Poll: Zoomed Hipfire vs ADS: Which do you prefer?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I was looking for stats on what people use in more recent games, and found this megathread from our very own Escapist.

Some interesting points are made for both. While I have no problem playing a game with either, I think there's a trade off of expectations at the very least. True, there's no way to accurately simulate ADS and FoV on a 2D screen, but accurately hitting everything short of scope distance with hipfire isn't well-realized either.

I think it depends on the game type for which compromise makes more sense, but I'd prefer if there was at least an option for ADS that didn't unnaturally skew accuracy stats due to controller type limitations. That's a fallacy anyways since some console games like the Killzone series don't rely on aim assist or gimp hipfire into obscurity for the sake of ADS, and it was even designed to be a cover shoooter. Leave accuracy stats alone and simply present both gun handling options for their respective applications within the game environment. They don't have to be mutually exclusive functions.

Ok, misread that as 'Aids' and was very alarmed at the question.

I prefer ADS, cause I prefer first person.

I honestly don't care either way, as long as the FOV in general is high enough when you don't aim. But that is a diffirent story.

Well, it depends primarily on the gameplay goal of the game designers.

If their goal is to make a slower-paced, cover-based shooter, I'll take either form. ADS is fine. Non-ADS with zoomed hip-fire is fine. ADS can help add to the feel of pacing, but either form can achieve the end goal.

However, if their intention is to make a fast-paced, twitch shooter, keep ADS as far the fuck away as is humanly possible. Nothing kills fast paced FPS gameplay like ADS. It's just the fucking worst.

* Full disclosure: While I tend to prefer non-ADS shooters, I'll play either. Neither aim type inherently detracts from the gameplay experience, provided that experience is built around each mechanic accordingly.

Saelune:

I prefer ADS, cause I prefer first person.

Uh....what? Since when are these things inherently mutual?

Vigormortis:

Saelune:

I prefer ADS, cause I prefer first person.

Uh....what? Since when are these things inherently mutual?

Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Vigormortis:
Depends, really. Primarily on the gameplay goal of the game designers.

If their goal is to make a slower-paced, cover-based shooter, I'll take either form. ADS is fine. Non-ADS with zoomed hip-fire is fine.

However, if their intention is to make a fast-paced, twitch shooter, keep ADS as far the fuck away as is humanly possible. Nothing kills fast paced FPS gameplay like ADS. It's just the fucking worst.

* Full disclosure: While I tend to prefer non-ADS shooters, I'll play either. Neither aim type inherently detracts from the gameplay experience, provided that experience is built around each mechanic accordingly.

Saelune:

I prefer ADS, cause I prefer first person.

Uh....what? Since when are these things inherently mutual?

How many FPSs uses zoomed hipfire? In most cases I've seen, an FPS will either have ADS or no zoom/precision aiming at all. The reverse should also be asked: How many TPSs use ADS? Most opt for zoomed hipfire.

Saelune:
Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

I think it largely depends on the games, and for the most part I must say I'm quite satisfied with the approaches taken. Far Cry, Wolfenstein, Doom, Call of Duty. They seem appropriate, although almost all of them hip fire more accurately than I could ever imagine. But the pace of the game dictates that.

One TPS with ADS that I played recently is Ghost Recon Wildlands. And I think it was implemented really well. Actually you could choose whether to make it more realistic for yourself, with a setting that could be toggled. So either you ADS in first person view, or the character aims down sights but the camera just goes to over the shoulder. I think that's how it was, I might be off slightly. But it offered a nice flexibility for that kind of game, which wasn't going for extreme realism.

One game that I found weird is Rainbow 6 Vegas 2, where the hip fire is ridiculously accurate. Way too accurate in fact, that I think it was dialed in to be just as accurate as scope fire. However, the hitboxes didn't scale, so it was actually easier to get a headshot without being zoomed in on the sights. Which is kinda funny actually. Not complaining, I mean that game is one of my favorites, but it would feel more out of place in the prior titles in that franchise, which went for much more realism and tactics, like leaning around cover and rolling doors open slowly.

Saelune:
Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Ironman126:
How many TPSs use ADS? Most opt for zoomed hipfire.

OTS is mainly used in 3rd-person shooters and it's the equivalent of ADS (stops your character and provides the same sensitivity "switch"), it's not hipfire. The 3rd-person equivalent of hipfire is usually called blindfire (like Uncharted).

