Gun Sights Are Overrated.

[Spencer Petersen]

The problem I have with ADS is that as soon as it is added to a game the developers usually add some innate bonus to it (accuracy, extra zoom or damage) so suddenly it becomes a detriment to not use the sights. And don't throw realism at me because I'm pretty sure a shotgun's spread doesn't magically decrease when you hold it closer to your face. Some guns are meant to be aimed down, like snipers and assault rifles, but some guns aren't, such as pistols and shotguns at close range. Plus if ADS is implemented some guns become god awful because their iron-sights are terrible, at least make them customizable.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Honestly I can't believe so many people enjoy aiming down gun sight.

The main reason why I hate it is because when you see an enemy you can't just shoot him right away. NOOOOO you have to waste a fraction of a second to bring up your fucking gun and aim the reticule at the enemy, and in that fraction of a second they do kill you. However in older shooters like Halo or Half-life you can easily aim and shoot the enemy without delay.

Finally someone agrees with me.

 

[Arachon]

I can't aim without using ironsights, and I definitely prefer them to be in the game, rather than have to deal with that flimsy crosshair.

 

[Akiada]

I find both ADS and the lack thereof both quite fine and suited for their own sorts of games. ADS encourages (to an extent) a slower, more measured playstyle with the occasional surprise appearance of a foe forcing you to expend precious seconds to shoulder your gun and shoot accurately (hoping they miss/take longer to do the same) or fire from the hip (praying that they hit) - trying to drop the foe with a sustained burst and praying you do it quick enough that he can't take aim and blow your head off.

Games without ADS and typical "from the hip" style typically have a faster and more homogenous pace. There is no sudden switch and decision of whether to fire quickly (but inaccurately) or to fire slower (but much more accurately) should a foe get the drop on you - it's just shooting.

ADS provides a more 'real' and tactical sort of experience. Those games without it provide a faster, less realistic ("fantastic") experience. ADS is great for cover-based combat and such. I don't expect there'd ever be a day when an Unreal-Tournament style game forces you to try to aim down sights. Rocket launchers and miniguns are not, after all, precision weapons, especially when wielded by galactic gladiators bouncing around an arena.

 

[latenightapplepie]

Hey, I'm fine with whatever, so long as I get to shoot stuff!

That's what shooters are for, after all.

Agreed. I've played and enjoyed shooters with and without this feature. It isn't a big deal for me.

 

[Desaari]

What the shit is ADS?

I like using sights when they're implemented right. If I'm playing an arcade style game, gun sights are only going to slow the pace of gameplay, so I can see where the OP is coming from here.
But if I'm playing a realistic game then I definitely want to be able to sight in, because the rest of the game will be realistic too (eg: scale).
I can't see anyone playing Project Reality for example and wanting crosshairs when you have optical and reflex sights.

 

[default]

I agree, it always feels good to spray from the hip (or shoulder, as the case may be). Although, yes, I enjoy ADS in games. BUT if realism isn't what you are going for, it doesn't need to be there, it's just a little addition.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I like ADS, though its not essential. Take Halo for instance. No ADS, but its still great.

 

[Daveman]

Well really good soldiers in the SAS actually feel the gun more as an extension of their body and hardly ever aim down the sights because they already know where the bullets are going to go. Or so I've heard in documentaries.

Game-wise, I think sights are good. I don't know why but I just like them, especially in games where you die quick. But they only have them on certain guns in Halo for example, and that game seems popular.

 

[Capt. Crankypants]

You know what fixes everyones problem? Crysis. Then you can choose are we happy now?

See, it's little choices like these that help make a game fantastic. The more options the better.

 

[omega 616]

Even in that pic it just looks like total spray, hitting the cars windscreen, the rear of the other car and everything inbetween. ADS is a little accurate.

Yes, it adds to realism but there has to be some, doesn't there?

 

[Starke]

In conclusion if any rising game developer is looking into building a fps shooter, ditch the gun sights, so many games have it, take it out.

I usually like iron sights in games. Far Cry 2 for instance, where there's no HUD of any kind most of the time. I'll admit it is getting overused of late, though.

In a semi-random non-sequiter, if you want I can poke around and see if I still have the non-centered guns Mod for STALKER I put together a while back.

 

[Klepa]

Yeah, I kinda miss the old style accurate from the hip gunplay. It was a lot more fast paced. Thankfully there's still tf2.

Agreed here. Firing from the hip gives you a more "Shoot the fuck out of everything" feeling, instead of a pseudorealistic "controlled bursts" kind of thing. I would've preferred Borderlands without iron sights, or atleast have the guns be accurate enough for me not having to aim. What's the point of having a 300 bullet magazine, if I can't use both my eyes to witness the destruction?

I'm not saying "remove them all!", I've liked iron sights, and it's become a staple of FPS games. I guess a bit like a cover system in third person shooters.

 

[Baby Tea]

I am neither for or against the sights. I just wish there weren't so many shooters trying to be realistic.

I don't care what flavor of aiming they use, just as long as they stop with this realistic nonsense that is never realistic. Give me a monster spam shooty fest and let me carry more than 2 guns. I play Doom 2 a lot more than I play any modern shooter for that reason.

Modern Warfare isn't realistic.
I know you know that, but it's also not even trying to be realistic. IW even said it themselves: Less realism, more 'Hollywood'. Having real-world guns and hardware a realistic shooter does not make.

OT: Iron sights are great, I think. It's all about balance.
Firing from the hip lets you see everything, but offers less accuracy.
Iron sights lets you be accurate, but offers less of a field of view.

So it's a trade off, and each has their own place on the game's battlefield.

But it IS a matter of taste. I love Serious Same, and I love Rainbow Six. Both are totally different.
Beyond perspective, there is nothing about them that's the same.

I think FPS is a bit too vague, these days. We need some more narrow terms.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

It breaks the monotony, instead of feeling that your gun is forever glued to the right hand side of the screen, you feel that you have at least some control of how you handle it. You don't go around using the gun sight constantly, you switch back and forth so you don't get tired of either way of shooting.

 

[brumby]

When you aim down the sights you know that you're not aiming from the hip. When your view just zooms in there's no reason for you to be more accurate than magic video game logic.

Also, I don't have eyeballs with optical zoom.

Most games never do this. in those games (like CSS), improving your aim is done by crouching, or not at all.

 

[P47R1CK]

Hipfire only (ala Quake, CSS etc) is better for faster paced, twitch gameplay.
Aiming down sights is for tacticool shooters, and realism games (GRAW, CoD, Stalker)

As for what OP is saying, there is a (sort of) solution to his problem.
Crysis let you switch between simple iron sights and iron sights. Simple iron sights was just the screen zooming in, and iron sights was the whole looking down the sights thing.