crosshair takes more skill and is all about accuracy and speed
as with an ironsight usually really accurate(with zero recoil) and takes 2 seconds to get into into iron site mode in which defeats half the purpose of having a fast reaction time.
in other words cod is for pub scrubin noobs
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see a quote there.
He posted illogical thing - OP said that aiming with iron sights is not that unrealistic as shooting from hip and sebag is talking about most games (no correlation) and very general adjective. What does "realistic" mean in his context? Exactly same like real life? Shooting with iron sights is more realistic than from hip (trained soldiers) - that was the point of OP and he is right.
Comment has been collapsed.
None of the actual shooters is realistic and it just doesn't matter if iron sights make them more realistic or not. Beeing realistic just isn't the goal of common computer games. However, just because they are not realistic does not mean we should try to make them as unrealistic as we can but that's obviously what you think sebag said
Comment has been collapsed.
None of the actual shooters is realistic and it just doesn't matter if iron sights make them more realistic or not. Beeing realistic just isn't the goal of common computer games.
realistic - "representing things as they are in real life" - http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/realistic
Shooting using iron sights (instead of from hip) by special forces IS realistic by definition. Realistic aspects DO affect total realism. And games do want to look realistic, if they didn't they wouldn't copy real world parts to virtual world.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the case of Counter-Strike, i think it's a design decision, that Valve met.
Many people would complain and state exactly the same what you stated in your last sentece.
They would flame and accuse CS of being a noob game and how it tries to be like CoD etc.
That's my guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought that the 1999 MoH already had ironsights and CS was released about that date I think.
But yeah they became more common with Call of Duty.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I'm pretty sure that the 2002 MoH AA did not have iron sights, as there's a forum thread from 2003 bemoaning their absence and a mod from 2005 that adds them in.
Also 1999 was the year of Quake 3 Arena (and also UT), the FPS I have by far played the most, and I'm sure people then would have made death threats if id had added iron sights.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see, however the 2003 Call of Duty did have them, but that's beyond my point.
I never was into Medal of Honor to be honest, so it was a blind guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with that statement, because CS:GO is easy to pickup if you already played CS 1.6 or CS:S.
i.e. Changing from Guitar Hero to Rock Band wasn't a big deal because it had the same kind of gameplay. If Rock Band played like Rocksmith from the start, sales wouldn't have been high.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, not only in CS:GO but another games too.
I understand why it's not on CS, but in L4D? I don't know. I consider them useful
Comment has been collapsed.
I never liked iron sights to be frank. They took up too much of the screen and I just didn't feel comfortable with them. "Realism" was never a high concern for me either, aiming with crosshairs doesn't bother me at all. But then again, I'm a Q3A kid, so maybe that doesn't come as a surprise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah it's true that they do limitate your vision a lot. But, well that's the deal. Is like sniper sights.
Anyways I grew up with Call of Duty, so that's why I miss them in some games I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
The first two CoDs and United Offensive were amazing.
Comment has been collapsed.
The second one was not that bad. Even if they introduced that automatic health, but well. I tried CS for a while, but we only played knife fights in a Non-Steam server with friends. The others, to be honest I've never touched them.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just a design preference I feel. Crosshairs do seem a little less realistic, but then again, so is quick scoping. Personally my preference is for crosshairs. Having to look down the ironsights doesn't actually add to the game, and just gets tedious. An exception would be if the game tried to go for realism - I remember sometime ago that the person working on zombie master black edition decided to try out realistic reloading, which looked really cool, ironsights would be justified in that sort of situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
They work in some games, I would not want them in all games though....not sure why, just feels lame in some games.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's nothing wrong with iron sights. I love games with and without them. Valve decided to not include them and I'm fine with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
DoD had iron sights in very early beta and I liked them. On the other hand the gameplay really went became faster when they removed it. I have generally no problem with iron sights,but sometimes they annoy me because of the weapon covering the whole spot you had (often the pistols) so you dont even see where you shoot. In some games they dont really help with your aiming,only a bit. Usually I dont use them there.
Comment has been collapsed.
ironsights slow down aiming slightly and usually restrict you from quick movements.they are bad mojo for deathmatch type of games but tolerable in battlefield scenarios
Comment has been collapsed.
Iron sights tend to slow down a game since you have to press a button and wait for the animation to finish until your gun is as precise as it already is in games without them. This means, they are just a feature that works for some games but not for all.
Realism is not a valid argument though, since most shooters (including cod) try not to be realistic (maybe cod is a bad example since one of it's marketing strategies is to make the customer believe it's a realistic game)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah well, I never claimed that CoD was a realistic game. (The las one I played was COD2 but I think that it's even more arcadish now)
And it might slow down the pace, but tactical shooters are something rare to come by.