Most TPSs actually have ADS shooting like MGS4&5 and the Ghost Recons, even Uncharted has one assault rifle with a scope and you can ADS shoot with it. Even if the TPS has ADS, you mostly do fire in via OTS in them.

Phoenixmgs:

Saelune:
Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Ironman126:
How many TPSs use ADS? Most opt for zoomed hipfire.

OTS is mainly used in 3rd-person shooters and it's the equivalent of ADS (stops your character and provides the same sensitivity "switch"), it's not hipfire. The 3rd-person equivalent of hipfire is usually called blindfire (like Uncharted).

Most TPSs actually have ADS shooting like MGS4&5 and the Ghost Recons, even Uncharted has one assault rifle with a scope and you can ADS shoot with it. Even if the TPS has ADS, you mostly do fire in via OTS in them.

Over The Shoulder is NOT Aiming Down Sights by any measure. If you arent using the gun's own aiming mechanism, it is not ADS.

Surprisingly, I prefer the camera to zoom in a bit without going into iron sights and the accuracy just becomes more consistent, rather than ADS. But it really does depend on the game. If it's a tactical shooter, ADS all the way, but if it's a fast-paced shooter, please don't shove that gigantic weapon model any further into my face.

I can't explain why, but it also feels better to me not to aim in ADS. The original Far Cry got along beautifully without sight aiming, and Fallout 3 never needed it because a majority of the shooting was stat based. I even turned it off in Fallout: NV.

Saelune:

Phoenixmgs:

Saelune:
Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Ironman126:
How many TPSs use ADS? Most opt for zoomed hipfire.

OTS is mainly used in 3rd-person shooters and it's the equivalent of ADS (stops your character and provides the same sensitivity "switch"), it's not hipfire. The 3rd-person equivalent of hipfire is usually called blindfire (like Uncharted).

Most TPSs actually have ADS shooting like MGS4&5 and the Ghost Recons, even Uncharted has one assault rifle with a scope and you can ADS shoot with it. Even if the TPS has ADS, you mostly do fire in via OTS in them.

Over The Shoulder is NOT Aiming Down Sights by any measure. If you arent using the gun's own aiming mechanism, it is not ADS.

Oh, come on. Read the words he wrote. "Equivalent." OTS and ADS are (obviously) not identical, but they do the same thing. It's fine-motor versus gross-motor coordination.

Besides, it's not like there's more than a handful of games where the sights make a difference. I think the real question is: Do you prefer to use a chunk of gun to aim or the aiming reticle? The important bit is that the sensitivity changes and maybe you get some zoom.

DeliveryGodNoah:
Surprisingly, I prefer the camera to zoom in a bit without going into iron sights and the accuracy just becomes more consistent, rather than ADS. But it really does depend on the game. If it's a tactical shooter, ADS all the way, but if it's a fast-paced shooter, please don't shove that gigantic weapon model any further into my face.

I can't explain why, but it also feels better to me not to aim in ADS. The original Far Cry got along beautifully without sight aiming, and Fallout 3 never needed it because a majority of the shooting was stat based. I even turned it off in Fallout: NV.

Verisimilitude. If an FPS doesn't give me ADS, it feels like I'm being reminded it's a game. That's why I think there was the push to have iron sights in Fallout NV (and a couple FO3 mods that always broke the game). Especially when you can see the sights on the guns and you're left to wonder why you can't use them.

Of course, the iron sights in New Vegas are all broken. Not one gun in that game hits at point of aim, so you're not wrong to turn ADS off.

Saelune:

Phoenixmgs:

Saelune:
Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Ironman126:
How many TPSs use ADS? Most opt for zoomed hipfire.

OTS is mainly used in 3rd-person shooters and it's the equivalent of ADS (stops your character and provides the same sensitivity "switch"), it's not hipfire. The 3rd-person equivalent of hipfire is usually called blindfire (like Uncharted).

Most TPSs actually have ADS shooting like MGS4&5 and the Ghost Recons, even Uncharted has one assault rifle with a scope and you can ADS shoot with it. Even if the TPS has ADS, you mostly do fire in via OTS in them.

Over The Shoulder is NOT Aiming Down Sights by any measure. If you arent using the gun's own aiming mechanism, it is not ADS.

OTS is accomplishing the same thing mechanically (making you stop to shoot and giving you that sensitivity switch) and your player character is aiming down sights when you OTS. They aren't EXACTLY the same as you do get a bit less feel for the gun and recoil in OTS than ADS but OTS is BASICALLY the 3rd-person equivalent of ADS.

