Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[willsham45]

Yes you have a change in perspective when you close one or the other but when aiming down a sight you usual close one eye to make sure you are lined up.
When you shoot from the hip you have used that gun you know where about it is going to go, although it will not be as accurate good for suppression fire I would think.

In game play stance it adds a bit of strategy. You can fire from the hip, see all or most and be OK at hitting evil doods. Then iron sight you get a little closer to simulate higher accuracy but you see less. You could be out flanked if you are not careful but anything in your range is dead...probably.

 

[Something Amyss]

What's with everyone assuming I've never shot a gun?

Well, since your analogy to "realism" lies completely contrary to actual, practical shooting I can see why people would assume it. It's like you posted a picture of someone playing After Burner as an xample of "realistic" flying controls. You kind of got...EVERYTHING...Wrong.

This is not what people expect from someone who's ever actually fired a weapon.

 

[Treblaine]

But the image you used to compare the two is completely wrong. Your non-dominant eye wouldn't see it as anything like that. Even if you close your dominant eye, which you wouldn't be doing.

To shoot a person brings the rifle up, stocks it to their shoulder and leans the cheek on the rifle, keeping both eyes open and lining their dominant eye onto the sight.

Have you ever picked up a gun? Because it doesn't sound like it. Even an air rifle? I've only used air rifles and a shotgun once. And even I know how you use a gun.

Modern games representation of how people aim with guns is pretty damn accurate. Much, much, much more accurate than the old hipfire all the time days. Ever played Red Orchestra 2? They pretty much cracked it. The only thing I'd say is that they perhaps need to offset the image slightly so the sight isn't directly in the middle but further to the right. Other than that, yes. ADSing is very important for a realistic shooter. And it absolutely does need to be a dedicated button, because sighting is a dedicated action requiring varying amounts of time depending on the weapon being used.

The point he's making is that you don't walk around with the gun strapped to your eye the entire time.

You bring it up when you want to aim.

And it isn't 'your right eye view' it's your total vision. Your dominant eye effects your total vision much more than your non-dominant eye.

Yeah, but what if the weapon is constantly shouldered with the barrel raised because - I don't know - you are in a city crawling with zombies and not exactly walzing along carrying your weapons idly but expecting imminent attack every move you make.

This would be where a sprint mechanism makes sense where you can't shoot while sprinting as your arms piston and take the weapon out of your shoulder. The weapon would never be at your hip, if it wasn't slung on your back then it is shouldered with the barrel pointing where you intend to shoot.

As to eye dominance it depends from person to person. The convenience here is either is used for most utility.

I'll admit, this is harder to explain than "Press ADS key to Aim" but the idea of combining what either eye sees in an abstract but logical way can help game design. It allows more flexibility.

Sniper rifles and I think many automatic rifles with scopes should have a dedicated "use sights" button but not these light fast-firing weapons like sub machine guns, light assault rifles and pistols. You'd just always have them at the ready.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

You know, some people just like ADS. I'm a PC gamer, I like ADS. I also like games without ADS.

As for unnecessary for realism, I'm not really sure about that. Sure, you can have a sense of realism without it, but it really does enhance that feeling when you have to bring the gun up to your characters face to get an accurate shot (Like in real life).

Also, this thing you're giving about parallax? Seems like nonsense to me. If you're aiming down the sights of a gun you close the other eye. I don't think I've ever heard of someone not doing so, however, I don't have much experience with guns or gun users.

The zoom part? It's a game. I'm pretty sure you can get games where it doesn't zoom. Or hey, maybe it's supposed to represent the reduced field of view by closing your non-dominant eye.

As for aim-assist, that's a console issue that I don't care for, and one of the reasons I don't like playing on consoles. I feel like the games doing all the hard work. I prefer the feeling of a mouse where I feel like I'm in control.

"it really does enhance that feeling when you have to bring the gun up to your characters face"

Hmm, well the say I see it the gun is ALREADY up to your face, with the stock in the shoulder, cheek resting on the stock and right eye over the rear sight, ADS shouldn't be a distinct raising of the weapon. It only ever wouldn't be up in your face when you are really booking it, running, sprinting at full pelt and were pistoning your arms up and down, not just when running forward at a quick trot.