Comment has been collapsed.
Iron sight don't make a shooter more tactical imho. They just slow them down (which can be good).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well almost all competitive shooters are run&gun. Next to no tactical factors on them (Unless you get on the hardcore part)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with that. There are almost no shooters that are even tactical when played softcore. I don't think iron sights play a role in that problem, though
Comment has been collapsed.
I assumed that by slowing the pace of the game it there would be more room for tactical decisions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think a game magically becomes much more tactical just because everyone has a few ms more time to think :/
Comment has been collapsed.
But don't you agree that giving time to think actually promotes thinking, and the game turns less reflex based?
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, but iron sights are no tactical element imho. Most shooters just don't need iron sights because they have no tactical elements that are not reflex based. This means iron sights simply slow the game down without offering any new possibilities, even the additional time is not needed
Comment has been collapsed.
I see your point. yeah, in most modern shooters no much time for thinking is necessary.
I find them useful as my playstile is more cover-based than Rambo style but yeah, good luck trying to cover on CS, CoD or most of the shooters. I do like them on campaing modes though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well i'm also mostly playing defensively and this works pretty good in most shooters without iron sights
I love them in Red Orchestra 2, though :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree with you. Just play Killing Floor. Okay, it may not be a tactical shooter, but you get another element for the gameplay: You have to decide if you shoot from your hips with very low accuracy but fast movement, or with iron-sight and slow movement. And you have to decide if activating iron-sight is even possible at all before the Zed gets you.
Additionally the whole sense of "cover me" is lost, when you go one-man-army. Running across an open road and still being able to aim (even with a slightly larger crosshair than standing still) just isn't the same as when you have a teammate with iron-sights covering you. That really is a tactical element for team-based games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, this actually means i have to use them to be effective
Comment has been collapsed.
I think they're just trying to keep it original to the CS franchise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally: ADS take less skill + it slows you down.
And CS with ADS isn't CS (not your point but still, I wanted to say it :p) yet like it matters, even Source nor GO wasn't 'CS' imo. It died (for me) the day 1.6 got released, 1.3/1.5 forever, all hail WON. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really know why on earth Aim down sights require less skill.
Well if the standar of skill is bunny hopping. I can see it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure if serious...
With Ads you just have to keep the aim on your target and you hit it, without ADS you have to "guess" (or learn) the recoil and where your bullets are going... Main reason why nearly everyone in CoD is spraying like a tard (yeye i know, would be stupid to NOT do it since you are able to control perfectly where your bullets are going ^^).
Comment has been collapsed.
Half serious, half joking. :·3
But the improved precition compensates with the fact that you move slower and you have worse reaction times and less FoV. So you have to make the choice wheter to use it or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe, but only a bit imo. If you let a newb play CoD he might do 'decent', let a newb play CS or so and they get raped big time :p I never played CoD since the first one but did get myself BO2, it was really 'easy' to dominate, if I boot CS again (did play it for ages) i'm really getting pwned.
Every weapon handles differently and requires some practice. CoD too but only a bit imo, once you have your target in your sight you are gonna hit him. In CS your first and maybe 2nd bullet might hit but your third is WAY off and before you know it you are looking at the sky (or you have to tap like a baws, but most newbs spray).
Ah well, my opinion, but I have yet to see a newb pwn in CS :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that's true. I started playing GO as I did with CoD (that is, getting a SMG and spraying) and hell, I sucked.
Then after a few matches I realised that's not the way, I'm doing better now. (Still at like 0.7 K/D or so) but doing better.
And yeah, COD is much simpler to play and to grasp. But that was beyond my point :)
Comment has been collapsed.
"Personally: ADS take less skill + it slows you down."
I would say:
Of course slowing down is bad for some games, like Quake 3, but I prefer tactical ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
ADS only let you shoot more precisely because the developers increase the inaccuracy of hip fire to give ADS a purpose to exist. Otherwise, you'd just be choosing to lose a chunk of your view for no advantage.
For what it does, one could argue that ADS is a condoned form of aim assist. People generally don't argue aim assist as the "more skill" option. As ADS is an intentional mechanic, people tend to not make that argument against it, though. On the contrary, people will actually defend quickscoping (something that works in part due to exploiting ADS behavior) as a skill.
It takes more time to ADS, but in an ADS/hipfire shootout the tradeoff is generally luck based. If someone hipfires while you ADS, they may or may not hit you. If it is a Call of Duty game and they land a hipfire hit, they might kill you. Hipfire is an iffy proposition, but even 1000rpm guns can kill in 2 or 3 bullets in a COD game. But they might only land one bullet before you ADS. If you live to ADS, you most likely win. The further apart you are, the less likely they will land the necessary hipfire bullets to stop you from hitting them (and increased odds that even if you land bullets, they land far enough apart that you can't keep the target flinched before the ADS fire comes.)