I prefer ADS. It feels better to me and it lets developers include different sighting systems (Irons, Red Dot, Reflex, ACOGs, etc) that you can't get if you just have hip fire with zoom.

That said, I don't mind hip fire with zoom. Or without zoom, which is far more common. Just a different kind of game usually.

Ironman126:

Saelune:

Phoenixmgs:

OTS is mainly used in 3rd-person shooters and it's the equivalent of ADS (stops your character and provides the same sensitivity "switch"), it's not hipfire. The 3rd-person equivalent of hipfire is usually called blindfire (like Uncharted).

Most TPSs actually have ADS shooting like MGS4&5 and the Ghost Recons, even Uncharted has one assault rifle with a scope and you can ADS shoot with it. Even if the TPS has ADS, you mostly do fire in via OTS in them.

Over The Shoulder is NOT Aiming Down Sights by any measure. If you arent using the gun's own aiming mechanism, it is not ADS.

Oh, come on. Read the words he wrote. "Equivalent." OTS and ADS are (obviously) not identical, but they do the same thing. It's fine-motor versus gross-motor coordination.

Besides, it's not like there's more than a handful of games where the sights make a difference. I think the real question is: Do you prefer to use a chunk of gun to aim or the aiming reticle? The important bit is that the sensitivity changes and maybe you get some zoom.

Phoenixmgs:

Saelune:

Phoenixmgs:

OTS is mainly used in 3rd-person shooters and it's the equivalent of ADS (stops your character and provides the same sensitivity "switch"), it's not hipfire. The 3rd-person equivalent of hipfire is usually called blindfire (like Uncharted).

Most TPSs actually have ADS shooting like MGS4&5 and the Ghost Recons, even Uncharted has one assault rifle with a scope and you can ADS shoot with it. Even if the TPS has ADS, you mostly do fire in via OTS in them.

Over The Shoulder is NOT Aiming Down Sights by any measure. If you arent using the gun's own aiming mechanism, it is not ADS.

OTS is accomplishing the same thing mechanically (making you stop to shoot and giving you that sensitivity switch) and your player character is aiming down sights when you OTS. They aren't EXACTLY the same as you do get a bit less feel for the gun and recoil in OTS than ADS but OTS is BASICALLY the 3rd-person equivalent of ADS.

Yeah, 'targeting the enemy to shoot them' is the same basic thing, but they are not THE same thing, or else this whole topic would be irrelevant.

I stand by my previous post. If you arent using the gun's aiming mechanism, you arent using ADS, because well, you arent aiming down the sights.

Yeah I'm easy with either one as long as it works properly.

I personally can't stand crosshairs... I'll mod them out if I have to...

I prefer zoom rather than Aim Down Sights.

ADS blocks off like half your damn screen with the bigass tun texture and makes aiming a tremendous pain in the ass.

Long range scopes are an exception that I'm ok with because they give you a lot of power and should have a con to go with that pro.

But if I'm trying to use a medium range weapon and in order to have anywhere near an accurate shot I have to cover a huge chunk of the screen with this awkward gun and barely see anything in this tiny little iron sight...Yeah, it's not so much fun.

Saelune:
Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

Um...as the vast majority of FPS games, since the genre's inception, have used hip-fire-style aiming mechanics, how can you say it's usually 'terrible'? Quake, for example, has a plethora of pin-point accurate weaponry and it doesn't use an ADS system at all.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Not all but some do. Gears of War does, for example.

Ironman126:

How many FPSs uses zoomed hipfire?

More than you might think. Quake does. Counter-Strike does. Unreal Tournament does.

In most cases I've seen, an FPS will either have ADS or no zoom/precision aiming at all.

But that's simply not true. Beyond the examples above you can look at console shooters like Perfect Dark and Halo, each of which uses a combination of hip-fire and zoomed aiming.

The reverse should also be asked: How many TPSs use ADS? Most opt for zoomed hipfire.

Again, more than you may think.

--------------------------------------

Out of curiosity, how many first-person and third-person shooters have either of you played? If you've played any more than a handful it seems odd to me that you'd be blissfully unaware of the prevalence of zoomed-hipfire in FPS games and ADS in TPS games.

Saelune:
How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Doesn't PUBG's third-person mode still put you into first-person ADS when you aim?

aegix drakan:
I prefer zoom rather than Aim Down Sights.

ADS blocks off like half your damn screen with the bigass tun texture and makes aiming a tremendous pain in the ass.

