Nope - auto-aim lessens the sense of satisfaction I get. As far as I'm concerned, if a game requires auto-aim, the developers have ballsed up the mechanics somehow.
Poll: The Auto-Aim feature...
- Thread starter The Maddest March Hare
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that's what I like too.Assassinator said:
I liked that when you release the trigger you go down the sights with, and press it again, it goes onto an enemy, but when they, for example, run, then you still have to aim for them yourself.
I think CoD4 did it really well, too.
I'm a PC gamer, and I turn off auto-aim whenever I can. It's quite obvious (to me, anyway) that the only reason it exists is to compensate for the inadequacy of gamepads in controlling first- or third-person shooters. Or to help noobs, which I like to think I'm not.
I voted that I used it, but fear I may have been confused. Clarify for me here...
Do you mean auto-aim as in locking onto a target, GTA style, or do you mean auto-aim as seen in games such as Halo and RFG, when the crosshair has a small magnetism to targets, so that once you're aiming at them it's easier to stay focused, though in no way removing skill?
Do you mean auto-aim as in locking onto a target, GTA style, or do you mean auto-aim as seen in games such as Halo and RFG, when the crosshair has a small magnetism to targets, so that once you're aiming at them it's easier to stay focused, though in no way removing skill?
what games have YOU been playing? auto-aim only locks on the enemy, not turn your around and aim for you, thats called an aimbotRedPandaMan said:
I used auto-aim in Rainbow Six: Raven Shield on the PC, and I wish I hadn't, made the game far too easy...
I used auto-aim in Sum of All Fears on the PS2, and I'm glad I did, cos if I had to spend any more time on that piece of BS I would have strangled myself... ¬_¬
Not an answer, it's just what I've done...
I used auto-aim in Sum of All Fears on the PS2, and I'm glad I did, cos if I had to spend any more time on that piece of BS I would have strangled myself... ¬_¬
Not an answer, it's just what I've done...
Ugh.
I voted for the second option (I am a PC gamer and I think auto-aim is needed on consoles to compensate for the lack of mouse control.) because it's true.
It's the nature of the stick. It's very much akin to turning to aim with a button, except you have slightly more precision with a stick due to the ability to adjust the speed of your turn.
It's because of this that you can either have great twitchability (high sensitivity) with poor aiming or great aiming (low sensitivity) with poor twitchability. You can't have both, and both are required for good FPS play. The only time auto-aim isn't needed is when you have adjustable sensitivity on the fly... something I don't think any FPS on console has and it's something you have to pay for on a controller.
With a mouse, it's completely different. You point at where you want to aim instead of pointing in the direction of where you want to aim. This means that you can move the mouse a great distance quickly for great twitching while not moving your hand much at all for precision aiming.
For example, my mouse sensitivity is set so high that I can span two 1680X1050 resolutions in two inches of movement, yet, I get consistent headshots in any game I play that has them.
I can't say the same thing with consoles despite playing console FPS more than computer FPS.
I voted for the second option (I am a PC gamer and I think auto-aim is needed on consoles to compensate for the lack of mouse control.) because it's true.
It's the nature of the stick. It's very much akin to turning to aim with a button, except you have slightly more precision with a stick due to the ability to adjust the speed of your turn.
It's because of this that you can either have great twitchability (high sensitivity) with poor aiming or great aiming (low sensitivity) with poor twitchability. You can't have both, and both are required for good FPS play. The only time auto-aim isn't needed is when you have adjustable sensitivity on the fly... something I don't think any FPS on console has and it's something you have to pay for on a controller.
With a mouse, it's completely different. You point at where you want to aim instead of pointing in the direction of where you want to aim. This means that you can move the mouse a great distance quickly for great twitching while not moving your hand much at all for precision aiming.
For example, my mouse sensitivity is set so high that I can span two 1680X1050 resolutions in two inches of movement, yet, I get consistent headshots in any game I play that has them.
I can't say the same thing with consoles despite playing console FPS more than computer FPS.
I think he means in a 3rd person game like the godfather, where you press a button to lock onto a target. He doesn't mean aim assist and in these games it will spin you 180 to face and enemy of necessary.stompythebeast said:
I don't mind it when it works, it just cuts down the agonising time it takes to swivel a joystick, but when it chooses to latch onto the nearest moving object I.E. a cricket in the grass behind me, it's pretty stupid
No it isn't needed, go into the game menu, and if it is a good game it'll allow you to adjust the sensitivity of the controller, then it's just down to skill. The main argument on here is PC gamers think console owners need auto-aim 'cos they're too shit to use analog sticks themselves.Credge said:
ahhh, i see. sorry then. Now that i remember, red faction guerilla also does this. I see why that function can be annoying. But games that do it right only "stick" to the enemy once you have them in your sightslostclause said:
I'm a 360 guy, and I don't like auto aim that much, but I love it in prototype it would be impossible to play with out it
