Higby Wants Your Thoughts on Iron Sights for FPS..... - Page 13

Gandhi · 2012-01-11, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by TacKLed

It is good and all that it is a massive fan service but not ironsights in a game this massive is just not acceptable in this day and age, especially for a game of this scale, and the devs know this

I don't agree with this at all. If the rest of the game is done well I don't think a single person who would have bought it is going to look at gameplay footage and say "What no iron sights? Screw that game". Because Planetside already offers something no other FPS does, the massive scale and persistent environment. THAT's why people are going to play it, there's no need to copy features out of other shooters just for the sake of attracting players. Especially if those features don't fit in with the rest of the gameplay.

Anyway. Since this game is big on customization I think the easiest solution is to add various options to control aiming, one being iron sights, and then let players choose the style that works best for them. It should be easy to give them all comparable advantages and disadvantages.

acosmo · 2012-01-11, 08:44 AM

ITT casual fragfesters vs tactical gamers?

Coreldan · 2012-01-11, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by acosmo

ITT casual fragfesters vs tactical gamers?

While a quite radical generalization, but pretty much.

I personally don't value "my kinda games" higher or think that those "fragfest" games are worse. It's been proven that just about the few biggest online shooter names would be these "fragfest". I wouldn't call em casual, cos they are often more so e-sports than many of the "tactical shooters".

The arcade fragfest games just arnt my thing at all, while I personally prefer "tactical shooters" that are quite realistic. I don't mind PS2 being unrealistic or having longer TTK than what I'm used to, after all it's so unique that the other things make up for it.

But I do believe that with a correct kind of implementation, both crowds could probably be satisfied.

EASyEightyEight · 2012-01-11, 09:19 AM

Still trying to figure out why people can only assume ADS = CoD mechanics. If I were in charge:

Crouching/Standing hip-fire would be just as accurate as iron-sights.
On-the-move: hip-fire is less accurate, but akin to PS1's level of inaccuracy. ADS brings the accuracy back to nearly of that of standing, but with reduced speed.

It'd be like this, imagine the target is at a range where he's exactly [---] big (30 meters-ish: )
[--] Crouching = both
[---] Standing = both
[----] Moving =ADS
[------]Moving = Hip

ADS would basically just be a method of walking/crouch walking while on the move. Not exactly beneficial, just the option of accuracy over evasion. However, again this is how I would do things. I felt hip fire in PS1 was already inaccurate enough. I could still hit things up to 30 meters reliably well, plenty of missed shots, but it wasn't like most modern shooters where hip fire is so inaccurate it was like a small child with bones of jello attempting to keep a full-auto rifle steady during sustained fire.

We're just going to have to get used to the fact that the dynamics of the shooter have changed. Planetside 1 was Planetside 1, for gamers playing games in 2003. This is going to be Planetside 2, a game selling itself to the modern shooter fans of 2012, whom coincidentally are exposed primarily to games with ADS.

Obviously, the game play of PS1 few here seem to want to let go of isn't enough to keep people around. Logically, some changes are needed for the success of the second coming of Planetside. Sorry guys, we're being considered, but the game isn't being developed solely for veterans of Planetside 1.

acosmo · 2012-01-11, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

While a quite radical generalization, but pretty much.

yeah my bias came out pretty blatant there. the whole idea around esports is all about making a player into a machine (skill focus), where the whole idea around tactical gaming is making a team into an organism with a machine likeness.

Coreldan · 2012-01-11, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by acosmo

yeah my bias came out pretty blatant there. the whole idea around esports is all about making a player into a machine (skill focus), where the whole idea around tactical gaming is making a team into an organism with a machine likeness.

Yeah, that's what I just about always say: both require skill, just different skills.

Like, in those "arcade" games, it's about good tracking and aiming skills while evasing well. In "tactical" games it's about not getting into the situation where someone gets to aim at you to begin with. When you are getting shot, you made a mistake. When you do get into the engagement, it's about reflexes and twitch aiming, as TTKs are usually lower than in "arcade" games, so not much tracking is required, but reflexes and twitch aim skills still decide the winner. Apart from that there are positional awereness, teamwork and a lot of stuff that requires skill.

I don't like it at all when "arcade" people say it requires less skills, but then again I don't agree when people say that these "tactical" games require more skill either. Both have a lot of skill involved, they are just so different type of games that they require different skills.

acosmo · 2012-01-11, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I don't like it at all when "arcade" people say it requires less skills, but then again I don't agree when people say that these "tactical" games require more skill either. Both have a lot of skill involved, they are just so different type of games that they require different skills.

which leads us to ask, which type of gameplay is more satisfying? the answer being whichever is the person's preference. personally i think a mix of the two is the best way to handle it. when the leetskills crowd wins the battle but the operator crowd wins the war, that is when there is proper balance for planetside

Arrow · 2012-01-11, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Yeah, that's what I just about always say: both require skill, just different skills.