"Or hey, maybe it's supposed to represent the reduced field of view by closing your non-dominant eye."

Hmm, yeah. I never thought of it that way. Thanks.

But the way I see the counterstrike-style reticule is if you (your human eyeballs) look away from the floating-reticule to the left of the screen, that's the eqivalent of the in game avatar opening his left eye to get a less obstructed view. I don't think we need buttons dedicated to blinking... unless your game is called Alone In The Dark and you were made in 2008.

I guess the main issue here is that I've only ever used an air rifle, and I've never tried moving with it. I just can't quite visualise someone walking around with their eyes always down the sights. It just doesn't seem right. Though you have made me question what I think they do with the gun when your not ADS. I've never really thought about it.

 

[Pyro Paul]

"What? He's crazy, this guy must be crazy to suggest that hipfire with a mysterious reticule in the middle of the screen is in any way realistic."

Well, not so crazy when you think about how the screen perspective is a single 2D perspective yet humans have 2 eyes meaning you'd get two shifted 2D perspectives, that means the parallax must be represented combining the two views into one frame.

"What? I don't follow, Parallax?"

Basically, both your eyes look the same direction but because your eyes are a few inches apart they get a different view. Like how if you look at a tree with your finger held up, your right eye sees what is slightly shifted from what your left eye sees:

Remember this picture. How does it look familiar? The finger in line to the tree, like the sight post on a gun, and then the off the the side view...

When we see the the world around us with two eyes we combine this together what each eyeball sees as the images are processed separately. But how would you Represent this in a First-person perspective which has only a single 2D frame?

Think about it, the right eye would be looking down the weapons sights and out around at the enviroment. The left eye would be looking around with a better view at the environment and see the left side of the gun in your hand.

Your left eye would see something like this:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

Now take the important part of what the right eye sees, where the sights line up and indicate where the bullets go, and lay that superimposed over the wider less restricted view of the Left eye. Then you have the classic "unrealistic" representation of aiming a weapon with a reticule in the centre of the screen:

"These games are so unrealistic, you can't aim without using the sights. Where does the reticule on the screen come from?"

The reticule comes from using the gun. It is a game REPRESENTATION of your right eye using the sights while your left eye is open.

You can do this yourself with a ruler though preferably something more gun-like, With your right eye look down the ruler/sights then close your right eye and open your left. It's more obvious with your head canted to the right so your left view of the gun is a little lower.

-------​

"Then why bother with Aim-down sights in games?"

Why? I think it's a con, with faux-realism and a crutch for much more unrealistic things like instantaneous zoom with iron sights and super-powerful aim-assist when activating iron-sights.

It's most valuable for on consoles where the thumbstick is just so crap for aiming, not a problem if a proper aiming device like a mouse is used.

OK, some hyper realistic games might need aim-down sights like Red Orchestra or ARMA for how you have adjustible sights and other things, but certainly the vast majority of FPS games, including war games the ADS mechanic is a crutch for gameplay, not for the level of realism they are aspiring to.

Unfortunatly you are kind of wrong on how we hold weapons in games.
Even if you where to shoot with both eyes open, the distance between our eyes simply would not allow that image to be shown the way you think how it would be shown.

as to how characters acctually shoot in games:

There are 3 ways you learn how to shoot, either explicitly through instruction or implicitly through using the weapon.


From the Hip.
That is the weapon held at your hip usually supported with a sling.


From the Sholder.
With the weapon 2-6 inches from your face with the butt placed against your sholder
[img src="http://www.usarak.army.mil/main/Stories_Archives/Apr12-16/Images/USARAK%20Images/100412_FS2b.jpg" width="400" height="300"]

From the Cheek.
With the weapon pressed against your cheek.
[img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Hawaii-convoy2003-12-17.jpg" width="400" height="300"]


Now if you could drop into third person with our most favored video game characters... How do they hold and shoot the gun?

[img src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb57090/left4dead/images/a/a5/Zoey_1.png" height="300"][img src="http://flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/counterstrike1.png" height="300"]
[img src="http://mp1st.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ghost-recon-future-soldier-pc-600x375.jpg" height="300"]
[img src="http://www.rockstargames.com/maxpayne3/img/global/screens/maxpayne3-weapon-assaultrifles-03-640.jpg" height="300"]

Notice a trend here?
All of them are shooting from the sholder.