I still generally prefer it to having the character blocking off nearly the entire left side of the screen while zooming in. At least in first-person perspective I can move the view down slightly to see what the weapon is blocking- I have to move the camera much further to see around my character.

Vigormortis:

Saelune:
Hipfire is usually terrible in FPS games (since ya know not aiming makes hitting things difficult). But it is...how you shoot in most 3rd person games.

Um...as the vast majority of FPS games, since the genre's inception, have used hip-fire-style aiming mechanics, how can you say it's usually 'terrible'? Quake, for example, has a plethora of pin-point accurate weaponry and it doesn't use an ADS system at all.

How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Not all but some do. Gears of War does, for example.

Old 90's shooters had auto-aim up the wazoo to make up for it. Shooting the wall below an enemy in DOOM to shoot them on their ledge. Those games werent exactly trying to be realistic in any sense of the word.

Gears of War didnt do it until like, the 3rd game though, beyond Snipers which are all about being accurate. But in Gears, shotgun is king for a reason.

The Rogue Wolf:

Saelune:
How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Doesn't PUBG's third-person mode still put you into first-person ADS when you aim?

Never played it, so I dont know.

hanselthecaretaker:
True, there?s no way to accurately simulate ADS and FoV on a 2D screen, but accurately hitting everything short of scope distance with hipfire isn?t well-realized either.

It wasn't a problem for the genre for the years upon years hipfire existed before ADS reared its head.

I've played all kinds of shooters and there hasn't been one yet that can convince me that blocking off 1/6th of your screen is a better system than crosshairs were. It's not more realistic, it's not more immersive, and most games only force ADS because they know crosshairs would be easier to use and more intuitive if included as an option as well.

The Rogue Wolf:

Saelune:
How many 3rd person shooters even have ADS?

Doesn't PUBG's third-person mode still put you into first-person ADS when you aim?

It has both, with ADS triggered with a right mouse tap, whereas zoomed in crosshair is by holding RMB

Squilookle:

hanselthecaretaker:
True, there?s no way to accurately simulate ADS and FoV on a 2D screen, but accurately hitting everything short of scope distance with hipfire isn?t well-realized either.

It wasn't a problem for the genre for the years upon years hipfire existed before ADS reared its head.

I've played all kinds of shooters and there hasn't been one yet that can convince me that blocking off 1/6th of your screen is a better system than crosshairs were. It's not more realistic, it's not more immersive, and most games only force ADS because they know crosshairs would be easier to use and more intuitive if included as an option as well.

Yup. As I said in my thread, shooters now feature optional red dots sights on anything from shotguns to pistols because the devs KNOW iron sights are shitty.

I still don't understand why ADS itself is more to blame for skewing things like accuracy than the clueless developers themselves. It's already been shown that even a well designed console shooter can do hipfire justice even without aim assist, so it shouldn't be an issue. What does make it an issue is the continuously futile attempt at cross platform parity of mulitplatform development, which will never happen anyways due to KB/Mouse to gamepad disparity. Just have a server room for each control input if it's that bad.

To bring back the driving comparison, some people like using cockpit view, even though it blocks off 80% of your view and still isn't very realistic. Doesn't make it a non viable option though, and devs shouldn't have to handicap other viewpoints or buff car handling in it to offset any disadvantages. Wheel use vs gamepad use is another factor that skews it even further, similar to KB/Mouse vs gamepad with copious aim assist.

It's ridiculous. I myself use hood view because it offers the best playability:immersion ratio. No reason the same can't be done for shooters if devs knew what the hell they were doing.

hanselthecaretaker:
I still don?t understand why ADS itself is more to blame for skewing things like accuracy than the clueless developers themselves. It?s already been shown that even a well designed console shooter can do hipfire justice even without aim assist, so it shouldn?t be an issue. What does make it an issue is the continuously futile attempt at cross platform parity of mulitplatform development, which will never happen anyways due to KB/Mouse to gamepad disparity. Just have a server room for each control input if it?s that bad.

I play against really good controller users frequently in Max Payne 3. I don't think there's any need to separate the players or give the controller users advantages. If you can't keep up with mouse users, switch to a mouse or play something else.

To bring back the driving comparison, some people like using cockpit view, even though it blocks off 80% of your view and still isn?t very realistic. Doesn?t make it a non viable option though, and devs shouldn?t have to handicap other viewpoints or buff car handling in it to offset any disadvantages. Wheel use vs gamepad use is another factor that skews it even further, similar to KB/Mouse vs gamepad with copious aim assist.

