Poll: Can the lack of iron sight in an FPS be a deal breaker for you?

[bigredlyms]

It's all relative really. It works on COD because it needs to work on COD. So on and so forth. Didn't really work on New Vegas since the gunplay was still fairly broken...but I DID use standard shooting WAY more than I did in F03 so I guess it was a success!

this was pretty much the only thing that i think is worth mentioning on "iron sights making or breaking a game." most games are going to either have or not have iron sights depending on the type of game. but, in FO3 and FO:NV, it was clearly evident for me that if you werent going to rely on the VATS then the iron sights were very very necessary. This is for one reason: ammo cost money and had to be conserved. in fallout 3 (before i broke the game by getting obscene amounts of caps) i found myself running out of ammo very frequently because i didnt have much VATS and the real time shooting was very VERY inaccurate. In NV, when i ran out of VATS i was still in very good shape.

*of course, all of this is moot if playing on a pc, because point and click is wayyyyyy easy without iron sights.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Manshoots? Read a lot of RPS, eh?

And why wouldn't I?

Still trying to shoehorn in 'cars wot go fast' in one of my posts.

Oh, man! If you do, then please let me know. Cars wot go fast may just be my favourite bunch of words in a long time.

Truer words have nought been spoken.

I say manshoot a lot too...

Ot: bloody well no, I prefer faster fps games. Valve style basically.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Clearly, the presence or lack of one non-essential, tertiary feature is enough to keep me from enjoying a shooter.

Because I'm a pretentious, spoiled asshole who can't stand it when shooters don't copy Call of Duty 4.x (the Greatest Game Ever Made, of course).

 

[razelas]

stuff

The claim of "taking more skill" is an entirely arbitrary one. Where's the evidence to back that up? The studies that conclusively prove that claim? What areas are you measuring skill on, etc. etc. etc.

I could easily say a highly-tactical realistic shooter like America's Army or ARMAII requires more skill than any of those games because you need to utilize tight communication and squad tactics or get destroyed. Is it true?

Yes, no, maybe so!Who's to say whether it takes more skill to think tactically, advance as a team and take out targets while suffering a minimum of friendly casualties takes more skill than the twitch-reflexes needed for leaping around like a rocket-launcher wielding crack-bunny In UT2K4?

Okay...

We can assume that the skill we are talking about is aiming weapons in FPS games, as that is the one relevant to the inclusion or exclusion of ironsights. You can't compare two entirely different games like ARMA and UT and then talk about skill in general.

Lets define what we mean by the inclusion of Ironsights vs Non-Ironsights:
-Ironsights: Guns are inaccurate while not aiming down the sights, aiming down the sights slows the character by a variable amount.
-No Ironsights: Guns accuracy is either constant or based on movement.

Using the ironsights model players are less mobile while shooting. Which makes it easier to compensate for your own movement, and easier to compensate for your targets movement).

Using the non-iron sights model players are generally more mobile, or if movement degrades accuracy they must show a little more discipline to not run about while shooting. So either it's harder to compensate for movement, or it's harder to restrain yourself and fire accurately.

How can you talk about movement, as if it were the only related factor to an aiming system, and tactics and communication do not?

You're just cherry-picking ideas to favor your argument.

 

[exampleAccount]

How can you talk about movement, as if it were the only related factor to an aiming system, and tactics and communication do not?

You're just cherry-picking ideas to favor your argument.

How do tactics and communication have anything to do with aiming?

 

[razelas]

How can you talk about movement, as if it were the only related factor to an aiming system, and tactics and communication do not?

You're just cherry-picking ideas to favor your argument.

How do tactics and communication have anything to do with aiming?

Apart from knowing what weapons to use in a specific area? You wouldn't use an AWP in-doors because the zoom factor is too large. Like-wise, you wouldn't use the M-249 in a large open area.

 

[exampleAccount]

How can you talk about movement, as if it were the only related factor to an aiming system, and tactics and communication do not?

You're just cherry-picking ideas to favor your argument.

How do tactics and communication have anything to do with aiming?

Apart from knowing what weapons to use in a specific area? You wouldn't use an AWP in-doors because the zoom factor is too large. Like-wise, you wouldn't use the M-249 in a large open area.

That's still not your aiming skill. Look, I'm not saying "Every game with ironsights is easier than every game without them." I'm saying "With two similar games (IE most of the other mechanics are the same), the one with ironsight aiming will most likely be easier.".

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I think iron sights tend to be more present in military shooters; maybe to enforce realism or professionalism... or something along those lines. Doesn't fuss me either way.

 

[Akiada]

Okay...

We can assume that the skill we are talking about is aiming weapons in FPS games, as that is the one relevant to the inclusion or exclusion of ironsights. You can't compare two entirely different games like ARMA and UT and then talk about skill in general.

Sure I can, because that's what you did. You said outright that oldschool FPS require more skill.

It's only now that you've decided to narrow it down, that's moving goalposts mate.

Lets define what we mean by the inclusion of Ironsights vs Non-Ironsights:
-Ironsights: Guns are inaccurate while not aiming down the sights, aiming down the sights slows the character by a variable amount.
-No Ironsights: Guns accuracy is either constant or based on movement.

