pure aiming skill is most important and projectile-based weapons thrive in that environment. The competitive game strategy-wise plays completely different too where you can't really have your standard map and gap control defense when the enemy can just jump over that gap as many run and gun arena type shooters allow for a lot of verticality as well.

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

It?s not about making it harder. The whole reason for ADS is to give a more fine tuned aiming mode. It can be done very quickly like flipping a switch between that and hip fire anyways, so I never saw the problem. I like the act of aiming and shooting a weapon be it real life or a game. I personally just feel like a part of the mechanics are missing if the player can simply hover a cross hair on someone while jumping around and whatnot regardless of range. Of course, this applies primarily to FPS since in TPS it?s not usually even possible to use ADS correctly. Sniping would be an exception.

The fine tuning was long present in shooters before ADS took over the entire genre. You just zoomed in slightly instead, which was better, since it didn't cut off so much of your view and the regular accuracy wasn't so bad and there wasn't the pretension that ADS makes sense in a game where the gun is always steady and pointed straight anyway. You could see your surroundings better with the wider field of view while shooting and could count on your bullet hitting what your gun was aimed at. The modern third person shooters have a similar problem. I remember that in one of the most recent ones I played, I was struck from outside the zoomed camera. I don't want to be forced to use that in an action game. I generally don't like the term "arcade game", because the person saying it usually wants to suggest that the generic pretend military shooter has more depth, which often isn't true.

I remember, but there really didn?t seem to be much point in zoomed view either, since it was basically the same thing but worse.

Worse HOW? By the way, do you realize that pretty much all ADS systems have zooming?

I don?t get that ADS is only there because of slow console aiming, since they are generally full of aim assist regardless. It is merely an added mechanic for specific situations that?s only been more recently implemented due to early 3D gaming?s rudimentary technology.

More recently implemented and now present in everything because games looked more and more realistic and people started to believe they needed to play realistically too. (But, as I said, it's NOT realistic.) After the success of Call of Duty, there was no going back, sadly.

Say you?re in a building and need to shoot out of a window at someone in another building. You just switch your view for that instance, and then go back to hip fire for clearing out an adjacent room full of baddies.

You can do that with the slight zoom of older shooters. No reason to make hip fire practically useless, though. Running and gunning is pretty much dead, so I'll take the militant stance. Fuck forced ADS and OTS.

As for accuracy it should only be representative of the weapons in question; nothing more, nothing less. That?s where my ?arcade? comment comes in, because usually this game style disregards or minimizes the impact of such stats since they don?t make much sense contextually.

Example? Almost any run and gun shooter I can think of has stats like that. Meaning, a shotgun being more effective up close, submachine guns having more spread, and so on.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

I remember, but there really didn't seem to be much point in zoomed view either, since it was basically the same thing but worse.

Worse HOW? By the way, do you realize that pretty much all ADS systems have zooming?

A slightly zoomed hipfire perspective is fundamentally different than switching to a completely new viewpoint. The former is like using the zoom function in a TV's display options vs actually using a more focal viewpoint.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

I don't get that ADS is only there because of slow console aiming, since they are generally full of aim assist regardless. It is merely an added mechanic for specific situations that's only been more recently implemented due to early 3D gaming's rudimentary technology.

More recently implemented and now present in everything because games looked more and more realistic and people started to believe they needed to play realistically too. (But, as I said, it's NOT realistic.) After the success of Call of Duty, there was no going back, sadly.

This is only my opinion of course, but visual feedback is important to me in a game, with gun play being a key tenet in an FPS. Hipfiring accurately from 50+ yards looks plain stupid, zoomed or not. It was all we had back then but seeing it happen now just makes me kinda chuckle and sigh.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

Say you?re in a building and need to shoot out of a window at someone in another building. You just switch your view for that instance, and then go back to hip fire for clearing out an adjacent room full of baddies.

You can do that with the slight zoom of older shooters. No reason to make hip fire practically useless, though. Running and gunning is pretty much dead, so I'll take the militant stance. Fuck forced ADS and OTS.

Why cling to that archaic implementation though? Just because it keeps everything faster? Not everything needs to be a fast-paced arcade-like arena style shooter. There is room for both, and they are not mutually exclusive. Blame the designer if one or the other is rendered useless. If there wasn't a use for both, then either guns wouldn't have any sights or people wouldn't shoot from the hip.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

As for accuracy it should only be representative of the weapons in question; nothing more, nothing less. That's where my "arcade" comment comes in, because usually this game style disregards or minimizes the impact of such stats since they don't make much sense contextually.

Example? Almost any run and gun shooter I can think of has stats like that. Meaning, a shotgun being more effective up close, submachine guns having more spread, and so on.

