Gun Sights Are Overrated.

[godofallu]

ehh, its getting old really fast, i love shooters where its all up to jagging back n forth and how smooth you are with the aimer, rather than "ZOMG IM GOING TO CROUCH SNEAK AROUND THIS CORNER DOWN MY SIGHTZ! THAT GUY IS RUNNING HE WONT BE ABLE TO GET ME!"

all in all, i hate realistic shooters for the most part, thats why i dont like "Looking down the sights", like the OP said it gets in the way and is just annoying for the most part.

Did you change sides mid comment? You first say you love shooters that involve jogging around and being smooth with the sights (COD or Battlefield pop up in my head here). Then you say that you hate games where you always have to crouch and move slow in order to hit stuff (Counterstrike pops up in my head here).

Then you say you dislike weapon sights. The only games that force you to stop and crouch before shooting are games like counter strike that don't have weapon sights. The only games where you have to be good at aiming are ones that force you to literally aim in...

 

[soniceric]

I play ARMA 2 with the Advanced Combat Environment mod. I'd like to see you play that without using ironsights.

I play ARMA with the ACE mod and i rarely use my iron sights the zoom works way better.

 

[Enderrr]

Bodycount doesn't look bad because it doesn't let you use Iron sights, it looks bad because the visuals are shoddy, the framerate looks terrible and the game as a whole looks generic and flavourless. Black was also not the 'king' of anything.

 

[Korten12]

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.

your voice is amazing! easy to listen to!

 

[TheSentinel]

Okay, a couple things here-

a. What is this ADS everyone is talking about?

b. You are being hypocritical in your OP. You say the Youtube commenters are retarded for saying that Bodycount is bad because you cannot aim down the iron sights. Then, in the next paragraph, you plead for game developers to not use iron sights, as if their inclusion makes the game worse. That is pretty much the same thing they are doing in the Youtube comments.

That is all.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I disagree with you all, if you're using the sights to aim, you're already two thirds of a second behind the guy who's learned to shoot from the hip.

All methods of aiming like that are useless once you realise the run'n'gun will nail you every time because you stopped to aim, whilst he simply aimed, moved and fired all at the same time.

 

[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.

your voice is amazing! easy to listen to!

Hey, thanks!

I disagree with you all, if you're using the sights to aim, you're already two thirds of a second behind the guy who's learned to shoot from the hip.

All methods of aiming like that are useless once you realise the run'n'gun will nail you every time because you stopped to aim, whilst he simply aimed, moved and fired all at the same time.

That might work if you run around a corner and run into each other. I use hip fire in that situation.
But at range in a game where iron-sights are available? Hip fire won't do you any good.
Iron sights will win.

 

[TheSentinel]

I disagree with you all, if you're using the sights to aim, you're already two thirds of a second behind the guy who's learned to shoot from the hip.

All methods of aiming like that are useless once you realise the run'n'gun will nail you every time because you stopped to aim, whilst he simply aimed, moved and fired all at the same time.

That, or he missed every shot because he had no stability, firing wildly in all directions, because he has no concept of recoil.

 

[maturin]

I play ARMA 2 with the Advanced Combat Environment mod. I'd like to see you play that without using ironsights.

I play ARMA with the ACE mod and i rarely use my iron sights the zoom works way better.

Are you talking about a scope? Because the vanilla crosshair in that game is just plain cheating.

 

[PissOffRoth]

Aiming down the sights gives you a re-assurance that your weapon is right over the target, meaning your shot is going to go exactly where you shoot. It's a nice little security blanket a lot of FPS shooters want to have with them nowadays because they know that they can easily and efficiently put down threats presented to them.

Except with guns like the FAL in games like MW2, where the iron sight isn't an accurate representation of where your bullet is actually going to go. Lawl @ IW's uber design skills.

 

[fix-the-spade]

That might work if you run around a corner and run into each other. I use hip fire in that situation.
But at range in a game where iron-sights are available? Hip fire won't do you any good.
Iron sights will win.

Are you sure?

In every Battlefield game so far, using the iron sights makes your gun less accurate (LMGs excepted). Your first bullet is slightly more accurate but bullet spread increases significantly in the iron sights, so you are less likely to make consistent hits and kill your target. LMGs go the opposite way, bullet spread drops a lot in the sights and in BC2 gets less the longer you fire.

Most games change no stats when you go to sights, so it's irrelevant next to your ability to aim and moderate quickly.
The guy who can do that with one less button press will be on the trigger first, so he stands a better chance.

 

[Daverson]

A lot of devs adding sights just because everyone else is doing it. Shooting from the shoulder or hip, like you'd see in, say, Quake 2, is a lot more feasible in the sort of environments, and with the sort of weapons, you see in video games these days. Probably also a lot of dev's think EOTech style sights look "kewl", I personally prefer closed red dots, but I digress...

