Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[The Funslinger]

A screen that wraps around less than 180 degrees will never come anywhere near "realistically" portraying human vision. First-person perspective games have to work with your limited hardware, so they use the center of the screen as the center of your character's focus... while attempting to provide you with a useful field of view and a representation of the weapon in your hands. This is why it's always hard to tell where your character's body is, and why first-person platforming doesn't work.
I think they've found a pretty good formula, considering how cramped even a big-screen TV is compared to human vision.

I've been thinking about something. A widescreen oriented FPS. Really taking advantage of the widescreen to give a wider field of vision, and the edges are of vision are vaguer to simulate peripheral vision.

 

[crystalsnow]

This topic makes me sad.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

"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.

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.

 

[ElPatron]

But it just seems off in games, is all I'm saying.

So you mean that it would look better with a canted view? Because in real life if I tilt my head to the side I can still view things in their normal orientation, but if you do that on a game then everything will appear a little sideways. Which can create a bit of confusion.

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.

Nah, he's legit about the parallax. He is just overstating the capabilities of the non-dominant eye.

I don't know numbers but there are a lot of people that shoot with both eyes. I do.

 

[Treblaine]

**snip**

Have you heard of ocular dominance? I would think from your post that you don't really have a clue what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance
There's a clue.

Interesting, but maybe it is less a case of the screen doing SUPERIMPOSITION of the eye, but in a creative sense it is combining what either eye would see in any instant.

So if you are looking at the screen with the crosshairs, then you have your character's right eye open. If you are looking around other than at the screen then you are looking through your character's left eye.

I'm not saying the reticule represents a "double vision" of aiming-down-sights and also free look around left eye, but showing both for how you might have either eye open.

 

[Treblaine]

Your science is a little flawed but I've been saying the same thing for years. There are many instances of devs going for a superficially "realistic" option instead of an actual representation of human perception. I do have to disagree with your jab at consoles though, the stick is not as precise as a mouse but its perfectly serviceable for the majority of people.

Of course, I quite like playing with a thumbstick, even some FPS games. A gamepad is indispensable for many PC games.

But thumbstick is so DIFFERENT from a mouse that certain gameplay mechanics should be treated differently, like including an ADS mechanic to help with aiming (increaded aim-assist) just causes consternation on PC ports if accuracy is then tied to using ADS.

it does not matter which eye you use. you still have to align two pieces to make a straight line.
your finger jumping example only works if it was only one piece you are looking throught, but, again, you have to align two pieces together to be able to 'shoot' with the iron sights.

its like you would move your finger to be in line with the tree.
either way it would still make a straight line to the tree.

your complain is only justified with "classic" bows.

You don't seem to understand, this still works EVEN with lining up two sight positions (bead + notch) for how the further away sight is "parallax shifted" less because it is further from the eyes.

That parallax picture was the best example I had of the principal, but it doesn't show how things further from the eyes have less parallax effect.

Stop and think about this. Look at this picture again:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100705064314/left4dead/images/a/a2/500px-L4d_m16.jpg

You can draw a line from the rear sight, to front sight, to the centre of the reticule.

 

[Treblaine]

Honestly, that may be a little cruel, but the original post is just full on dumb.

Pick up a longish object in your room, then put it a few inches infront of your face as if you were aiming down the sight and keep both eyes open. Now look beyond the end as if you were looking at something the object is aiming at. Notice how both the images interlace to create one complete image. Granted it isn't clear, but you most certainly do not process two distinct images. Especially not as drastically different as you're insinuating.

Have you ever fired anything remotely like a gun? An air rifle for instance? Because the iron-sights are VERY FUCKING IMPORTANT if you're planning on hitting anything more than a few meters away.

That's not even touching on how important ironsights are for more realistic gameplay. They effect the speed a game is played at and as a result the experience you have within it.

I'm sorry but your argument is just weak.

I'm not saying the two perspectives would be be simply combined the way eyes would, but in a representative sense of REPRESENTING what the right eye sees with the floating reticule.

I am saying the GAME combines both views to represent what what EITHER eye would see combined together on one frame, not what both eyes together would see.

The thing is this use of the sight is a subtle matter of, using sights doesn't have to be a dedicated button to do a discrete action.

 

[Jaeke]

"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.

*cracks knuckles*

Point the finger on your LEFT hand.

/endthread.


OT: Umm... good arguement?

I don't really see what the point is.

I PERSONALLY, when shooting a gun, like to aim down when shooting something 25 yds away but hey, that's just me.

Just look at FO3 vs. FO:NV.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Wow I have never seen somebody miss the point before so badly.

Pretty much every single thing in your post is wrong. You dont even understand anything about how you aim a bloody gun or what it would look like. I have to ask have to even fired a fucking gun like this before?

This doesn't add much to the discussion, what is wrong specifically, what is the right answer?