It?s ridiculous. I myself use hood view because it offers the best playability:immersion ratio. No reason the same can?t be done for shooters if devs knew what the hell they were doing.

I don't mind driver's views. Unlike with ADS, the center of the picture is clear and open. You can see the road.

ADS is objectively more realistic because in the reality of life when I'm intending on accurately aiming with a gun, I'm going to damn well ADS it; the majestic view of the pavement, grass or whatever Mural I'm standing on be damned. It's more fun, realistic and visually pleasing. ADS all day every day all over my body and in every orifice please

Saelune:
Old 90's shooters had auto-aim up the wazoo to make up for it. Shooting the wall below an enemy in DOOM to shoot them on their ledge. Those games werent exactly trying to be realistic in any sense of the word.

Doom didn't have auto-aim. The 'shooting up ledges' was an affect of the way the game drew 3D. It wasn't actually a 3D engine. It was modeled in 2D. So there was no looking up and down because there was literally no up or down.

See here:

And most old shooters actually didn't have auto-aim. You only really started seeing it show up when more and more shooters were moving towards a keyboard and mouse setup for free aim instead of non-free aim. And, even then, it was far from ubiquitous.

Gears of War didnt do it until like, the 3rd game though, beyond Snipers which are all about being accurate. But in Gears, shotgun is king for a reason.

Even so, that doesn't refute my point. And it shows that even you are aware of TPS games that use ADS mechanics.

Vigormortis:

Saelune:
Old 90's shooters had auto-aim up the wazoo to make up for it. Shooting the wall below an enemy in DOOM to shoot them on their ledge. Those games werent exactly trying to be realistic in any sense of the word.

Doom didn't have auto-aim. The 'shooting up ledges' was an affect of the way the game drew 3D. It wasn't actually a 3D engine. It was modeled in 2D. So there was no looking up and down because there was literally no up or down.

See here:

And most old shooters actually didn't have auto-aim. You only really started seeing it show up when more and more shooters were moving towards a keyboard and mouse setup for free aim instead of non-free aim. And, even then, it was far from ubiquitous.

Gears of War didnt do it until like, the 3rd game though, beyond Snipers which are all about being accurate. But in Gears, shotgun is king for a reason.

Even so, that doesn't refute my point. And it shows that even you are aware of TPS games that use ADS mechanics.

Whatever its called, 'aiming' in old shooters isnt the same as it is now.

And yeah, some games breaking the rules doesnt change that usually third person shooters dont have ADS. My main point isnt that third person shooters -never- have ADS.

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:
I still don?t understand why ADS itself is more to blame for skewing things like accuracy than the clueless developers themselves. It?s already been shown that even a well designed console shooter can do hipfire justice even without aim assist, so it shouldn?t be an issue. What does make it an issue is the continuously futile attempt at cross platform parity of mulitplatform development, which will never happen anyways due to KB/Mouse to gamepad disparity. Just have a server room for each control input if it?s that bad.

I play against really good controller users frequently in Max Payne 3. I don't think there's any need to separate the players or give the controller users advantages. If you can't keep up with mouse users, switch to a mouse or play something else.

To bring back the driving comparison, some people like using cockpit view, even though it blocks off 80% of your view and still isn?t very realistic. Doesn?t make it a non viable option though, and devs shouldn?t have to handicap other viewpoints or buff car handling in it to offset any disadvantages. Wheel use vs gamepad use is another factor that skews it even further, similar to KB/Mouse vs gamepad with copious aim assist.

It?s ridiculous. I myself use hood view because it offers the best playability:immersion ratio. No reason the same can?t be done for shooters if devs knew what the hell they were doing.

I don't mind driver's views. Unlike with ADS, the center of the picture is clear and open. You can see the road.

As far as obstruction goes, there is typically far less in an ADS shooter than an interior driving viewpoint.

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

hanselthecaretaker:
I still don?t understand why ADS itself is more to blame for skewing things like accuracy than the clueless developers themselves. It?s already been shown that even a well designed console shooter can do hipfire justice even without aim assist, so it shouldn?t be an issue. What does make it an issue is the continuously futile attempt at cross platform parity of mulitplatform development, which will never happen anyways due to KB/Mouse to gamepad disparity. Just have a server room for each control input if it?s that bad.

I play against really good controller users frequently in Max Payne 3. I don't think there's any need to separate the players or give the controller users advantages. If you can't keep up with mouse users, switch to a mouse or play something else.

