Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[NightHawk21]

Well I mean, the way I see it is you always have the gun just below the shoulder when walking or running and bring it up to your shoulder (like you would normally) to fire. Iron sights is essentially you just slowing down to a walk, taking a breath, and putting your cheek on the gun like when you do precision firing.

As for the image argument, well you could just close your non-aiming eye (the one that moves the image by a few inches).

 

[Ledan]

Reading through up to page 4 of this thread, I'm siding with ADS. It represents having a gun shouldered, but not aiming down the sights. Activating ADS takes into account the split time it takes to aim, and the lower FOV that results from closing your non-dominant eye.
Not having ADS, and using the crosshairs to represent what is happening is fine. However, now that we are able to represent the physical world more, why not do it?

Too much realism is bad, however there is a certain type of realism that is good. Like how human physics works. It's better in a game if we can represent elements of reality that bring believability into a game, and I think ADS does just that. Not using it is part of an older system and less powerful system, where we had to abstractly represent what we can now show.

 

[ElPatron]

The only strawman so far has been yours.

Point it out, please.

I didn't dismiss any martial arts because we weren't talking about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Actually quite often it's simply walking or moving at a brisk pace. And in most of my favourites there are long periods of stealth.

In my personal experience I hate walking in CoD. Makes me a easy target for snipers and doesn't allow me to escape from the range of campers/turrets/claymores.

witnessing plot moving discussions.

Which do not exist in MP. Just saying, but the whole point of this thread also addressed the issue of aim-assist and it's relationship with ADS systems, which are obviously more influent on MP.

And during SP, plot moving discussions that do not involve shooting or running are also situations where going ADS is completely pointless.

Being always sighted in would have been a massive disadvantage in the game.

Exactly why I said "a game like SWAT". i.e. not exactly the same thing as SWAT.

I could mention Rainbow Six (less hostages and less "put the gun down") but the Vegas cover-system implemented a greater range of stances that you can use while shooting, so...

 

[ElPatron]

My posts in a nutshell.

Your personal preference doesn't matter.

Your personal preference doesn't matter.

Your personal preference doesn't matter.

Your personal preference doesn't matter.

Personally I can control a shotgun and most rifles while cheeking them and I don't feel forced to "lock" my shoulders unless I am in a shooting stance. Point = made.

PS: in Vegas you can't be ADS all the time because... you'll die. The game forces you to use the cover system.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but when I shoot my brain doesn't create an abstraction to represent what my right eye sees and impose that over what I see while I watch a wide view with my left eye. That is not a good description of what you experience when you shoot a rifle. That's why so many people are asking if you have ever fired a rifle. Aiming down the sights in a game is very obviously a much better recreation of what it's actually like to shoot a rifle than communicating the same information to a player through means they would not experience in real life while the player enjoys a view that is very unlike the one they would experience while shooting. The whole parallax issue doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the act of firing a rifle. That is what a 'realistic' game is trying to illustrate to the player. It doesn't matter if you can see the side of the rifle or not.

I hope that wasn't tedious to read, I felt kind of weird explaining it.

 

[ElPatron]

Personally I can control a shotgun and most rifles while cheeking them and I don't feel forced to "lock" my shoulders unless I am in a shooting stance. Point = made.

You like =/= is optimum to me

Point made!

Taekwondo isn't optimal to me because reasons (mainly my feet and hips). Again, personal feelings.

When you look down the majority of scopes/sights for a weapon, you have to close the other eye otherwise your focus gets all messed up and you can't aim, plus you just give yourself a headache.

No, shooting with both eyes open is perfectly legit and does not cause headaches.

 

[Paragon Fury]

OP, the flaw in your entire theory?

When you look down the majority of scopes/sights for a weapon, you have to close the other eye otherwise your focus gets all messed up and you can't aim, plus you just give yourself a headache.

It is a proven fact that you cannot aim accurately from the hip, no matter how good you are. Even for the best soldiers, firing from the hip is a random "best guess" of fire, meant only to distract or make enemies keep their heads down.

You can do slightly better when firing from the shoulder ("Ready" position), but in order to have truly accurate fire you have to aim down the sight/scope, which requires closing your other eye in order focus, thus limiting your vision.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

A shooting game isnt real to start with. Also how we see and process stuff in real life, we cant do in a game world. So if a game was "real" we wouldnt hit anything because we wouldnt be able to process distance etc like we can in the real world.

Which is why jumping in a 1st person platform game sucks. Because in a game we cant judge distance or where are feet are in regards to the edge etc. In the real world we have many different senses that help us shoot, jump and judge distance etc In a game, alot of these senses are non existent.

 

[ElPatron]

Martial arts are very nuanced. Holding a gun isn't.

This is why your analogy completely fails.

Thumb over bore vs bent off arm
Vertical foregrip
Foregrip thumb break
Quick Kill project/point shooting
Weaver stance
Center axis relock
Bladed stance
Squared stance

I could go on all day. Martial Arts are not always nuanced. There are many differences in styles and aggressiveness.