I understand if you hold the weapon in your right shoulder then you aim down the sights with the right eye. Yet you are a blink away of looking out your left eye that has a much less obstructed view of your surroundings. Trying to focus on both at once might be a bit tricky, but it's quite superfluous having a dedicated button for function with aim-down sight when you could just REPRESENT what the right eye sees as lined up as the floating reticule.

 

[Treblaine]

There's a thing call eye dominance. I take it you've never fired a handheld gun/basic rifle or something. Usually, one eye takes over to process the image however if you use the wrong eye you'll lose depth perception and shoot too far left/right from where you were aiming.

Commonly, people are right eyed however there are people whose eyes are both dominant in which case it doesn't matter which eye you aim with. The idea of implementing eye dominance is just stupid and a waste of time.

What's with everyone assuming I've never shot a gun? I am left eye dominant but from the shooting experience I do have holding on my right side it wasn't a problem I just blinked my left eye and was focusing down the sights under my right eye.

 

[teisjm]

As far as i'm concerned, i think it adds to gameplay, if used right

Peronally, i don't give a shit about realism in a game, especially shooters, without any sort of real life shooting/military experience, i still highly doubt, that you can even remotely re-create anything like live gunfights, mainly due to the fact, that it's a fucking game.
I play it for the sake of fun, and i won't have to worry about beeing crippled or killed, i don't need it as training for real life shooting, though i guess playing with a clan, could help transfer some skills/tactics to RL gunfight simulations like hardball or paintball wars.
Point of this paragraph beeing, that i see multiplayer shooters as purely games, and competitive games at that, so none of the arguments in favor of realism really does anything for me, though i acknowledge that they may do for others.
So the added/reduced realism, depending on how you see it, when it comes to ADS in FPS games is no selling point for me.

What i like about it though, is the little choice it presents you every time you have to blast a bothersome dude out of your way.
Do you take the extra time it takes to aim down sight before firing, and limit your mobility for the added benefit of higher precicion/reduced recoil etc.
Of course, for this to work as i like it to, both ADS fire and hip fire has to be usefull, and one must not always be the better choice. So far, both Battlefield and MW2 worked well for me with this in regard.
I find split second decisions like this to really improve gameplay, the same way i see weapon/spec costumization to be the best thing that happened to multiplayer shooters since online play.
The sprint function presented in several games kindof serves the same purpose, whether it has a stamina bar as in COD or unlimited sprint as in BF, where you still have a short "recovery time" before regaining your hip-precision.
Learning to master these small decisions is part of what makes the difference between the top-rankers and the n00bs, and adds the oppertunity of a varied playstyle, depending on what kind of weapon you use.

I rarely play multiplayershooters on consoles, as i feel handicapped without the mouse, so i don't really have an oppinion worth anything when it comes to the aim assist some games have with ADS on consoles, and as such, all the above oppinions about ADS are with M/K controls in mind.

 

[Treblaine]

Your left eye would see something like this:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

But... if you aim down sights then you want to be seeing the bottom image, not the top and bottom image. How would it be 'realistic' to see the same gun model all the time and be told "it's ok bro, your right eye is aiming down the sights!" even though you can't see it. I don't care about realism, but since you're trying to say it's realistic to have a gun completely stationary all of the time and say "parallax lol", I'm calling it out.

Uhh, because the floating reticule (that cross in the middle of the screen) REPRESENTS what your right eye sees as the point-of-aim of your gun.

The thing is its easier to represent what the right eye sees through some abstraction rather than always show the right eye view (inherently more obscuring) and then try to represent the clearer view of the left eye.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

 

[Treblaine]

*cracks knuckles*

Point the finger on your LEFT hand.

/endthread.


OT: Umm... good arguement?

I don't really see what the point is.

I PERSONALLY, when shooting a gun, like to aim down when shooting something 25 yds away but hey, that's just me.

Just look at FO3 vs. FO:NV.

I don't get it. What about pointing the finger on your left hand? That's irrelevant if all the weapons are held on the right side and aimed with the right eye

Do you get the part where you actually ARE aiming down the sights but the left eye is given preference for the wider field of view. It is what the right eye sees as under the sights it represents with a the reticule/crosshairs in the centre of the screen.

So you see they are aiming down and that aiming down is represented BY the reticule.

 

[DeadFOAM]

I see 5 feet from one of my eyes. Not "5 feet and then it gets all blurry," things get blurry after about 4-6 inches. I mean that after around 5 feet my brain stops using information from that eye and my right eye takes over. Hell, it might be less than 5 feet now. Naturally, I have really bad depth perception.

I don't really care about ADS or lack-thereof, or even the "realism" argument. If it was real, I wouldn't be able to consistently shoot where I'm aiming anyway. I like it when games implement it well and dislike it when implemented badly.

I play games to have fun. If the game is fun, I don't really care where it blurs the line between "realism" and whatever the game is trying to do.