Using the ironsights model players are less mobile while shooting. Which makes it easier to compensate for your own movement, and easier to compensate for your targets movement).

Using the non-iron sights model players are generally more mobile, or if movement degrades accuracy they must show a little more discipline to not run about while shooting. So either it's harder to compensate for movement, or it's harder to restrain yourself and fire accurately.

It's only going to be easier to compensate while you've got the sights up. While oldschool FPS design ensures you have near-constant accuracy, the new school design means you have another layer of decision making. Do I sight-in and try for an accurate shot to drop this guy, risking being taken out first, or do I spray and pray for the best?

In an oldschool FPS you both just start firing because you have either nothing or little-to=nothing to worry about mobility wise.

Both styles require their own sort of skill. In oldschool FPS you have to be good at twitch reflex, able to react quickly and hit as much as possible. In the newschool you have to be able to think fast, making a snap decision to sight-in or hip-fire, and then take action.

Neither is particularly easier than the other.

 

[maturin]

Like-wise, you wouldn't use the M-249 in a large open area.

I know I just hopped into this without context, but a large open area is the specific place you're supposed to use an M-249.

Ironsights or not doesn't bloody matter at the point-blank engagement ranges of most FPS.

Even "sniping" range in CoD is a joke. Making bullets magically zoom off in different directions because you aren't looking down the sights isn't any good either.

 

[razelas]

Like-wise, you wouldn't use the M-249 in a large open area.

I know I just hopped into this without context, but a large open area is the specific place you're supposed to use an M-249.

Sure, if you want to lose your head to an AWP/Scout/M4/STG.

 

[maturin]

Like-wise, you wouldn't use the M-249 in a large open area.

I know I just hopped into this without context, but a large open area is the specific place you're supposed to use an M-249.

Sure, if you want to lose your head to an AWP/Scout/M4/STG.

Are we talking about BF2?

Sounds like a silly game. Machineguns are supposed to dominate open spaces. You don't take pot shots at a machinegunner if your holding a carbine.

 

[razelas]

Like-wise, you wouldn't use the M-249 in a large open area.

I know I just hopped into this without context, but a large open area is the specific place you're supposed to use an M-249.

Sure, if you want to lose your head to an AWP/Scout/M4/STG.

Are we talking about BF2?

Sounds like a silly game. Machineguns are supposed to dominate open spaces. You don't take pot shots at a machinegunner if your holding a carbine.

No, this is Counter Strike mate.

 

[maturin]

Like-wise, you wouldn't use the M-249 in a large open area.

I know I just hopped into this without context, but a large open area is the specific place you're supposed to use an M-249.

Sure, if you want to lose your head to an AWP/Scout/M4/STG.

Are we talking about BF2?

Sounds like a silly game. Machineguns are supposed to dominate open spaces. You don't take pot shots at a machinegunner if your holding a carbine.

No, this is Counter Strike mate.

Oh, lol. Carry on then.

 

[Adam Galli]

I do best with irons in multi player but it wouldn't be a deal breaker if they didn't have any.

 

[Favre4ever]

Made an account just to reply to this thread.

I can't stand iron sights in multiplayer games. It slows the game down and dumbs the game down most of the time.

I'm a big fan of the Socom series and they added ADS mechanics to Socom 4, Socom 4 is one of the worst games I've ever played. Socom 1-3 were all hip fire or you had to look through your scope and shoot one shot at a time with heavy recoil. I haven't played a more tactical or skillful game than Socom 2.

I enjoyed Resistance 1 because iron sights were useless in the game and primary way of getting kills was hip fire. The game was faster paced and a blast for me.

I've tried playing games like CoD, Battlefield, and even Socom 4, but I feel like I can reach my peak in aiming rather quickly when using iron sights/ADS. The learning curve is small, easy to pick up, etc.

I want a game where camping isn't the dominant strategy and hip fire is the #1 way to get a kill. Socom 2 was that game for me, but it was plagued by lag and cheaters.

In short, iron sights not being in the game makes me want to try the game out. Games with iron sights bore me and I find them too easy. I want a challenge and it's much harder to hit a fast moving target while you yourself are moving fast.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

I welcome iron sights to any game though a lot of modern shooters are replacing them with laser scopes and acogs,etc.
Personally,I'd have an iron sight battle rifle,something like a sniper with less power,more kick,and a faster rate of fire in semi-automatic form.

 

[Cmwissy]

Quite the opposite m'self - I dislike most iron sights-centric games, I hate feeling like I'm pinned down or forced into a long-ranged role. Maybe it's because of all the runny-stabby-shooty games I played when young (Gungrave, for example) but I love fast paced close-quarters shooting, and any game that intergrates unarmed fighting and gunplay is an instant buy in my book.

I would go on a large rant about how popping out of cover and into ironsights at 50 yards isn't -actually- realistic and how most civilian gun fights are short and close, but I can't be asked.

 

[bbad89]

900 hours on TF2 so far. I don't think it does...