Correct, but again it depends on where the game falls in the design style. Like I said before, it's not that big a deal to me personally for something like a Max Payne or Uncharted, since ADS doesn't fit TPS design outside of sniping. For FPS, the gun play is essentially the star. Why not use all aspects of it at least somewhat authentically?

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

I remember, but there really didn't seem to be much point in zoomed view either, since it was basically the same thing but worse.

Worse HOW? By the way, do you realize that pretty much all ADS systems have zooming?

A slightly zoomed hipfire perspective is fundamentally different than switching to a completely new viewpoint. The former is like using the zoom function in a TV's display options vs actually using a more focal viewpoint.

How is ADS more focal? It's the exact same thing but with a big obstruction in the middle of the screen.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

I don't get that ADS is only there because of slow console aiming, since they are generally full of aim assist regardless. It is merely an added mechanic for specific situations that's only been more recently implemented due to early 3D gaming's rudimentary technology.

More recently implemented and now present in everything because games looked more and more realistic and people started to believe they needed to play realistically too. (But, as I said, it's NOT realistic.) After the success of Call of Duty, there was no going back, sadly.

This is only my opinion of course, but visual feedback is important to me in a game, with gun play being a key tenet in an FPS. Hipfiring accurately from 50+ yards looks plain stupid, zoomed or not. It was all we had back then but seeing it happen now just makes me kinda chuckle and sigh.

I disagree. It looks awesome. If you can aim that well and the gun is that accurate, you deserve the hip shot. Better than the barrel pointing straight and the shot being completely off the mark. Now THAT'S poor visual feedback.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

Say you?re in a building and need to shoot out of a window at someone in another building. You just switch your view for that instance, and then go back to hip fire for clearing out an adjacent room full of baddies.

You can do that with the slight zoom of older shooters. No reason to make hip fire practically useless, though. Running and gunning is pretty much dead, so I'll take the militant stance. Fuck forced ADS and OTS.

Why cling to that archaic implementation though?

It's not archaic at all. Just because something is newer doesn't mean it's better. ADS isn't better.

Just because it keeps everything faster?

Because it's faster, because you can see better and because it's more realistic. More realistic because there is no artificial accuracy nerf. The bullet hits what's it's supposed to, what the gun is aimed at.

Not everything needs to be a fast-paced arcade-like arena style shooter. There is room for both, and they are not mutually exclusive. Blame the designer if one or the other is rendered useless. If there wasn't a use for both, then either guns wouldn't have any sights or people wouldn't shoot from the hip.

Apparently, there is only room for one, because all shooters use ADS and forced OTS now.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:

As for accuracy it should only be representative of the weapons in question; nothing more, nothing less. That's where my "arcade" comment comes in, because usually this game style disregards or minimizes the impact of such stats since they don't make much sense contextually.

Example? Almost any run and gun shooter I can think of has stats like that. Meaning, a shotgun being more effective up close, submachine guns having more spread, and so on.

Correct, but again it depends on where the game falls in the design style. Like I said before, it's not that big a deal to me personally for something like a Max Payne or Uncharted, since ADS doesn't fit TPS design outside of sniping.

I don't know why you're talking about ADS in third person shooters. The third person equivalent is over the shoulder aiming, which has similar problems.

For FPS, the gun play is essentially the star.

Gun play is very important in both perspectives. Two of the reasons Uncharted isn't that impressive to me are because the guns sound bad and the bullets are too fat and slow. The AK-47 doesn't sound anything like an AK-47. It sounds like two pieces of metal hitting each other repeatedly. The shotguns also have disappointingly short range.

Why not use all aspects of it at least somewhat authentically?

Because authenticity isn't necessarily fun. I like KINDS of authenticity.

Ezekiel:
How is ADS more focal? It's the exact same thing but with a big obstruction in the middle of the screen.

Ezekiel:
I disagree. It looks awesome. If you can aim that well and the gun is that accurate, you deserve the hip shot. Better than the barrel pointing straight and the shot being completely off the mark. Now THAT'S poor visual feedback.

Ezekiel:

Because it's faster, because you can see better and because it's more realistic. More realistic because there is no artificial accuracy nerf. The bullet hits what's it's supposed to, what the gun is aimed at.

With regards to this, I love how Killing Floor and Payday handle ADS. The game's weapons are just as accurate whether you hipfire or use your sights, and you don't get a crosshair at all. If you practice enough to aim properly, hipfiring is simply superior. And the sights are just there if you need them, basically.

Ezekiel:
How is ADS more focal? It's the exact same thing but with a big obstruction in the middle of the screen.

I'm more inclined to aim better when my gun sites are centered on a target vs a crosshair. Half the time I'm checking out my shiny gun instead. My bad though, I suppose.