Heck, let's compare boxing with taekwondo. Or Aikido with Krav Maga. Russian Systema with Sumo.

So, is there anyone else who thinks that aiming down sights makes it HARDER to aim? Between the gun itself and the muzzle flash, I can't see shit when I'm shooting in most modern shooters. This goes double for handguns for some reason.

Then the problem lies with excessive zoom and muzzle flash.

Also, I started playing shooters before shooting guns so I assumed that the tip of the ironsight was my aiming point - actually it's right above the tip. That caused me to be very inaccurate because I was covering my target with the sight.

 

[evilneko]

It's not about realism for me. Hipfire feels more fun,

Ever fired a real gun from the hip?

Damn right it's fun! XD

 

[Aprilgold]

People who come to games for realism are the type of people who don't actually know why realism doesn't matter in the long run [in games].

In games like Killing Floor or Red Orchestra, the lack of a reticule is to make hipfire a much more dangerous thing. I think that Iron-Sights works well in these games for the simple fact that there is no reticule, so you are forced into making crucial shots before they can get up in your face and destroy you while you try to re-position the butt of the gun in your mouth.

Iron-sights work very well when they exist to make hipfire more dangerous and force you to be more accurate, but in call of duty there is no point to them. Theres no drawback to using them and all the benefits to reap from it I.E Quick scoping because you instantly gain 100% accuracy whenever you engage in a scope.

From what I understand, how you hold your gun is different based on distance to your target. If your target is far away you have to use ironsights to get a much-more precise shot, then if their medium range you have to pull it up to your shoulder to get a semi-accurate shot and then close range is hip-firing. The reason iron-sights on the core basis don't make sense is that, if you never noticed, holding a gun to your head like that obscures quite a bit of your view, probably about ninety percent if not more. Why in hell would you take the time to raise your gun to your face and try to fire at a dude five feet away with ironsights when simply guessing from the shoulder would work better? [note, I am not sticking by the above on how you hold your gun based on target distance because I am probably incorrect, but I thought I would throw it out there for people to get a better grasp on my post.]

In conclusion, Iron-Sights are great when they exist to make hip-firing less viable via removing the reticule on the screen. However they don't work when this trade-off doesn't exist. BUT THEN AGAIN they are not realistic because you wouldn't be jamming the butt of your gun in your face when who your fighting is ten feet away.

 

[ElPatron]

Why in hell would you take the time to raise your gun to your face and try to fire at a dude five feet away with ironsights when simply guessing from the shoulder would work better?

Five feet?

I ain't risking it. Rather have him take all the buckshot than risk one or two pellets going trough walls and killing innocents. I mean, 5 feet > meter which means the spread is already opening and a "near miss" can possibly mean a catastrophic result.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but when I shoot my brain doesn't create an abstraction to represent what my right eye sees and impose that over what I see while I watch a wide view with my left eye. That is not a good description of what you experience when you shoot a rifle. That's why so many people are asking if you have ever fired a rifle. Aiming down the sights in a game is very obviously a much better recreation of what it's actually like to shoot a rifle than communicating the same information to a player through means they would not experience in real life while the player enjoys a view that is very unlike the one they would experience while shooting. The whole parallax issue doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the act of firing a rifle. That is what a 'realistic' game is trying to illustrate to the player. It doesn't matter if you can see the side of the rifle or not.

I hope that wasn't tedious to read, I felt kind of weird explaining it.

You question answers itself, why are you asking why you wouldn't ACTUALLY see an abstraction, when it is being abstract, not exactly wthe way you see it but the IMPORTANT PARTS of what you see.

And you would actually something exactly like this with the Binden Aiming Concept where there is an illuminated or bright reticule:


This part talks about a magnified right field view but without any magnifying scope like a red-dot sight or simply dayglow front bead,then the images of each eye merges and the from post stands out as a floating reticule over the target without the weapon body obscuring the lower part of the target as the unobstructed left-field merges over the top.

This is not totally natural, but soldiers and many other shooters do in fact train to shoot with both eyes open and their left eye lookign at the target. Look at this footage of this very experienced shooter:


Though it's hard to find definitive examples of both eyes-open shooting due to how safety glasses are rightly so often used and the cameraman tends to not film where the person is facing as that's where the weapon is pointing you can't see if both eyes are open.

And there are a lot out there who encourage both eye-open shooting with all firearms:


If this is being done, how do you with a single frame represent what two fields see? With abstraction. If the right field was shown with the body of the gun obscuring the screen like a thick pillar down from the target then how do you show what the left eye see, that isn't obscured by the right eye being so close to the gun? Well you don't. You show the left eye field predominantly and represent the left-eye with an on-screen reticule.

Have I convinced you?

At the very least, how ELSE are games going to represent "both eyes open" perspective as the old "Peer through iron sighs" obscures view on screen in a way that wouldn't be if both eyes were open.

 

[Aprilgold]

Why in hell would you take the time to raise your gun to your face and try to fire at a dude five feet away with ironsights when simply guessing from the shoulder would work better?

