What's wrong with iron sights?

If a game alows you to zoom in iron sights , it' already has +5 points from me on a 1-10 scale

On left 4 dead you don't need iron sights if you are shooting tens of zombies at once, the guns are very accurate anyway, just point it at the head even at long range and your fine, i always get head shots on l4d.

TF2 doesn't need one either, its just a run and gun game

and Valve has a game with iron-sights: Day of Defeat

Nothing.

Simple.

Ironsights makes your gun model cover up a good portion of your screen, thus blocking view of targets.

it slows the pace of the game.

iunno, i really like iron sights, i mean if you dont want to use them then unbind them or something, considering how much i fail at aiming sometimes, i would welcome some iron sights, but cs or any valve game has been know to keep everything the traditional game, so putting iron sights would be like a sin to any valve fanboym or just fan.

Well, I like them. It gives an air of authenticity, as opposed to bright neon crosshairs painted on the screen. Also, you're supposed to have your view obstructed somewhat when aiming down the barrel of a rifle. It's not a spaceship HUD.

I personally love the mechanic of aiming down your sights. Knowing when to shoot from the hip and when to bring up your sights adds another dimension to shooters.

what I find funny that every plausible reaction why the iron sights wouldnt be included in valve games, you comment in a way standing that its not relevant to the topic.

I am terrible at using iron sights. I prefer crosshairs. :S

Iron sights are pure aesthetics in FPS games, unless they also feature a decent zoom. Crosshairs are more accurate, and faster than iron sights. Someone said it adds a dimension to a game, but it can also subtract from another dimension. It's really just a preference. There is no substantial different between the two. I like iron sights just because I enjoy immersion. I play Arma for that though. CS:GO is a better game than CoD for me.

I find iron sights to be waste of time in most shooters - it's way faster to just remember where middle of your screen is. It's different for scopes becaues of zoom, but since most shooters always hit centre of screen it's just something that slows your gaming.

Of course, there are few games where not using iron sights is punished (since it's not aimed in centre until you started aiming). But in the end, only good thing that comes from iron sights is that mouse start to move slower, allowing better aim (hopefully you'll know what I mean).

I don't know how many shotguns or sub machine guns you've fired, but hip-firing isn't something you do with any firearm.

counter strike is just retro, when valve made the first shooter maybe they didnt bother with iron sights because they didnt think people would care. then as the franchise evolved they didnt want to make to many changes.

Because it would ruin teh whole CS Movement, Feeling, Recoil, Spraying and so on.

Because it would ruin teh whole CS Movement, Feeling, Recoil, Spraying and so on.

I prefer iron sights with a large field of view and no cross-hairs.

It really depends on the game. High velocity games like Unreal Tournament and Quake established the use of crosshairs. You really need them there to speed up the gaming experience. Both games are build around the knowledge of itemplacement and maparchitecture. They are also very attack-driven (you have no health, but still you attack any opponent you see, since you might be faster). The funny thing is, that very few games today have this philosophy.
Other games that are more story/atmosphere-driven, tactical-team-based or just much slower can use iron-sights as an tactical/atmospheric element. CS might use them for an advantage, but its extremely conservative community won't accept it. I don't know however, why Valve didn't use iron sights in L4D. They work perfectly in Killing Floor.

On a sidenote: Just yesterday I had a talk with two friends about on-screen aiming (turn/look around with keyboard, aim for elements on the screen with the mouse). Some very old games at the time of Doom etc used this on pc (I remember System Shock 1 and CyClones), but it never really had a breakthrough. It's fun for some singleplayer games though. Recently especially games on Wii etc reused that concept.

i guess every game has to be the same..

I don't know why some folks complain about iron sights. I like to see them in my FPSs on occasion, because it adds variety to gameplay. Playing with a crosshair is a lot different than aiming down the sights on your gun. Both are equally good in my eyes.
Of course some games are better suited for one or the other. In that case, they should just have whichever better suits the action or story of said title.

Hell, it's not "don't usually" but "approaching never". It's just natural to fire from the shoulder or in case you have no stock, from the half-outstretched arms, even when not de facto using sights. The recoil is handled better, the place where rounds go is more obvious and it's easier to move low & fast. When you can't assume this obvious stance which you pretty much do automatically, then you're probably not gonna hit anything, or the contact will present itself on such a distance that you'll hit anyway because you can almost poke it with a barrel.

I thought the same thing before I started playing CS:GO, so I understand why you're asking it. These "modern" enhancements, like true ADS (aim down the sights) and sprinting, would change the core gameplay far too much. I appreciate Global Offensive so much more because it doesn't have these features. The gameplay is more grounded, firefights are longer and more intense, and it's more satisfying when you kill someone.

CS is as unrealistic as it can be. CS series are so bad that you don't ask those questions - you just stop playing these games. Yes - in real life you aim your gun not just randomly shoot hoping to hit someone. CS:GO is just CS1.6 with a bit updated graphics and that's all.

Go play ArmA 2