No go do it for yourself... sholder a weapon or weapon like object.

It looks exactly like what is on your HUD in any game.
the weapon is in the lower corner of your vision partially obstructing your view, but not too badly.

So then what is with the cross hairs?

Well, Any shooter with a bit of experience can tell you where they 'feel' the bullets will go simply by how they are holding a weapon. we, ourselves, create mental projection on the general location bullets would fall based on how a gun is being held and our own knowledge on how the gun works.

They call it 'Aiming down the Barrel'

And this is what is represented in FPS games.
You mentally visualize where the bullets will go. (cross hairs)
It is harder to visuallize this when moving (Accuracy loss while moving)
Holding in a more comfortable or stable position makes it easier to visuallize (accuracy gain while crouching)

 

[ElPatron]

When you shoot from the hip you have used that gun you know where about it is going to go, although it will not be as accurate good for suppression fire I would think.

If you want to shoot a weapon from the hip, suppressing is probably the only thing you'll be able to do. Suppression, like the word implies, is less about pin-point accuracy and more about saturating an area with rounds.

I just can't quite visualise someone walking around with their eyes always down the sights. It just doesn't seem right.

But it is right.

 

[ElPatron]

So then what is with the cross hairs?

Well, Any shooter with a bit of experience can tell you where they 'feel' the bullets will go simply by how they are holding a weapon. we, ourselves, create mental projection on the general location bullets would fall based on how a gun is being held and our own knowledge on how the gun works.

They call it 'Aiming down the Barrel'

And this is what is represented in FPS games.
You mentally visualize where the bullets will go. (cross hairs)
It is harder to visuallize this when moving (Accuracy loss while moving)
Holding in a more comfortable or stable position makes it easier to visuallize (accuracy gain while crouching)

It's called "point shooting" and it's only truly effective for a few feet. Longer than that and you're just as accurate as if you were shooting a Nerf gun - you know where you're aiming at but you won't be able to control where the projectile actually lands.

Crouching has fuck-all to do with your accuracy from point-shooting.

Any shooter with a bit of experience will tell you that there are no "real world" crosshairs. You just learn how to have consistency and use reference points to be able to use a longer rifle inside compact spaces.

In video games crosshairs actually allow you to control where a projectile is going.


But you're right in the part about the eyes and the image shown.

 

[ElPatron]

I just can't quite visualise someone walking around with their eyes always down the sights. It just doesn't seem right.

But it is right.

No it's not.

Trained combatants shoulder weapons when they expect contact but they don't aim down the sight unless they're aiming at something.

But I am not a trained combatant. I am a civilian. Keeping your eyes on the sights allow the same target assessment as having it just "shouldered".

I prefer to maintain a proper cheek-weld and both eyes open when I am not targeting. Since I can shoot with both eyes open that means I am always looking trough the sights. The only way to keep me from looking down the sights is physically push the rifle to the side or just look away from the rifle.

It is right, even if others "feel" that it isn't.

 

[Khazoth]

Can realism please die in a fire? Please? I'm so sick of this era in gaming. What happened to games being an escapist fantasy, fun and thoughtless. But then have entire threads dedicated to discussing how to make a game more realistic.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah, but what if the weapon is constantly shouldered with the barrel raised because - I don't know - you are in a city crawling with zombies and not exactly walzing along carrying your weapons idly but expecting imminent attack every move you make.

You never walk around with your eye trained on the sight unless you're aiming at something. Trained military forces shoulder the gun ready for it to be raised to sight when they're expecting contact. But you never walk around with it glued to your eyeball which would be the only explanation for what you're saying.

This would be where a sprint mechanism makes sense where you can't shoot while sprinting as your arms piston and take the weapon out of your shoulder. The weapon would never be at your hip, if it wasn't slung on your back then it is shouldered with the barrel pointing where you intend to shoot.

You still couldn't shoot from the hip whilst sprinting anyway. Your arms piston regardless of where they've just been.

As to eye dominance it depends from person to person. The convenience here is either is used for most utility.

Eye dominance is everything. Any trained marksman will tell you that.