Like, in those "arcade" games, it's about good tracking and aiming skills while evasing well. In "tactical" games it's about not getting into the situation where someone gets to aim at you to begin with. When you are getting shot, you made a mistake. When you do get into the engagement, it's about reflexes and twitch aiming, as TTKs are usually lower than in "arcade" games, so not much tracking is required, but reflexes and twitch aim skills still decide the winner. Apart from that there are positional awereness, teamwork and a lot of stuff that requires skill.

I don't like it at all when "arcade" people say it requires less skills, but then again I don't agree when people say that these "tactical" games require more skill either. Both have a lot of skill involved, they are just so different type of games that they require different skills.

To say that those games are more tactical is very incorrect. Arcade games aren't just zergin around dodging bullets. Your talking about a very game that you used to play called planetside that was arcadey and used all the latter. Teamwork, awareness, and a lot of stuff that required skill. TRx wasn't what it was and didn't catch a lot of shit because we played the game averagely.

On another note, quake/UT/RTCW/Planetside! is very twitch and very fast. Even more so but since its an arcade game if you don't keep up the consistency then you will allow the player to rocket jump/surge away and get the upper hand or just flat out own you.

What you are describing between the difference of these shooters is really on the tactic of upper handedness. Realistic low TTK games are twitch in the sense of I see you first so your dead which will not work in a MMO of this scale.

Coreldan · 2012-01-11, 02:34 PM

Planetside wasnt actually all THAT arcade'ish if you ask me, at least in comparison to some of the real arcade games in terms of speed, something like Quake comes to mind.

I see Planetside somewhere in between. It's not arcade, but it wasnt exactly a tactical shooter (didnt really even exist back in 2003

), nor would I want it (or planetside 2) to be.

I was only really talking from the point of "generic online FPS" point of view. I don't play arcade online shooters at all, I've never enjoyed them, yet my main games are pretty much APB and Planetside, which arnt anywhere near the "Battlefield 3"-mold. They are just unique enough, the above was sorta just referring to your "usual online shooters". Sorry if I came out wrong.

Arrow · 2012-01-11, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Planetside wasnt actually all THAT arcade'ish if you ask me, at least in comparison to some of the real arcade games in terms of speed, something like Quake comes to mind.

I see Planetside somewhere in between. It's not arcade, but it wasnt exactly a tactical shooter (didnt really even exist back in 2003

), nor would I want it (or planetside 2) to be.

I was only really talking from the point of "generic online FPS" point of view. I don't play arcade online shooters at all, I've never enjoyed them, yet my main games are pretty much APB and Planetside, which arnt anywhere near the "Battlefield 3"-mold. They are just unique enough, the above was sorta just referring to your "usual online shooters". Sorry if I came out wrong.

Have you not played ghost recon!?!?

Coreldan · 2012-01-11, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Arrow

Have you not played ghost recon!?!?

Actually not. I havn't touched Tom Clancy games since the original Rainbow 6 & Rogue Spear and Sum of All Fears.

Well, yes, those are probably the first tactical shooters right there already. But the fact they had no ADS is sorta teh reason why I didnt consider them in this discussion.

Arrow · 2012-01-11, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Actually not. I havn't touched Tom Clancy games since the original Rainbow 6 & Rogue Spear and Sum of All Fears.

Well, yes, those are probably the first tactical shooters right there already. But the fact they had no ADS is sorta teh reason why I didnt consider them in this discussion.

Ah yes and those are all games that implement them now that are prime examples of games going to complete shit. Would you not agree?

Coreldan · 2012-01-11, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Arrow

Ah yes and those are all games that implement them now that are prime examples of games going to complete shit. Would you not agree?

Not quite sure if I'm following you, but either way I do not think those games were better than modern shooters nowadays. Back in the day I didn't mind the lack of ADS cos no game had it at the time, nowadays I wouldnt go back to it, though.

Arrow · 2012-01-11, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Not quite sure if I'm following you, but either way I do not think those games were better than modern shooters nowadays. Back in the day I didn't mind the lack of ADS cos no game had it at the time, nowadays I wouldnt go back to it, though.

In terms of gameplay I think a lot of those games were much more phenomenal then a lot of modern shooters. A lot of modern shooters in my eyes fail to live up, but not all.

Coreldan · 2012-01-11, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Arrow

In terms of gameplay I think a lot of those games were much more phenomenal then a lot of modern shooters. A lot of modern shooters in my eyes fail to live up, but not all.

I'd say you just have too strong nostalgy glasses.

The new games may not live up or just be bad, but go pick up one of those old ass games and you'll have the nostalgy wear off pretty fast, I'd say.

Or then not, you might just genuinely think they are overall better than new games, but I could never in my right mind claim that.

BF3 has the worst spawn system in any game I've ever played, I give those old Clancy games that much, I never had to curse bad spawns there, something I do every second spawn in BF3 now lol.