Ezekiel:
I disagree. It looks awesome. If you can aim that well and the gun is that accurate, you deserve the hip shot. Better than the barrel pointing straight and the shot being completely off the mark. Now THAT'S poor visual feedback.

"If". Again, blame the design if a barrel is pointing right at a target and you miss. STALKER had horrid aim implementation for example until users modded out the probability stats, which were pointless on top of base accuracy.

Ezekiel:

It's not archaic at all. Just because something is newer doesn't mean it's better. ADS isn't better.

Agree to disagree. I get why you think a crosshair is all that's needed or wanted, but I can't help but think it's lazy, or at the very least casual game design. The whole point of sites is to add strategy. Accuracy is supposed to be improved at the expense of mobility and yes, even FOV. If one mechanic or the other is nerfed into uselessness because of it, then again we'd have to blame the respective designer.

Ezekiel:

Just because it keeps everything faster?

Because it's faster, because you can see better and because it's more realistic. More realistic because there is no artificial accuracy nerf. The bullet hits what's it's supposed to, what the gun is aimed at.

Same as my previous two comments, really.

Ezekiel:

Apparently, there is only room for one, because all shooters use ADS and forced OTS now.

All shooters use ADS, but there is of course still hip fire as well. If it sucks, or accuracy is nerfed too badly, then we of course should know what to do

OTS, not all games force it. Uncharted and similar TPS for example still have typical run and gun, and only resort to OTS when holding a button for it.

Ezekiel:

I don't know why you're talking about ADS in third person shooters. The third person equivalent is over the shoulder aiming, which has similar problems.

Yup, I was getting fixated on ADS too much here.

Ezekiel:
Gun play is very important in both perspectives. Two of the reasons Uncharted isn't that impressive to me are because the guns sound bad and the bullets are too fat and slow. The AK-47 doesn't sound anything like an AK-47. It sounds like two pieces of metal hitting each other repeatedly. The shotguns also have disappointingly short range.

UC4 sounds better, but yeah I agree. ND apparently weren't too concerned with that type of authenticity. I prefer tight focus on things like weapon handling, recoil, accuracy, ballistics, and sound. Some games come pretty close to nailing them all, but still searching for that unicorn.

Ezekiel:

Why not use all aspects of it at least somewhat authentically?

Because authenticity isn't necessarily fun. I like KINDS of authenticity.

Fair enough. I like the kind of authenticity ADS provides. We're drawing the line in different places.

I love ADS, no exceptions. Guns have sights on them for a reason.

hanselthecaretaker:
OTS, not all games force it. Uncharted and similar TPS for example still have typical run and gun, and only resort to OTS when holding a button for it.

No, Uncharted forces it. Your accuracy is undependable when shooting from the hip. You only use it when the target is very close. You can find YouTube vids of people shooting from the hip in real life, and their accuracy is nowhere near as bad as in Uncharted. I can't imagine it being that difficult to shoot somewhat accurately from the hip. I never had so much difficulty when playing with my toy guns (rubber darts and water pistols) as a kid.

Very few of the new third person shooters even let you shoot without pulling up the OTS view. It's not an option in the new Tomb Raiders, MGS4 and V (You could run and gun in the previous games. MGS3 even let you strafe while running and gunning.), Quantum Break or any horror shooter. GTA V does have it, but the movement in that game is horrible anyway.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:
OTS, not all games force it. Uncharted and similar TPS for example still have typical run and gun, and only resort to OTS when holding a button for it.

No, Uncharted forces it. Your accuracy is undependable when shooting from the hip. You only use it when the target is very close. You can find YouTube vids of people shooting from the hip in real life, and their accuracy is nowhere near as bad as in Uncharted. I can't imagine it being that difficult to shoot somewhat accurately from the hip. I never had so much difficulty when playing with my toy guns (rubber darts and water pistols) as a kid.

Very few of the new third person shooters even let you shoot without pulling up the OTS view. It's not an option in the new Tomb Raiders, MGS4 and V (You could run and gun in the previous games. MGS3 even let you strafe while running and gunning.), Quantum Break or any horror shooter. GTA V does have it, but the movement in that game is horrible anyway.

Well then that's ND's fault. I know a lot of people don't like it, but the Killzone series ever since 2 is a great example of a console shooter that still has useful hip fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FdFGnOYFRc

Also shows how ADS doesn't really force slowing gameplay down

And without being plagued by aim assist, making it pretty much the only console FPS done right. ADS range is also about right where it should start. If what is considered one of the slowest console shooters can do it, there's no reason for it to be any different on PC.

For me, fixed camera in especially Jrpgs evokes a weird positive nostalgia that's hard to pinpoint but it just makes the game feel like a proper Jrpg. Most recent example was how it was utilized in World of Final Fantasy. It instantly made the game feel familiar and "right".

