Spearmaster said:
Treblaine said:
Whether using one eye or both the best way to realistic portray looking through iron sights is actually looking down the iron sights.
Lets say that in a game with a reticle and no ADS it is assumed that the game character is using the iron sights, this would break realism due to the fact that it is no longer a first person shooter, a third person shooter can do this and get away with it because over the shoulder view is over the shoulder whether the game character is looking down the sights or not, a first person shooter in meant to have the player looking through the eyes of the character so if the eyes of the character are looking down the sights the player must also to obtain more realism.
WHAAAAA!!!
How is it not a First-person-shooter any more when it is showing FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CHARACTER'S EYES!!
You clearly don't get this. You're not getting how the Parallax is depicted, it is showing BOTH EYES, just not the redundant static perspective of the gun's arse (iron sight view) just the important part of where the sights line up with the target. Both eyes see the target. The right eye sees the weapon sight's reticule over the target and that is in the combined view.
The classic FPS view DOES SHOW the looking down the sights part but ONLY the important part, not how sexy the metallic and angular gun looks so close, not the rings of the aperture nor a close up of the ejection port. The classic FPS view shows the front sight, or the reticule of the red-dot-sight.
It does "show them" aiming down the sights, it shows the reticule, right there.
The weapon's sight is shown as the blue cross in the middle of the screen.
I am trying to make it MORE TRUE to a first-person perspective by looking through the character's EYES (both of them) rather than the Character's EYE.
A reticle can bloom and collapse to represent changes in accuracy from movement which is more realistic to accuracy than the magic owl man with a laser gun taped to his face that I made reference to earlier but to stay true to visual realism ADS is more realistic for a first person experience.
Your one eye/two eyes logic only works if NOT looking down the sights, with a rifle in your shoulder, pointing down range using the angle of the rifle and depth perception of two eyes to try to perceive the trajectory of the bullets path. This is what you are talking about when referencing archery.
This is not an explanation. This is not an argument. This is a denial of my explanation, you don't address my explanation you avoid it to repeat your assertions that you want to see the Iron Sights view of the gun's arse obscuring the screen and don't address how it unrealistically obscures part of the view that the left eye could see around.
Utter denial of Both-eyes-open shooting, doesn't address the very real Bindon Aiming Concept, and asserts without basis that the crosshair is just an crude perception of where you feel the gun is pointing, that no lining up of sights is happening.
If you don't understand the Parallax thing, then admit it. But don't use your incredulity as a point to argue.
I am also trying to comprehend your broken logic in expressing that by assuming the game character is doing something and not having it visually represented is just as realistic as having it visually represented when in fact not representing something that is happening creates a larger separation between the player and the character thus decreasing realism and immersion.
Just as a side note how many guns have you fired in real life? You may have been asked this before but 9 pages is a lot.
You can't comprehend my logic yet still declare it is "broken". Well it's going to be hard to discuss anything with that attitude.
And what is this bias to the "iron sights view" that puts more important in what the fixed and unchanging appearance of the gun's arse looks like than the game world. I blame Call of Duty for this, it's conditioned a generation of gamers to be utterly convinced that what the gun's arse looks like is MORE IMPORTANT THAN A CLEAR VIEW OF THE COMBAT ZONE. Here is the problem right here:
"when in fact not representing something that is happening creates a larger separation between the player and the character thus decreasing realism and immersion."
What is "not being represented" with the COD style iron-sights view is that the left eye can be open and it can see AROUND what is obscured from the right eye by how the big gun so close to the face. But THAT VIEW is irrelevant because of an obsessive focus on what the gun's angular metallic and militaristic sight assembly looks like.
Refusing to depict the clear view that comes from both eyes open aiming creates a MUCH LARGER separation between the player and the character than the COD-ADS view, thus decreasing realism and immersion.
Stop obsessing over 'the gun', the important part is the entire game world, the environment, the enemies, the objects and pitfalls and cover.
This overvaluing of the gun's aesthetics is unhealthy, it detracts from the game. It doesn't have a basis in realism with both eyes open shooting as you CANNOT claim that obscuration should be there, or that when looking through both eyes the more obscured view would be the one more focused on.
{PS: My experience is irrelevant. It does NOT matter if I say I am disabled so cannot shoot, or If I say I am the Navy SEAL who capped Osama Bin Laden, IT IS A FALLACY to cite personal authority. I have cited all the relevant sources explaining both-eyes-open shooting and the Bindon aiming concept. My argument stands on its own, no matter who says it. But if you are REALLY so insecure that you can't accept the truth from someone who isn't an authority. Look up the Fallacy: argument from authority. It is pointless for me to even mention it as even being totally honest it will be either 1) that is not enough, I dismiss it; or (2) that's too much, it's an exaggeration or a lie, so I dismiss it.
PPS: heading you off BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK OF TRYING THIS, of holding it against me for "well, he refuses to cite his firearms authority, that must be because he doesn't know anything". Don't even think of trying that fallacy as I'm telling you in advance it'll only serve to derail the topic.}