The side you shoot on has nothing to do with your dominant arm/hand and everything to do with your dominant eye.

I'll admit, this is harder to explain than "Press ADS key to Aim" but the idea of combining what either eye sees in an abstract but logical way can help game design. It allows more flexibility.

You don't seem to understand how your vision works. What you see right now is what you would see if you closed your non-dominant eye. When you ADS in a game, if you're not looking through a scope, you're seeing the world with two eyes. What you're suggesting is just dumb. For one because the view you're backing isn't what you'd see with both eyes open or with your dominant eye closed. The variation between sight is minor, certainly not the massive difference you're suggesting.

What you're doing is giving a very flawed explanation for outdated and frankly bad game design. Aiming down sights for accuracy is both completely necessary for real people and a dedicated function which takes both time and conscious choice.

Sniper rifles and I think many automatic rifles with scopes should have a dedicated "use sights" button but not these light fast-firing weapons like sub machine guns, light assault rifles and pistols. You'd just always have them at the ready.

This is honestly just absurdity. They've already dealt with the faster nature of such light weapons by having them easier to sight with and the shortness of their barrel which does aid with hip firing in real life is addressed too by making hip-firing a viable option.

If you honestly think any of what you've said makes the slightest ounce of sense then you don't understand how eye dominance works nor how to aim with guns.

ADSing is necessary for a realistic[ish] gaming experience not only because of it's visual impact but because of how taking the time to aim affects the way a game is played.

Okay okay, let me explain it to you the way I envision it.

It is NOT as "both eyes always open, always combining the parallaxed images" as then the dominant eye will always, err, dominate.

No, it's more dynamic than that, based on how where you (the human at the computer) looks around on the screen is representing whether either the left eye is open and dominant looking around un-obstructed, but when you focus on the reticule that is when you are using your right eye aiming down the sights. Since it's just one eye being used or the other it's a reasonable and not unrealistic conceit to depict both simultaneously.

I'm just saying this is how you can be accurate with an M16 in Left 4 Dead further than 25 yards because even though it may not immediately appear that the weapons sights are being used, they could easily be in use and what is seen down them represented by the on-screen crosshair reticule.

 

[Phlakes]

The reticule comes from using the gun. It is a game REPRESENTATION of your right eye using the sights while your left eye is open.

...What? No it's not. If your right eye is way over to where those sights line up you probably shouldn't be alive. And the crosshair is just there to show where your gun is pointing.

And even then, why can't sights just be a gameplay element anymore? You trade a bit of mobility for a bit more accuracy. It's not that big a deal.

 

[ElPatron]

Can realism please die in a fire? Please? I'm so sick of this era in gaming. What happened to games being an escapist fantasy, fun and thoughtless. But then have entire threads dedicated to discussing how to make a game more realistic.

Piloting a jet fighter or even an airliner even though a person is overweight and needs glasses is escapist fantasy.

Some people do not have fun in "thoughtless". Just like "fun" does not imply something has to be "funny" (or nobody would like depressing/horror movies) it also doesn't imply you're just enjoying a ride without a care in a world.

Sports. They usually require effort and tactics, not just sitting on my ass. Chess involves thinking.

A few of the most complex games ever have been released before the 2000's. So your generalization is somewhat wrong.

In most shooters you play a trained combatant.

>STALKER (amnesiac)
>Postal games
>Half Life (MIT physicist)
>Far Cry 2 (some characters had no military training)
>XIII (amnesiac - only "remembers" his training and skills if you pick up documents)
>Brink
>RAGE
>Call of Juarez
>Painkiller
>Duke Nukem
>Deus Ex (rookie UN agent)
>Freedom Fighters
>Left 4 Dead 1 and 2
>Marathon
>Prey
>Metro 2033
>Red Faction
>Mirror's Edge
>Turning Point
>Resistance 3
>Serious Sam
>System Shock
>BioShock
>Turok
>Unreal games

If you want to count sequels then military shooters are definitely more common.

And if you think you're going to be walking around a warzone/jungle/zombie infested city with your cheek constantly welded to the gun you're higher than mushroom chomping hot air balloon salesman.

>implying implications

Of course, this applies to combat and movement (such as inside a building). If I am walking, slicing the pie or whatever, I will have the cheek glued to the stock because there is absolutely no reason to not look down the sights.

