Iron sight - game-changing or gimmicky?

aproxymate

aproxymate

Adept
I am pretty much sure most people here would have played the classic multiplayer game counter-strike (ver 1.6 being most popular) at some point in time. Apart from it being able to run smoothly even on modest systems (like the one's in college labs and workplaces
<
), it is also has fast-paced game-play and makes it easy for noobs to jump in and enjoy. Valve's more recent multiplayer, l4d 2, builds upon the same principles as cs and adds zombies to the experience. One thing common between the two is the absence of iron-sight except the scope in sniper rifles.

So the question is whether iron sight makes a game more enjoyable/realistic? I have seen some streams of pro MW3/BF3 players and they rarely seems to use it (specially in MW3). I personally feel that iron sight tends to slow down the game play and also encourages camping. What are your thoughts?

NOTE: I am by no means a good online player and am unaware of many aspects of online play. The above are my observations as a everyday gamer. Thank you!
 
COD is a noob game where you don't really have to use the iron sights, just aim and shoot. And as for the BAttlefield series, if you don't use Iron sights, you'll get pawned very very bad.

I personally like iron sights, makes the game more realistic (And i've played CSS for over 2000 hours).
 
Iron sights have the advantage of being more accurate especially for long ranged kills and yes it makes the game slow because you walk slowly when looking down the sights .

Apart from that i have Some more points i would like to add -

The huge success of CS that too the 1.6 version is that the simplicity of the game and the equality . If we compare CS 1.6 to the latest games and let's look it with a newbie point of view .

in CS we get access to all the weapons regardless of the no of hours you put in the game . also there is nothing much to fiddle with , you get the standard m4A1 & the desert eagle , No lying down on the ground ,no health regeneration , no perks nothing , Just pure skill . Either you hit a headshot or the other player hit a headshot .

coming back to the latest games lets take COD for example you have a wide range of weapons to choose but these will be available when you put quite a lot of effort in the game . Newbies will be pwned . Respawn , Killed , Respawn ,killed ,respawn ,killed after some time it becomes frustrating. with such wide variety of weapons there is never a balance of power between players .

although in CS there are all kinds of weapons we all know the standard T & CT weapons . which are balanced . Also the game modes make a difference . there are many mods available for CS the standard is Search & Destroy Style(Speaking in COD terms) which makes CS universally equal . In COD some are good at Deathmatch , Some at Search & Destroy....etc .

Disclaimer
<
: The above points are all IMO .
 
Iron sights just involve a basic trade-off,you trade accuracy for maneuverability and visibilty(fov).It definitely makes the games more realistic because soldiers in real life do the same thing.

It only makes sense to use it when developers ensure that hip shooting the guns actually makes it hard to hit the target accurately otherwise people just won't use it.Even if there's no crosshair some people will go to the extent of drawing a dot/crosshair on the center of their screen so that they can hip shoot.
 
challapradyumna said:
Iron sights have the advantage of being more accurate especially for long ranged kills and yes it makes the game slow because you walk slowly when looking down the sights .Apart from that i have Some more points i would like to add - The huge success of CS that too the 1.6 version is that the simplicity of the game and the equality . If we compare CS 1.6 to the latest games and let's look it with a newbie point of view . in CS we get access to all the weapons regardless of the no of hours you put in the game . also there is nothing much to fiddle with , you get the standard m4A1 & the desert eagle , No lying down on the ground ,no health regeneration , no perks nothing , Just pure skill . Either you hit a headshot or the other player hit a headshot . coming back to the latest games lets take COD for example you have a wide range of weapons to choose but these will be available when you put quite a lot of effort in the game . Newbies will be pwned . Respawn , Killed , Respawn ,killed ,respawn ,killed after some time it becomes frustrating. with such wide variety of weapons there is never a balance of power between players . although in CS there are all kinds of weapons we all know the standard T & CT weapons . which are balanced . Also the game modes make a difference . Although there are many mods available for CS the standard is Search & Destroy Style(Speaking in COD terms) which makes CS universally equal . In COD some are good at Deathmatch , Some at Search & Destroy....etc . Disclaimer
<
: The above points are all IMO .
Click to expand...

Dude format your post..No one's ever gonna be able to read a lump of text like that..
<


On topic:

ADS or ironsight brings in realism in handling weapons in games, its neither a gamechanging thing nor a gimmick..

Although that doesnt mean all FPS games should incorporate this.Some games do well even without iron sight(CS, Halo).
 
Depends on which game you are playing Sire,

If you are playing realistic MultiPlayer simulators like ARMA and Operation Flashpoint OR Red Orchestra series you'll notice that you need to look down the sights to get an enemy at any range ~medium to long [because all these games take ballistics into accout too, bullet drop et al].

But for the most popular MP games like CoD and Battlefield, due to a crosshair being present most players do not bother going down the line [as aptly put in close quarter fights it slows the reaction time], the major reason people find CoD and Battlefield and Counter-Strike accesible is that it is easy [campaign as well as MP] and fun to play.

Die hard players of Operation Flaspoint and similar military simulators [Red Orcestra, ARMA] will generally agree CoD and Battlefield players are the easiest to pwn due to the fact that they are so used to a run and gun play style opposed to realistic situations that they generally end up running into the teeth of enemy fire and consequently being felled easily.
I personally prefer crosshairs [after playing so much S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Operation Flashpoint] I am a damp squib when it comes to Conter Strike.

These are my personal views, Cheers!!
 
definitely the scopes make the game realistic. in close quarters one can manage without aiming down the sight by hip firing but there is bullet drop and insane bullet spread in battlefield.. so hip firing at anyone more than a few feet away, you will be just emptying the magazine uselessly.

@ALPHA17

combat simulators like ARMA types cannot be compared to mainstream titles. but ballistics is there in battlefield (bullet drop, spread, muzzle/suppressor effect, rifling, scope sway due to breathing and the likes... maybe not temp, wind speed etc as they are too realistic)... all guns, their attachments and vehicle projectiles are affected by it.

bordering on OT, though I marvel at the scale/variety of ARMA I would be bored pretty easily. there is not much fun in too much realism esp. for scale/situation. I spent several hours just trying to take-off and land in ms flight simulator, several hours just getting the basics and controls in hawx etc but battlefield jets are noway that realistic... more arcady and fun.

p.s. to the OP, I'm interested in seeing those videos where a BF pro that you saw was not using the scope ?
<


p.p.s. as I dont quote anyone or other source, it's pretty damn obvious that all the opinions in this post are my own based on my experience or the lack of it
<


_
 
Back
Top