Ezekiel:
I don't know why you're talking about ADS in third person shooters. The third person equivalent is over the shoulder aiming, which has similar problems.

ADS works just fine in TPSs as well (GRFS for example), it's just another option that has its pros and cons.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
I don't know why you're talking about ADS in third person shooters. The third person equivalent is over the shoulder aiming, which has similar problems.

ADS works just fine in TPSs as well (GRFS for example), it's just another option that has its pros and cons.

It's not an important part of the genre/perspective. Your response is random and lacks context, to be honest.

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:
OTS, not all games force it. Uncharted and similar TPS for example still have typical run and gun, and only resort to OTS when holding a button for it.

No, Uncharted forces it. Your accuracy is undependable when shooting from the hip. You only use it when the target is very close. You can find YouTube vids of people shooting from the hip in real life, and their accuracy is nowhere near as bad as in Uncharted. I can't imagine it being that difficult to shoot somewhat accurately from the hip. I never had so much difficulty when playing with my toy guns (rubber darts and water pistols) as a kid.

Very few of the new third person shooters even let you shoot without pulling up the OTS view. It's not an option in the new Tomb Raiders, MGS4 and V (You could run and gun in the previous games. MGS3 even let you strafe while running and gunning.), Quantum Break or any horror shooter. GTA V does have it, but the movement in that game is horrible anyway.

Well then that?s ND?s fault. I know a lot of people don?t like it, but the Killzone series ever since 2 is a great example of a console shooter that still has useful hip fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FdFGnOYFRc

Also shows how ADS doesn?t really force slowing gameplay down

And without being plagued by aim assist, making it pretty much the only console FPS done right. ADS range is also about right where it should start. If what is considered one of the slowest console shooters can do it, there?s no reason for it to be any different on PC.

Didn't watch all of those, but those were nice. I got bored of Killzone 2's campaign pretty quickly and never finished it. I wish I could try it out again, but I don't want to play it with a controller and my PS3 is dead and the multiplayer is being discontinued anyway. Most ADS shooters just don't do hip fire like that.

^^ It's pretty much the only FPS I enjoyed playing on console. There are some really good MP clips on YouTube of clan battles getting pretty intense. I was never that good though. I'd be all over it again if KZ2/3 ever found their way to PC, especially with mods.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
I don't know why you're talking about ADS in third person shooters. The third person equivalent is over the shoulder aiming, which has similar problems.

ADS works just fine in TPSs as well (GRFS for example), it's just another option that has its pros and cons.

It's not an important part of the genre/perspective. Your response is random and lacks context, to be honest.

You're trying to unilaterally condemn and praise certain mechanics for specific genres. Saying this is how every type of TPS or FPS or hack and slash should play makes games very homogeneous and basically kills experimentation. Look at how every freaking game implemented Arkham combat that had melee combat from Sleeping Dogs to Uncharted 3 to Shadow of Mordor. Even if Arkham combat is literally the best combat system, every game with melee combat implementing it only makes it more and more stale and the games using it are worse off for it (not better). And, you get stuff like Ubisoft: The Game by sticking to the same mechanics across similar games.

Every mechanic can probably work in any genre given the right circumstances. Your whole 'OTS is bad for melee combat games' is defeated by the fact God Hand exists. Or that 'ADS isn't for TPSs' is defeated by the fact TPSs exist that have ADS as the primary shooting camera. You bitch about OTS view being too limited yet the standard view in FPSs is more limited than that so using your own logic means no shooters should be FPSs because the view is more limiting than other views. Then, you bitch about FPSs not having accurate hipfire when the 2 FPSs I played last year had accurate hipfire, which are Wolfenstein 2 and Prey (yeah, not a pure shooter but immersive sim and it didn't even have ADS at all either).

Remember, 90% of everything is crap, which is actually a good thing and keeps the medium/genre healthy because the alternative would be that 100% of everything is crap as you would just be playing the same carbon copy game over and over again with exponentially increasing diminishing returns (for example, rogue-likes for decades; hopefully, we don't get a souls-like genre).

^I'm not reading that. I just said first person view isn't an important part of the genre/perspective, which it isn't. If some third person games have first person modes, fine, but that doesn't change the facts that it's hardly universal, that it wasn't that relevant to that part of the conversation and that the equivalent is over the shoulder aiming. My response didn't require a three paragraph response. I'm not gonna argue with you just for the sake of it anymore.

Ezekiel:
^I'm not reading that. I just said first person view isn't an important part of the genre/perspective, which it isn't. If some third person games have first person modes, fine, but that doesn't change the facts that it's hardly universal, that it wasn't that relevant to that part of the conversation and that the equivalent is over the shoulder aiming. My response didn't require a three paragraph response. I'm not gonna argue with you just for the sake of it anymore.