If I am not expecting any kind of contact (implying there will ever be) then I am not going to be looking down the sights. But how often in a game do you have to walk around for half an hour until the action starts?

 

[Shpongled]

Can realism please die in a fire? Please? I'm so sick of this era in gaming. What happened to games being an escapist fantasy, fun and thoughtless. But then have entire threads dedicated to discussing how to make a game more realistic. It really sucks when you can look at the upcoming games and realize that there is nothing that excites you coming out in the next year.


"Hm.. realistic and brown, realistic and brown, realistic and brown, realistic and brown, Halo, Lara Croft, and Gears of War... Oh the excitement!"

You complain about realistic games and then mention 3 games that make no attempt at realism whatsoever?

I just can't quite visualise someone walking around with their eyes always down the sights. It just doesn't seem right.

But it is right.

No it's not.

Trained combatants shoulder weapons when they expect contact but they don't aim down the sight unless they're aiming at something.

But I am not a trained combatant. I am a civilian. Keeping your eyes on the sights allow the same target assessment as having it just "shouldered".

I prefer to maintain a proper cheek-weld and both eyes open when I am not targeting. Since I can shoot with both eyes open that means I am always looking trough the sights. The only way to keep me from looking down the sights is physically push the rifle to the side or just look away from the rifle.

It is right, even if others "feel" that it isn't.

Look at pyro pauls post just above. All the characters have the weapon shouldered but aren't aiming down the sights. They're seeing a rough representation of what you see in the average FPS when you aren't aiming down the sights. When combatants do find they need to shoot at something accurately they draw up the gun to their eye and aim down the sights.

I mean, yes, they might walk slowly around a corner or something with their eyes down the sights, which is represented by ADS mechanics in the fact that you can still move, albeit slowly, but they won't traverse the entire battlefield with their eyes down the sights because that would drastically slow them down for no good reason. Sort of like what would happen if i played an FPS with ADS pulled up the entire time.

So really, ADS seems perfectly a relevant representation of whats going on for the average shooter on the average battlefield. Or am i missing your point? Do real-life soldiers really spend their entire time with their eyes glued down the sights? I have to admit i wouldn't know, i've never been in a genuine combat situation. All i can say is from my experience paintballing i'd keeping the weapon shouldered quite a lot of the time but i wouldn't bother aiming directly down the sights unless i suspect there's someone there to shoot.

 

[ElPatron]

Look at pyro pauls post just above. All the characters have the weapon shouldered but aren't aiming down the sights. They're seeing a rough representation of what you see in the average FPS when you aren't aiming down the sights. When combatants do find they need to shoot at something accurately they draw up the gun to their eye and aim down the sights.

I mean, yes, they might walk slowly around a corner or something with their eyes down the sights, which is represented by ADS mechanics in the fact that you can still move, albeit slowly, but they won't traverse the entire battlefield with their eyes down the sights because that would drastically slow them down for no good reason. Sort of like what would happen if i played an FPS with ADS pulled up the entire time.

So really, ADS seems perfectly a relevant representation of whats going on for the average shooter on the average battlefield. Or am i missing your point? Do real-life soldiers really spend their entire time with their eyes glued down the sights? I have to admit i wouldn't know, i've never been in a genuine combat situation. All i can say is from my experience paintballing i'd keeping the weapon shouldered quite a lot of the time but i wouldn't bother aiming directly down the sights unless i suspect there's someone there to shoot.

What the hell are you on about? Okay I understood what you meant now.

If I am running I don't need the weapon on my shoulder. If I am walking/"tactically fast walking" (durr for stupid term) I don't "magically" slow down because of the sights. They are just there.

Paintball markers have no sights. Anyway, I never mentioned "combat" in general. Because in the end I don't know a whole lot about it.

But the way I keep the rifles shouldered force me to look down the sights all the time unless I look away from the rifle.

i.e. I am not saying that I am always "aiming" all the time, but if I look to the front I see the sights aligned on whatever I am pointing at.

 

[TheKaduflyerSystem]

I've fired A gun before, and I would say that a game like Fallout 3, where you bring the gun closer to your eye and retain a crosshair are the closest thing that I could compare that to, but until TV glasses and VR tech becomes standard it's semi-impossible to accurately recreate the feeling of looking down the sights of a gun.

