#1 Edited by Spoonman671 (4633 posts) -

Is there an actual reason for this, or is it just so I can constantly be aiming too low in Destiny until I switch to a different game where I end up aiming too high? I should note, I've never played a Halo game, so maybe this is just a Bungie thing that everybody was expecting, but it still seems extremely weird and unnecessary to me.

#2 Edited by ThatOneDudeNick (581 posts) -

I haven't noticed it. If i see it now after reading this... *shakes fist*

#3 Edited by believer258 (11898 posts) -

It wasn't a Halo thing. I didn't notice it in Unfinished, but I'll go look at that again.

EDIT: I just watched some of the Unfinished and the first thing I thought was "shit fuck, he was right, the reticle is just below the halfway down the screen line."

#4 Posted by GnomeonFire (741 posts) -

Oh wow, that's weird; I wonder if there's a good reason for it. Maybe they figured something out about shooters that nobody else knows.

#5 Edited by Garfield518 (404 posts) -

@believer258 said:

It wasn't a Halo thing. I didn't notice it in Unfinished, but I'll go look at that again.

EDIT: I just watched some of the Unfinished and the first thing I thought was "shit fuck, he was right, the reticle is just below the halfway down the screen line."

It's definitely a Halo/Bungie thing - every Halo had the reticule below the centre of the screen.

#6 Posted by Ares42 (2662 posts) -

Checking out the unfinished video it looks like they centered it based on the "play area", as in they cut off the top part that is UI. If you consider the bottom of the health bar the top of the screen it sorta looks centered.

#7 Edited by xyzygy (9982 posts) -

@garfield518 said:

@believer258 said:

It wasn't a Halo thing. I didn't notice it in Unfinished, but I'll go look at that again.

EDIT: I just watched some of the Unfinished and the first thing I thought was "shit fuck, he was right, the reticle is just below the halfway down the screen line."

It's definitely a Halo/Bungie thing - every Halo had the reticule below the centre of the screen.

I actually think Halo 3 was the first one to do that. I only say that because I remember being very put off by it at first. 343 has since continued it in Halo 4.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like it was Halo 2.

#8 Posted by believer258 (11898 posts) -

@believer258 said:

It wasn't a Halo thing. I didn't notice it in Unfinished, but I'll go look at that again.

EDIT: I just watched some of the Unfinished and the first thing I thought was "shit fuck, he was right, the reticle is just below the halfway down the screen line."

It's definitely a Halo/Bungie thing - every Halo had the reticule below the centre of the screen.

Damn it, now I've gotta go check the Halo games too. I really don't remember it in those games, though.

#9 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2769 posts) -

...wow, I guess all you folks that put a bit of clear tape with a dot in the middle of you screen for shooters will have to move that dot...such a shame.

#10 Posted by Flacracker (1675 posts) -

Bungie have been doing that for a long time. They probably do it to compensate for that fact that pretty much everyone that plays any FPS will put the reticle on the ground. You have to train yourself not to do it. So by putting the reticle lower it allows you to see up more.

#11 Posted by Spoonman671 (4633 posts) -

As somebody who generally aims by feel, and often turns the reticule off when given the option, this fucks me up a little bit. It just seems like such a purposeless thing to change about shooter conventions. The only argument I can see in favor of it would be that it could potentially allow for the weapon model to sit lower on screen, and therefore take up less space, enhancing visibility. I don't think it's worth making the game feel so unnatural, but it seems that I'm just about the only person who even notices it, so maybe I'm wrong.

#12 Posted by AngriGhandi (778 posts) -

Here's the most logical answer I could immediately find, from a moderator on the 343 industries forum (which is not Bungie, but is clearly working with their ideas):

RedStarRocket91:

There's a theory, which is very popular with game designers, that most players don't look up very often. This increases their chances of getting killed from above as they're less likely to spot enemies.

Lowering the reticule increases the amount of space available for vision above the player's head, making it more likely that players will spot targets higher up. You don't normally need to see what's on the ground in front of you as most enemies will be at head height or just below, so you'll see them anyway.

When you add to that the fact that Halo (and Destiny) has so many more tall, vertical vistas and architecture than most video games, encouraging people to look slightly higher makes a lot of sense.

#13 Posted by believer258 (11898 posts) -

@garfield518 said:

@believer258 said:

It wasn't a Halo thing. I didn't notice it in Unfinished, but I'll go look at that again.

EDIT: I just watched some of the Unfinished and the first thing I thought was "shit fuck, he was right, the reticle is just below the halfway down the screen line."