Stop mandating what mechanics are "objectively" best and worst for shooters. You made the thread out of context just to start up some "this is why those mechanics suck while these mechanics are always the best way to do something" without understanding that with the proper interplay, any mechanic can work. Mechanics aren't standalone things that are universally bad or good.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
^I'm not reading that. I just said first person view isn't an important part of the genre/perspective, which it isn't. If some third person games have first person modes, fine, but that doesn't change the facts that it's hardly universal, that it wasn't that relevant to that part of the conversation and that the equivalent is over the shoulder aiming. My response didn't require a three paragraph response. I'm not gonna argue with you just for the sake of it anymore.

Stop mandating what mechanics are "objectively" best and worst for shooters. You made the thread out of context just to start up some "this is why those mechanics suck while these mechanics are always the best way to do something" without understanding that with the proper interplay, any mechanic can work. Mechanics aren't standalone things that are universally bad or good.

That has nothing to do with the quote, and I made the thread out of context because someone posted the picture in a thread about third person shooters, which you know I've already told you. As always, you keep latching on to a mistake in order to start some shit. In a pure shooter, I would NEVER accept forced OTS or ADS over a system of mechanics in which they are more secondary, so screw your talk of "proper interplay". I might enjoy a shooter designed in such a way that they are forced, but even that shooter would probably be better with having it be more optional. Looking at this thread, I'm not the only person who has issues with it.

image

Ezekiel:
That has nothing to do with the quote, and I made the thread out of context because someone posted the picture in a thread about third person shooters, which you know I've already told you. As always, you keep latching on to a mistake in order to start some shit. In a pure shooter, I would NEVER accept forced OTS or ADS over a system of mechanics in which they are more secondary, so screw your talk of "proper interplay". I might enjoy a shooter designed in such a way that they are forced, but even that shooter would probably be better with having it be more optional. Looking at this thread, I'm not the only person who has issues with it.

It made no sense that Kamiya would make some blanket statement about TPSs, it's not hard to look something up.

If "your" shooters are so great and everyone loves them so much then why don't the top 2 played "pure" shooters on Steam feature what you consider the "objectively" best mechanics?

image

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
That has nothing to do with the quote, and I made the thread out of context because someone posted the picture in a thread about third person shooters, which you know I've already told you. As always, you keep latching on to a mistake in order to start some shit. In a pure shooter, I would NEVER accept forced OTS or ADS over a system of mechanics in which they are more secondary, so screw your talk of "proper interplay". I might enjoy a shooter designed in such a way that they are forced, but even that shooter would probably be better with having it be more optional. Looking at this thread, I'm not the only person who has issues with it.

It made no sense that Kamiya would make some blanket statement about TPSs, it's not hard to look something up.

If "your" shooters are so great and everyone loves them so much then why don't the top 2 played "pure" shooters on Steam feature what you consider the "objectively" best mechanics?

image

Wow. I'm surprised this is the argument you're going with now.

First of all, I never pretended to speak for other people. It should have been obvious from this thread and the popularity of ADS and OTS shooters that most people like those mechanics. I don't see what this is supposed to prove. It's like someone saying, "These games scored best on Metacritic, therefore they are the best." Sheep mentality.

Second, Counter Strike: Global Offensive has accurate hip shooting. I can't even tell if has ADS, because the YouTube vids I'm skimming through show the players only using hip fire. Team Fortress 2 is a run and gun shooter. Most of Valve's games lack ADS, except for sniper rifles.

Playerunknown's Battlegrounds, from what I can tell, is popular because of its Battle Royale mode, not because it has stellar shooting mechanics.

GTA V is, mechanically, overly sluggish and mediocre. I'm sure you wouldn't praise GTA V's mechanics, so I don't know why you're posting this picture or why you didn't trim off the bottom portion. I know it's not a pure shooter, but even as a heavy shooter, it's mediocre. It didn't deserve to sell 85 million copies. Tells you how much I care about popular opinion. I played through it only once and have deleted it three times because I always struggle to find enjoyment in it.

Ezekiel:
Wow. I'm surprised this is the argument you're going with now.

First of all, I never pretended to speak for other people. It should have been obvious from this thread and the popularity of ADS and OTS shooters that most people like those mechanics. I don't see what this is supposed to prove. It's like someone saying, "These games scored best on Metacritic, therefore they are the best." Sheep mentality.

Second, Counter Strike: Global Offensive has accurate hip shooting. I can't even tell if has ADS, because the YouTube vids I'm skimming through show the players only using hip fire. Team Fortress 2 is a run and gun shooter. Most of Valve's games lack ADS, except for sniper rifles.