To bring back the driving comparison, some people like using cockpit view, even though it blocks off 80% of your view and still isn?t very realistic. Doesn?t make it a non viable option though, and devs shouldn?t have to handicap other viewpoints or buff car handling in it to offset any disadvantages. Wheel use vs gamepad use is another factor that skews it even further, similar to KB/Mouse vs gamepad with copious aim assist.

It?s ridiculous. I myself use hood view because it offers the best playability:immersion ratio. No reason the same can?t be done for shooters if devs knew what the hell they were doing.

I don't mind driver's views. Unlike with ADS, the center of the picture is clear and open. You can see the road.

As far as obstruction goes, there is typically far less in an ADS shooter than an interior driving viewpoint.

But this pic proves my earlier point. Red dot sights are so common now because the devs KNOW how limiting ADS is. Iron sights are still more common, though.

image

image

I can see what's right ahead of me better over a dashboard. Also, your pic has a big sun protector or advertising plate on the top of the windshield, which isn't typical. Are dashboards typically that high when you're driving? I haven't driven for a long time.

Saelune:
Whatever its called, 'aiming' in old shooters isnt the same as it is now.

How so? The way you'd aim in Quake is identical to how you aim in, say, Left 4 Dead or Halo or Unreal. I really don't get this comment.

And yeah, some games breaking the rules doesnt change that usually third person shooters dont have ADS. My main point isnt that third person shooters -never- have ADS.

"Breaking the rules"? What rules? What are you talking about?

You can't just admit you were wrong on this point?

Vigormortis:

Saelune:
Whatever its called, 'aiming' in old shooters isnt the same as it is now.

How so? The way you'd aim in Quake is identical to how you aim in, say, Left 4 Dead or Halo or Unreal. I really don't get this comment.

And yeah, some games breaking the rules doesnt change that usually third person shooters dont have ADS. My main point isnt that third person shooters -never- have ADS.

"Breaking the rules"? What rules? What are you talking about?

You can't just admit you were wrong on this point?

They are not the same. I have played alot of DOOM, Halo and L4D, they are not the same.

'Rules' as in, what is expected of a genre. If I said 'literally all third person games have the exact same style of shooting' Id be wrong, but I didnt. Most dont have ADS. Some do, but most dont, and the ones that do are newer than older.

Ya know, when you're aiming down a sight, you're supposed to be looking a your target, particularly in that small area where your bullet will shoot at, so I dont really see why the gun blocking a large portion of your screen is really relevant. Im pretty sure if I was aiming a real gun so intently, much of my vision would also be obscured.

Ezekiel:

But this pic proves my earlier point. Red dot sights are so common now because the devs KNOW how limiting ADS is. Iron sights are still more common, though.

image

image

I can see what's right ahead of me better over a dashboard. Also, your pic has a big sun protector or advertising plate on the top of the windshield, which isn't typical. Are dashboards typically that high when you're driving? I haven't driven for a long time.

Is that first pic even from a game? The terrain looks exquisite.

The second one doesn't look very restricting, at least by contrast.

I don't understand why having ADS effectively ruins shooters. Hip Fire shouldn't have to change because of it, and it should just be there as an extra option for more distant targets (farther than hip fire accuracy range but closer than scope). The decrease in peripheral vision and movement speed are trade offs for better grouping and more precise aiming. You simply wouldn't use it in a situation where you need the former more. It adds some depth to a genre that's already dead simple. The weapon doesn't have to take up half the screen either.

DoF and FoV can also be adjusted as they should with any shooter, at least on PC. I've never had a problem using either view in Crysis depending on the enemy's position. The only annoying part was there only being a toggle function between the two instead of just holding/releasing RMB.

As for the dash clutter I'm sure it depends on the car, but still there's a lot more wasted space there from a gameplay perspective than any ADS shooter should need.

Saelune:
Ya know, when you're aiming down a sight, you're supposed to be looking a your target, particularly in that small area where your bullet will shoot at, so I dont really see why the gun blocking a large portion of your screen is really relevant. Im pretty sure if I was aiming a real gun so intently, much of my vision would also be obscured.

Not obscured, per se, but given that you have to focus on the sights to aim well, your peripheral vision is toast. And that's just with iron sights, with an actual scope, ho boy! Depending on the make and power, you might not even see your whole target, let alone anything around you.

hanselthecaretaker:
Snippy

Just FYI, the links you posted are broken. Apparently you can't hyperlink to that site.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)