Not that sights should be neglected completely, because there are games where sights work pretty well (I think Red Orchestra and the ArmA series have already been mentioned, STALKER and Killing Floor are good examples too), but in my experience, a lot of games will add sights, without the player being given a way to use them as they should be used.

For example, Borderlands has sights for assault rifles, but there's no option to fire the rifle in semi-automatic mode, so using the sorts of tactics where sights actually be useful are kinda pointless.

My opinion: Go with the Unreal or Half-Life approach. Add an optional sight to a weapon if it needs one. (ie, sniper rifles) Otherwise, with fully-automatic weapons and enough ammo to level most small towns, sights are just redundant.

 

[superbatranger]

I actually prefer my guns in an FPS to have iron sights. When I'm aiming at someone through the sights, I know the bullet will hit, as opposed to shooting from the hip.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

ehh, its getting old really fast, i love shooters where its all up to jagging back n forth and how smooth you are with the aimer, rather than "ZOMG IM GOING TO CROUCH SNEAK AROUND THIS CORNER DOWN MY SIGHTZ! THAT GUY IS RUNNING HE WONT BE ABLE TO GET ME!"

all in all, i hate realistic shooters for the most part, thats why i dont like "Looking down the sights", like the OP said it gets in the way and is just annoying for the most part.

Did you change sides mid comment? You first say you love shooters that involve jogging around and being smooth with the sights (COD or Battlefield pop up in my head here). Then you say that you hate games where you always have to crouch and move slow in order to hit stuff (Counterstrike pops up in my head here).

Then you say you dislike weapon sights. The only games that force you to stop and crouch before shooting are games like counter strike that don't have weapon sights. The only games where you have to be good at aiming are ones that force you to literally aim in...

dont want to sound like a dick, but i did say "jagging back n forth and how smooth you are with the AIMER" , AIMER =/= sights, aimer is your dot/point that will be shot at without having to use any stupid "zoom in" or "steady" button, i prefer games that dont require you to zoom in at all with sights, unless you truly are using the scope portion of it, such as Halo with the BR (just using one common example as to what i mean there)

and cod and battlefield are not what i meant by smooth, you have to use sights constantly to get decent kills in those games (unless your a shotgunner, then you just pump away and it hits the whole screen) , and i dont really play much counterstrike as i dont like that game but from what i remember it still uses the same aiming as cod and bf just without a sight/scope

 

[Valdsator]

Agh, I'm so tired of gun sights being in every freaking FPS coming out. I want some fast paced, hip gunplay, action. :[

 

[godofallu]

That might work if you run around a corner and run into each other. I use hip fire in that situation.
But at range in a game where iron-sights are available? Hip fire won't do you any good.
Iron sights will win.

Are you sure?

In every Battlefield game so far, using the iron sights makes your gun less accurate (LMGs excepted). Your first bullet is slightly more accurate but bullet spread increases significantly in the iron sights, so you are less likely to make consistent hits and kill your target. LMGs go the opposite way, bullet spread drops a lot in the sights and in BC2 gets less the longer you fire.

Most games change no stats when you go to sights, so it's irrelevant next to your ability to aim and moderate quickly.
The guy who can do that with one less button press will be on the trigger first, so he stands a better chance.

Your flat out wrong, almost every FPS game that has ADS gives accuracy bonuses to people that aim. Most give additional bonuses to people that crouch or go prone too.

PS: If you really are so good at using crosshairs to aim (is anyone not good at that?) and if you really believe that ADS has no effect on accuracy in games (how can you even think that?) then why don't you just not use ADS ever? According to you, you would want games to include ADS so that you would have a hidden advantage over the masses who take the time to aim.

 

[Notere]

Every instance of "realism" in the discussion here basically goes flying out the window when talking about Black. Sorry, but IW goes for Hollywood? I don't think so. No. Not like Black did. Black went "John Woo" Hollywood with everything and I mean EVERYTHING. It emphasized honest-to-god weapon ogling and upped magazine sizes so you would not only have an excuse to let full-auto fire rip on anything and everything in sight, it became a necessity at times. You COULD single-shot the crap out of everything, but it was hard and WHO THE HELL CARES LOOK AT THAT SHIT BLOW UP. EVERYTHING WAS MADE OF EXPLODIUM.

It had a health meter and health kits. Anyone remember those? Health kits? Restore your health instead of having it regenerate?

It's simple. You are a dude. Here are some guns. You need to get to point B, and in harder difficulties, grab or break some extra stuff on the way to point B. There are also some dudes trying to kill you between points A and B. Kill they ass.

It had iron sights when it becomes relevant to the function of the weapon (RPG, sniper rifle) and not a second sooner. It was mindless. It was unrealistic. Goddamn but it was fun. Black, and by extension, Bodycount, are not helped by iron sights. It's entirely missing the point.

Also: Black was a single player game, as I recall. So go stuff your multiplayer balance. It's not wanted here.