"Faster" does not automatically equal "more skill required". It means "faster". On a pure reflex/reaction situation, it is just another advantage given to the already advantaged faster player. You can use skill to compensate, but the tactics generally aren't that complicated, like having your gun up when you go around a corner (or even pre-firing as you go around a corner).
Comment has been collapsed.
"developers increase the inaccuracy of hip fire to give ADS a purpose to exist."
Because it is realistic. Could you shoot so precisely from a hip like in CS? Like first bullet always hits the center..."one could argue that ADS is a condoned form of aim assist."
Where? Maybe on consoles and it still doesn't have anything to do with realistic usage of iron sights. Quick scoping? Like this? That's obvious bug and I have no idea why it's working like that. We are talking here about more realistic shooting. Quick scoping is same unrealistic as shooting from a hip."If someone hipfires while you ADS, they may or may not hit you. (...) The further apart you are, the less likely they will land the necessary hipfire bullets to stop you from hitting them"
I don't get what you wanted to show in this example, but for me it presents only luck with hip."On a pure reflex/reaction situation, it is just another advantage given to the already advantaged faster player."
Good reflex IS a skill, you can train it, as you even stated. Your sentence sounds like:
"Movable players that require aiming to kill are just another advantage given to the already advantaged SKILLED player."
Comment has been collapsed.
"iron sights let's you shoot more precisely, thus winning is more based on skill, than on luck"
Skill like in: only how good and precise you are with a mouse, without ads you also require brains to 'know' how the recoil will spread the bullets + it require a precise blind aim. Like i said: a noob who never played CS and CoD and compare how he did in both games, should be obvious ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no idea about which game you are talking, which don't have any recoil and ALSO have iron sights (SIC!). I will take BF3 to my example - there still IS recoil when shooting with iron sights - simply keeping pressed mouse button will even get you shooting at ceiling.
Recoil = LUCK matters, absolutely no recoil = SKILL ONLY
I will compare how I play CS and Battlefield. I am BF fan and have more hours in it.
I got 1,0 K/D ratio in CS: GO.
I got 0.89 K/D ratio in BF3.
I got 0.57 K/D ratio in BF:BC2.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ugh you just don't get what i mean.
If you fight against the recoil with ADS => Your aim will still be on the target.
If you fight against the recoil without ADS => Your aim won't be on the target, it will be UNDER left/right of the target (aka you have to know where bullets will go because your crosshair will be somewhere else).
Comparing CS (small maps, arcade, usually MAX 8vs8) with BF (huge maps, more realism, vehicles, 32/64m servers). Near impossible. + it all depends on how you play since they both play totally different.
You should see some pro's handling the recoil in CS, far from luck based, it's just difficult to master so most need luck :p
Comment has been collapsed.
"What's wrong with them? I mean, they are a more reliable way of aiming than crossbars."
It has nothing to do with reliability. Guns are as accurate as developers make them out to be, nothing to do with iron sights. You could have a MG42 and have every bullet hit the crosshair at 3km distance.
"And it's not that unrealistic. I mean, when you shoot a weapon you don't usually do that from the hip (unles it's a SMG or a shotgun, for example)"
And it's not about realism either. It's a purposely old school design choice that complements the CS gameplay of fast paced twitch shooting. Obviously gameplay is regarded higher than realism here.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's easier to aim with a ADS than with the crosshair, you sacrifice other things though. And devs can make the choices they want on their game, but a MG42 hitting everything is a bit of an stupid choice.
Moreover they are more reliable because the recoil is less when aiming that way than when shooting from the hip.
And CS was an anectdote. I was not precisely refering to that game.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the trade-off, though. If you didn't sacrifice other things when ADSing, then everyone would just spend the entire game in ADS mode. So developers add drawbacks to ADS mode, such as slower movement. This, however, affects the pace of the game. Since ADS means slower movement, and people are going to ADS for the aim benefit, the game slows down.
Other issues come into play as well. While ADS gives better accuracy in trade for a movement penalty, sprinting gives faster movement at the cost of the ability to shoot at all. Speed of gun kills is a factor as well. Call of Duty arguably offsets ADS movement penalties with extremely fast gun kills, which in turn makes ADS both more and less important depending on the weapon. (ADS in general is a benefit, but if you can spray bullets fast enough, it might not matter. MW's Akimbo is such a trade-off, where you choose twice the ROF over the ability to ADS.) Then you throw in perks that counter the penalties of either ADS or hipfire modes, and you end up with a system that is both more complex and which devalues certain set-ups.