Playerunknown's Battlegrounds, from what I can tell, is popular because of its Battle Royale mode, not because it has stellar shooting mechanics.

GTA V is, mechanically, overly sluggish and mediocre. I'm sure you wouldn't praise GTA V's mechanics, so I don't know why you're posting this picture or why you didn't trim off the bottom portion. I know it's not a pure shooter, but even as a heavy shooter, it's mediocre. It didn't deserve to sell 85 million copies. Tells you how much I care about popular opinion. I played through it only once and have deleted it three times because I always struggle to find enjoyment in it.

I'm not trying to argue what is best because any mechanic can be used properly or improperly, that is the point I've been making the whole time. I just posted the pic because the most played "pure" shooters are games you probably wouldn't like. CS and R6 Siege are the most played shooters on Steam, they must be doing something right. Yeah, CS has accurate hipfire but you get massive accuracy debuffs for shooting while moving, which you don't like. You'd probably consider the "pro leaning" in R6 Siege to be stupid as well. Being able to move fast and quick in a slower shooter creates more of a movement skill-gap vs when everyone is fast and constantly shooting; you can say "your" shooters have a bigger skill-gap in aiming skill. Thus, each mechanic and style of shooter accomplishes something different. Mechanics on their own are not good or bad.

Oh and the Steam page only has the top 10 games unless you click to view more, I didn't trim anything off. Is like #11 your favorite game or something?

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Wow. I'm surprised this is the argument you're going with now.

First of all, I never pretended to speak for other people. It should have been obvious from this thread and the popularity of ADS and OTS shooters that most people like those mechanics. I don't see what this is supposed to prove. It's like someone saying, "These games scored best on Metacritic, therefore they are the best." Sheep mentality.

Second, Counter Strike: Global Offensive has accurate hip shooting. I can't even tell if has ADS, because the YouTube vids I'm skimming through show the players only using hip fire. Team Fortress 2 is a run and gun shooter. Most of Valve's games lack ADS, except for sniper rifles.

Playerunknown's Battlegrounds, from what I can tell, is popular because of its Battle Royale mode, not because it has stellar shooting mechanics.

GTA V is, mechanically, overly sluggish and mediocre. I'm sure you wouldn't praise GTA V's mechanics, so I don't know why you're posting this picture or why you didn't trim off the bottom portion. I know it's not a pure shooter, but even as a heavy shooter, it's mediocre. It didn't deserve to sell 85 million copies. Tells you how much I care about popular opinion. I played through it only once and have deleted it three times because I always struggle to find enjoyment in it.

I'm not trying to argue what is best because any mechanic can be used properly or improperly, that is the point I've been making the whole time. I just posted the pic because the most played "pure" shooters are games you probably wouldn't like.

Pointless.

CS and R6 Siege are the most played shooters on Steam, they must be doing something right.

I got that the first time. Again, pointless. We already know forced ADS is almost universally accepted. That doesn't make it good.

Yeah, CS has accurate hipfire but you get massive accuracy debuffs for shooting while moving, which you don't like. You'd probably consider the "pro leaning" in R6 Siege to be stupid as well. Being able to move fast and quick in a slower shooter creates more of a movement skill-gap vs when everyone is fast and constantly shooting; you can say "your" shooters have a bigger skill-gap in aiming skill. Thus, each mechanic and style of shooter accomplishes something different. Mechanics on their own are not good or bad.

Well, I played Rainbow Six: Siege briefly during a free weekend and didn't find the deliberately clunky controls fun at all. I also refunded CS: Source. ADS, the way it's used in most games, was always unrealistic and stupid. Also, it cuts off too much of your view, which is the whole reason red dot sights are SO COMMON now. You even find them on pistols. If so many people use red dot sights to make ADS less shitty, that tells you something is wrong.

Ezekiel:
Well, I played Rainbow Six: Siege briefly during a free weekend and didn't find the deliberately clunky controls fun at all. I also refunded CS: Source. ADS, the way it's used in most games, was always unrealistic and stupid. Also, it cuts off too much of your view, which is the whole reason red dot sights are SO COMMON now. You even find them on pistols. If so many people use red dot sights to make ADS less shitty, that tells you something is wrong.

How is Siege clunky? I played the beta and the controls were perfectly fine, I decided not to pick it up because the balance and netcode weren't good while not having faith Ubisoft would actually support a game post-launch (and Siege is like the one game they actually have). Now, it would be such a time commitment to get into a game like Siege. ADS and hipfire are literally the same thing; center camera on enemy and shoot. Yeah, ADS is mainly there for the sensitivity switch for controllers but they also give you an exacting feel for the recoil of the gun. You should almost never die because of "limited visibility" because you should only be shooting for a second at a time really. Watch any CS pro sniper, they don't even scope in for a second. If you have great situational awareness and know when to and when not to engage in combat, you should never get killed because of ADS. ADS shooters reward a different set of skills than your run and gun shooters do. Red dot sights are popular because the vast majority of shooters have small maps where you can basically "snipe" with an AR with a basic red dot sight.