Five feet?

I ain't risking it. Rather have him take all the buckshot than risk one or two pellets going trough walls and killing innocents. I mean, 5 feet > meter which means the spread is already opening and a "near miss" can possibly mean a catastrophic result.

Now your adding complication to this. Imagine its a white void at that person is charging at you with a knife. Would you rather try and stick the butt of the gun all the way up, gently lean your head then aim or just start firing off rounds and hope he goes down?

 

[ElPatron]

Now your adding complication to this. Imagine its a white void at that person is charging at you with a knife. Would you rather try and stick the butt of the gun all the way up, gently lean your head then aim or just start firing off rounds and hope he goes down?

"Gently"? Lawl, as if!

Anyway, you are in fact making your point come across. But no scenario is a vacuum - I'm not adding complication. Okay, if for some reason you're in the US military and you're sporting a M16A4 and supposed to kick down doors and enter buildings, you'll probably do some kind of "point shooting". Why? Because of the length of the rifle making it harder to wield and aim in enclosed spaces. Not because of the sights (although the zero on the sights is a little bit offset from the bore).

5 feet? If by that point I don't have the shotgun shouldered (or rifle, but I know shotguns better) then I fail. When I put my cheek on the butt-stock I can also look trough the sights with my right eye.

But we are talking 5 feet. Enough to miss, but also enough to shove a 20 inch barrel into someone's face. 5 feet is enough to reach with a well thrown punch or kick.

Unless you have a pretty big knife, at 5 feet your teeth will be politely greeted by steel.

EDIT: or just push the barrel into the target's running chest and let it rip.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but when I shoot my brain doesn't create an abstraction to represent what my right eye sees and impose that over what I see while I watch a wide view with my left eye. That is not a good description of what you experience when you shoot a rifle. That's why so many people are asking if you have ever fired a rifle. Aiming down the sights in a game is very obviously a much better recreation of what it's actually like to shoot a rifle than communicating the same information to a player through means they would not experience in real life while the player enjoys a view that is very unlike the one they would experience while shooting. The whole parallax issue doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the act of firing a rifle. That is what a 'realistic' game is trying to illustrate to the player. It doesn't matter if you can see the side of the rifle or not.

I hope that wasn't tedious to read, I felt kind of weird explaining it.

You question answers itself, why are you asking why you wouldn't ACTUALLY see an abstraction, when it is being abstract, not exactly wthe way you see it but the IMPORTANT PARTS of what you see.

And you would actually something exactly like this with the Binden Aiming Concept where there is an illuminated or bright reticule:

[yputube=NpGSKKgWWks]

This part talks about a magnified right field view but without any magnifying scope like a red-dot sight or simply dayglow front bead,then the images of each eye merges and the from post stands out as a floating reticule over the target without the weapon body obscuring the lower part of the target as the unobstructed left-field merges over the top.

This is not totally natural, but soldiers and many other shooters do in fact train to shoot with both eyes open and their left eye lookign at the target. Look at this footage of this very experienced shooter:


Though it's hard to find definitive examples of both eyes-open shooting due to how safety glasses are rightly so often used and the cameraman tends to not film where the person is facing as that's where the weapon is pointing you can't see if both eyes are open.

And there are a lot out there who encourage both eye-open shooting with all firearms:


If this is being done, how do you with a single frame represent what two fields see? With abstraction. If the right field was shown with the body of the gun obscuring the screen like a thick pillar down from the target then how do you show what the left eye see, that isn't obscured by the right eye being so close to the gun? Well you don't. You show the left eye field predominantly and represent the left-eye with an on-screen reticule.

Have I convinced you?

At the very least, how ELSE are games going to represent "both eyes open" perspective as the old "Peer through iron sighs" obscures view on screen in a way that wouldn't be if both eyes were open.

I didn't ask a question.

I thought you were arguing that a side view of a rifle that does not include aiming down the iron sights like the pictures in your original post was as realistic in games as aiming down the iron sights. Is that correct?

I thought we were talking about realism, and you're telling me we should be using abstractions to convey the information a real shooter would gather by staring down the sights. The important parts of what I see are not conveyed to me through abstractions in real life, so that approach is very unrealistic. The most ingenious method to mimic human sight would fall far short of making up for something as unrealistic as that. I know some shoot with both eyes open, I'm saying it doesn't matter. Both of those shooters are aiming with the sights. The act of shooting by aiming down iron sights is more realistically portrayed in games by the player looking down iron sights. Trading that for a left-eye view of the weapon is a far less effective way of portraying the experience of shooting from iron sights. Anything that doesn't include iron sights is less effective.

I kind of like where you're going with this in that it would be nice if games did a better job mimicking human vision, I just think your proposed solution is a heck of a lot less realistic than the way it is currently done and a very poor way to convey the experience of shooting. I usually regret my attempts at analogies, but it seems like trying to make a fishing sim more realistic by cutting out the rods-and-reels to make room for more realistic wind and waves. It's missing the core of the experience.