 

[Shpongled]

Look at pyro pauls post just above. All the characters have the weapon shouldered but aren't aiming down the sights. They're seeing a rough representation of what you see in the average FPS when you aren't aiming down the sights. When combatants do find they need to shoot at something accurately they draw up the gun to their eye and aim down the sights.

I mean, yes, they might walk slowly around a corner or something with their eyes down the sights, which is represented by ADS mechanics in the fact that you can still move, albeit slowly, but they won't traverse the entire battlefield with their eyes down the sights because that would drastically slow them down for no good reason. Sort of like what would happen if i played an FPS with ADS pulled up the entire time.

So really, ADS seems perfectly a relevant representation of whats going on for the average shooter on the average battlefield. Or am i missing your point? Do real-life soldiers really spend their entire time with their eyes glued down the sights? I have to admit i wouldn't know, i've never been in a genuine combat situation. All i can say is from my experience paintballing i'd keeping the weapon shouldered quite a lot of the time but i wouldn't bother aiming directly down the sights unless i suspect there's someone there to shoot.

What the hell are you on about? Okay I understood what you meant now.

If I am running I don't need the weapon on my shoulder. If I am walking/"tactically fast walking" (durr for stupid term) I don't "magically" slow down because of the sights. They are just there.

Paintball markers have no sights. Anyway, I never mentioned "combat" in general. Because in the end I don't know a whole lot about it.

But the way I keep the rifles shouldered force me to look down the sights all the time unless I look away from the rifle.

i.e. I am not saying that I am always "aiming" all the time, but if I look to the front I see the sights aligned on whatever I am pointing at.

If you're moving at any speed quicker than a slow walk with your eyes down the sights how do you see where you're going? You have to slow down or risk tripping over that rock and poking your eye out. You also limit your breadth of vision as a the gun is covering up a chunk of your sight.

There's a difference between keeping your gun shouldered and actually aiming down the sights, in my experience with paintball it's actually a very big difference. Maybe some of the shooters in the thread can share their experience with real guns because i admit there probably is a difference. Yes, you get a good feel for where the shots going to go with the gun merely shouldered, but if you want to be accurate you NEED to actually sight your eyes along the sights of the weapon, simply keeping the gun shouldered a couple of inches away from your face just isn't enough accuracy.

My paintball marker has sights, so do plenty of markers the people i play with use, the stock ones you rent with top mounted gravity feed hoppers are shit. The only reason i bring up paintballing at all is because it's the closest thing to real-life combat that I've ever experienced, and i can't really think of anything that's closer in all honesty. Hunting and sport shooting just doesn't seem representative of what actually happens in real life combat at all. And all i can say is 90% of the time i'm moving around with the weapon shouldered but not aiming down the sights, only when i suspect someones somewhere in front of me do i actually bring my eye to the sights.

To tie this back in with the original thread.. it seems like ADS is a perfectly good mechanic for representing how an average combatant would use their weapon in a combat situation. Which implies that it isn't unnecessary at all in a game shooting for realism.

Of course, i lack in depth military or weapon training, so i could easily be completely wrong.

 

[NLS]

List of very popular PC games without any standardised ADS mechanic:
-Left 4 dead 1 & 2
-Team Fortress 2
-Half Life series
-Tribes Ascend
-Quake Live
-FEAR and FEAR Combat
-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)
-Minecraft? (it's got a bow)

I think it is the mouse and lack of Aim-assist which is a factor.

STALKER has ADS for sure, not just "a little bit, sometimes", it's there on all weapons.
First FEAR didn't have ADS, however IIRC it had a slight zoom for all weapons (where your weapon stays to your side), FEAR 2 and 3 both had ADS.
When charging your bow in Minecraft, your FoV changes and your aim slows down, not too far away from ADS.

Also, don't mix in ADS with aim-assist and "poor console controls". Left 4 Dead 1/2 had aim-assist on consoles, yet they don't have ADS.

And as a bonus, I'll mention ArmA 2. What? A very popular realistic PC exclusive game that doesn't have aim-assist, yet it has ADS? Yes.