How is ADS unrealistic when that is literally how you shoot a gun in real life? Plus, when you focus your eyesight on anything, you do lose peripherals and even miss stuff right in front of you too as your brain ignores "unimportant" stuff. Not that mimicking what happens in real life is inherently good for a game either as guns perform differently in games for sake of balance.

Phoenixmgs:
ADS and hipfire are literally the same thing; center camera on enemy and shoot. Yeah, ADS is mainly there for the sensitivity switch for controllers but they also give you an exacting feel for the recoil of the gun. You should almost never die because of "limited visibility" because you should only be shooting for a second at a time really. Watch any CS pro sniper, they don't even scope in for a second. If you have great situational awareness and know when to and when not to engage in combat, you should never get killed because of ADS. ADS shooters reward a different set of skills than your run and gun shooters do.

Excuses. Very limited visibility isn't funner than what we had before. Quickly toggling between the two views isn't an ideal solution, when there's a better alternative.

Red dot sights are popular because the vast majority of shooters have small maps where you can basically "snipe" with an AR with a basic red dot sight.

Another excuse. I don't know why I bother. Red dot sights are popular because it's a lot easier to see through them. The map size doesn't matter.

How is ADS unrealistic when that is literally how you shoot a gun in real life?

I explained it days ago. Fuck this.

Edit: Okay, I'll explain it again. It's unrealistic because the devs almost always give you trashy, unrealistic accuracy to validate the ADS. The gun in a first person shooter is usually pointed straight when shooting from the hip, so the shot should be accurate. Shooting somewhat accurately without using the sights shouldn't be THAT hard, from my experience as a kid and from what I've seen on YouTube. First person shooters aren't realistic anyway. No one holds and walks around with a gun like that or has perfectly rectangular, narrow vision. But that's fine. They're not supposed to mimic reality that closely. I just like to point out that ADS is unrealistic because people believe it's realistic. It's dumb.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Mostly Console gamers, go figure.

Seems that way. Or, at least, it seems like console gamers are a lot more defensive over it.

Phoenixmgs:
ADS and hipfire are literally the same thing; center camera on enemy and shoot. Yeah, ADS is mainly there for the sensitivity switch for controllers but they also give you an exacting feel for the recoil of the gun.

This is false for R6: Siege. Hipfire/unaimed in Siege makes the gun fire in a traditional FPS "scatter", where the shots can go anywhere within an expanding circle (with different weapons having different size of circles, Ela's Scorpion has a very small circle for the first few shots if standing still, Fuze RPK has a ridiculously large one no matter what he does). When you aim down the sights the bullet will go where the aim is, with random but predictable recoil patterns (often upwards or upwards/sidewards, depending on the weapon) if you keep firing. The aim will follow the recoil pattern, so where you aim is still where you hit.

So in R6 you are generally encouraged to be ADS when expecting hostiles because that's the only way to ensure you will hit what you aim at, with a few weapons changing it up by being more forgiving of hipfire, mainly the shotguns and some of the defenders SMGs.

Ezekiel:
Excuses. Very limited visibility isn't funner than what we had before. Quickly toggling between the two views isn't an ideal solution, when there's a better alternative.

Another excuse. I don't know why I bother. Red dot sights are popular because it's a lot easier to see through them. The map size doesn't matter.

I explained it days ago. Fuck this.

Edit: Okay, I'll explain it again. It's unrealistic because the devs almost always give you trashy, unrealistic accuracy to validate the ADS. The gun in a first person shooter is usually pointed straight when shooting from the hip, so the shot should be accurate. Shooting somewhat accurately without using the sights shouldn't be THAT hard, from my experience as a kid and from what I've seen on YouTube. First person shooters aren't realistic anyway. No one holds and walks around with a gun like that or has perfectly rectangular, narrow vision. But that's fine. They're not supposed to mimic reality that closely. I just like to point out that ADS is unrealistic because people believe it's realistic. It's dumb.

What is fun or not fun is subjective. You can't say something is objectively better because it's more fun. Your ideal shooter (run and gun, always moving and shooting) rewards a different kind of skill-set than your ADS/OTS shooter does. Both mechanics have their place because they are accomplishing something different. ADS shooters are all about mastering movement on the micro scale; for example, this Siege video demonstrates the difference of movement between players and how exacting you have to be with your movement. It's like an arcade racer vs a driving sim, neither are inherently better.