ADS in itself has its own weirdnesses. Why, for example, does a shotgun spread tend to magically get tighter if I ADS? Should I really get magically more accurate the moment my gun reaches eye level? How do you deal with sniper rifles? (That shouldn't be as big an issue as it is, but for various reasons it is a big issue.) And an FPS character can sometimes look a bit silly as they constantly bob their guns from hipfire position to ADS, snap off three shots for a kill, immediately return to hipfire, take a step forward and turn 30 degrees, return to ADS, snap off three shots for a kill, return to hipfire, run five steps left, instantly stop, return to ADS, snap off three shots, etc...
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest I have not played the newest Call of Dutys. But the experience you get shooting with a Mosin Nagant or a Sprinfield rifle using their iron sights is fabulous.
And it's not that you magically get more accurate, is that you are actually resting the weapon against your body therefor the recoil diminishes. As would also do if you shooted from a tripod. If you know what I mean.
And I don't really understand what's the issue with sniper rifles, could you develop that further? :)
And yeah, constantly switching your weapons from one position to another might seem weird, but so does bunny hopping.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I know why in reality aiming down the sights is more accurate that firing from the hip. Your weapon is braced, and you can see where your gun is pointing.
Games don't model that accurately, though. Whether hipfiring or in ADS, your gun points to the middle of the screen. Most games don't try to model how you'd aim a hipfiring weapon, which is both offset from your view and using a different angle. Tthe Call of Duty games technically fire bullets from your head, not your gun. (That leads to an exploit known as "head glitching", where you can get behind cover that blocks all but the top of your head from view, but you can still fire normally at anything you see. The maps for most COD games were made with this engine quirk in mind, but apparently the new map makers brought in for MW3 didn't.)
By magically more accurate, I mean the moment you are in ADS, you are more accurate. You either get the ADS bonus or you don't. Games might model a quick slide from hipfire properties to ADS properties, but there isn't much of a middle ground if there is any at all.
The issue with sniper rifles is...a combination of issues, really. Quickscoping, for example, exploits how ADS properties are applied. Done correctly, you fire the moment you switch from hipfire to ADS properties (and in COD games, this can be before the scope has actually centered on the screen), and get an extra aim assist boost from drag shooting (another COD engine quirk). Then you've got other things, like games that increase damage if you scope a sniper rifle. And then you add the arguments over quickscoping itself into the mix. There are the quickscope enthusiasts versus the quickscope haters, and then there are the people who see quickscopers as free kills (because most quickscopers miss). There are the devs/publishers who see all the YouTube montages as free advertising, and the devs who don't like it. You can see entire game modes taken over by quickscopers (particularly objective stuff). And then you get into the "fixes". People tend to hate sniper rifles in general, so there is generally a vocal contingent against them in various modern warfare games. But these people don't want the other weapons affected, so the devs can't adjust any underlying causes, but instead tend to make sniper-specific changes, if they make any change at all. So you might see something like a centering penalty only for scoped sniper rifles (which I want to recall Treyarch trying for Black Ops?).
Comment has been collapsed.
CS has its own core game play, own mechanics, one of them is the lack of ironsights, you can not just change them and still call it CS.
no iron sights, crouch accuracy increase, stutter steps, handgun switch to cancel scope, bomb defusal, etc etc, those are the core gameplay mechanics of CS, without it, its not CS.
Same with Call of Duty, if you remove Kill Streaks, Custom Classes, Perks, then its not COD as you see today.
Same with Battlefield, remove large maps, enterable vehicles, classes, then its not Battlefield
Comment has been collapsed.
I was asking for opinions on ADS, not to see them implemented in CS. It was just an example.
Comment has been collapsed.
i'm pretty sure i've read the original post clearly
Comment has been collapsed.
It was an introductory example. I wanted a discussion on ironsights.
But,well I did wonder why Valve games as a whole didn't have them. But that was not the main point.
Anyways, thanks for the answer :·3
Comment has been collapsed.
2 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Donners
6 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Foxhack
13 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BlazeHaze
10 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by DaddyVittorio
359 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by MeguminShiro
17 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by HiruSan
17,652 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by pandakat
70 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by 8urnout
660 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by coleypollockfilet
80 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Carenard
39 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by khayolin
26 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by Myrhan
558 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by Oppenh4imer
751 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by Jhonnyve
Yeah, after playing some CS:GO today I was wondering why VALVe games do not usually have ironsights. And I've seen a lot of people depising them and that.
What's wrong with them? I mean, they are a more reliable way of aiming than crossbars. And it's not that unrealistic. I mean, when you shoot a weapon you don't usually do that from the hip (unles it's a SMG or a shotgun, for example)
I will welcome any opinions, even things of the style of U n00bs irnsights R 4 n00bs, go play CoD
Comment has been collapsed.