Why would you need more magnification when the vast majority of gunfights in most shooters are within 50m?

I agree that every bullet should go where you aim, sway and higher recoil should be used to make you less accurate when hipfiring vs just bullet deviation. Watch any kind of SWAT or military training exercise like this (take note of how important and exacting minor movements have to be much like aforementioned Siege), they will not be firing from the hip unless it's extremely close quarters. You can't shoot accurately at all in real life by hipfiring. The guns that are sorta designed for hipfire trade accuracy for a volume of bullets mainly for suppression purposes.

Gethsemani:
This is false for R6: Siege. Hipfire/unaimed in Siege makes the gun fire in a traditional FPS "scatter", where the shots can go anywhere within an expanding circle (with different weapons having different size of circles, Ela's Scorpion has a very small circle for the first few shots if standing still, Fuze RPK has a ridiculously large one no matter what he does). When you aim down the sights the bullet will go where the aim is, with random but predictable recoil patterns (often upwards or upwards/sidewards, depending on the weapon) if you keep firing. The aim will follow the recoil pattern, so where you aim is still where you hit.

So in R6 you are generally encouraged to be ADS when expecting hostiles because that's the only way to ensure you will hit what you aim at, with a few weapons changing it up by being more forgiving of hipfire, mainly the shotguns and some of the defenders SMGs.

Yeah, I know how most hipfire works. I was mainly saying to Ezekiel that his ideal version of hipfire (very accurate like CS) vs ADS is literally the exact same thing with regards to how you actually aim, center camera on enemy and shoot. I personally really hate bullet deviation/scatter because I don't like RNG determining where my bullets go. You can make hipfire less accurate by increasing recoil along with weapon sway vs just having a bullet go randomly in the crosshairs.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
You can't shoot accurately at all in real life by hipfiring.

Bullshit. Not everyone is so cognitively retarded that they can't hold a fucking stick fairly straight. I'm done talking to you about this.

Lol, that is factually not how guns work. Holding a gun "fairly" straight is going to result in misses even at close ranges.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
You can't shoot accurately at all in real life by hipfiring.

Bullshit. Not everyone is so cognitively retarded that they can't hold a fucking stick fairly straight. I'm done talking to you about this.

Lol, that is factually not how guns work. Holding a gun "fairly" straight is going to result in misses even at close ranges.

Top comment says it all.

"all they proved was that THEY couldnt do it. if you gave them a skateboard and told them to prove that a kickflip is possible, they would call that busted as well because THEY cant do it cuz it takes alot of practice."

Also, I don't know why the hell you're showing me a video about dual wielding, with the shooter aiming at two different targets, when we weren't even discussing that, and then also laughing on top of that. It's very annoying. I know how to point a stick with both hands. Don't tell me I can't. There's no difference between that and a gun, except recoil, but you didn't state that was a factor, and it can be corrected by pausing and adjusting between shots. The awful accuracy for hip-fired one-handed guns in games also makes no sense when kids can aim decently with their toy guns.

Ezekiel:
I know how to point a stick with both hands. Don't tell me I can't. There's no difference between that and a gun, except recoil, but you didn't state that was a factor, and it can be corrected by pausing and adjusting between shots. The awful accuracy for hip-fired one-handed guns in games also makes no sense when kids can aim decently with their toy guns.

If firing a gun and pointing a stick was the same thing, armies wouldn't force recruits to fire, literally, thousands of rounds of ammunition before certifying them with their primary firearms. You can absolutely learn to be a good hip shooter, especially with pistols or revolvers, but it takes thousands of hours, tens of thousands of fired rounds and a lot of dedicating to reach the point where you can fast draw a revolver and hit a target 10 yards away while aiming only on instinct and experience. For most people, hitting a target at 50 yards with a precise rifle is going to be very difficult and to be able to consistently hit targets with low target acquisition time, while either you or they move and following up with repeated quick succession hits takes a lot of training. In fact, it takes so much training that you need to either be a very dedicated hobbyist (ie. combat shooting enthusiast) or a military rifleman, because most soldiers won't be able to do that.

As for the difference between a gun and a stick, it is pronounced. The very fact that the recoil from your first shot can send that very same first shot off target if you don't brace the gun properly is a testament to that (hence why sharpshooting is all about finding that perfect position).

Not that any of this is important to the discussion at hand. Because at the end of the day, the decision between ADS and traditional FPS "point and shoot" is only tangentially about realism, it is first and foremost a gameplay design decision. CS has a whole other flow and speed due to its' point and shoot mechanics when compared to R6: Siege, which is slower paced. If one prefers ADS or point and shoot is ultimately down to preference and making the realism argument is silly, because neither gets anywhere near to firing a gun in real life.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here