It's definitely a Halo/Bungie thing - every Halo had the reticule below the centre of the screen.

Damn it, now I've gotta go check the Halo games too. I really don't remember it in those games, though.

Yep, you were right garfield, Reach's reticule is lower than most games. I've never noticed this.

As somebody who generally aims by feel, and often turns the reticule off when given the option, this fucks me up a little bit. It just seems like such a purposeless thing to change about shooter conventions. The only argument I can see in favor of it would be that it could potentially allow for the weapon model to sit lower on screen, and therefore take up less space, enhancing visibility. I don't think it's worth making the game feel so unnatural, but it seems that I'm just about the only person who even notices it, so maybe I'm wrong.

But now that I have noticed, I can see that they did it to show you more of the upper parts of the screen. Its purpose seems to be to show you what's above your vision as well as make sure you see those gorgeous Bungie skyboxes. I wouldn't say that it's "purposeless".

Anyway, if most people didn't notice it then I'd say that it probably isn't "unnatural".

#14 Posted by Spoonman671 (4633 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@garfield518 said:

@believer258 said:

It wasn't a Halo thing. I didn't notice it in Unfinished, but I'll go look at that again.

EDIT: I just watched some of the Unfinished and the first thing I thought was "shit fuck, he was right, the reticle is just below the halfway down the screen line."

It's definitely a Halo/Bungie thing - every Halo had the reticule below the centre of the screen.

Damn it, now I've gotta go check the Halo games too. I really don't remember it in those games, though.

Yep, you were right garfield, Reach's reticule is lower than most games. I've never noticed this.

@spoonman671 said:

As somebody who generally aims by feel, and often turns the reticule off when given the option, this fucks me up a little bit. It just seems like such a purposeless thing to change about shooter conventions. The only argument I can see in favor of it would be that it could potentially allow for the weapon model to sit lower on screen, and therefore take up less space, enhancing visibility. I don't think it's worth making the game feel so unnatural, but it seems that I'm just about the only person who even notices it, so maybe I'm wrong.

But now that I have noticed, I can see that they did it to show you more of the upper parts of the screen. Its purpose seems to be to show you what's above your vision as well as make sure you see those gorgeous Bungie skyboxes. I wouldn't say that it's "purposeless".

Anyway, if most people didn't notice it then I'd say that it probably isn't "unnatural".

Yeah, but can't I just look up? I've managed to figure that out in every other FPS I've ever played. It's seems like they're trying to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist. It feels like player coddling. Like we've both said, I'm the only person that this bothers apparently.

#15 Posted by HatKing (5944 posts) -

I didn't notice it in Halo games until I was replaying Reach one day, last year I think. And that was probably because I was just coming off of a Borderlands game or something. All in all, I'd say I generally prefer the way that Bungie/Halo games control and move more than most FPS games, so, maybe it's doing something that I don't notice.

#16 Posted by SgtSphynx (1385 posts) -

@angrighandi: I'd go so far as to say people in general, not just video game players, don't look up. I saw this quite a bit during a workup for deployment where almost everyone either looked straight ahead or towards the ground when clearing a room. Walk around outside, and a good portion of people will be looking down at their phones or slightly towards the pavement.

#17 Posted by believer258 (11898 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@believer258 said:

@garfield518 said:

@believer258 said:

It wasn't a Halo thing. I didn't notice it in Unfinished, but I'll go look at that again.

EDIT: I just watched some of the Unfinished and the first thing I thought was "shit fuck, he was right, the reticle is just below the halfway down the screen line."

It's definitely a Halo/Bungie thing - every Halo had the reticule below the centre of the screen.

Damn it, now I've gotta go check the Halo games too. I really don't remember it in those games, though.

Yep, you were right garfield, Reach's reticule is lower than most games. I've never noticed this.

@spoonman671 said:

As somebody who generally aims by feel, and often turns the reticule off when given the option, this fucks me up a little bit. It just seems like such a purposeless thing to change about shooter conventions. The only argument I can see in favor of it would be that it could potentially allow for the weapon model to sit lower on screen, and therefore take up less space, enhancing visibility. I don't think it's worth making the game feel so unnatural, but it seems that I'm just about the only person who even notices it, so maybe I'm wrong.

But now that I have noticed, I can see that they did it to show you more of the upper parts of the screen. Its purpose seems to be to show you what's above your vision as well as make sure you see those gorgeous Bungie skyboxes. I wouldn't say that it's "purposeless".

Anyway, if most people didn't notice it then I'd say that it probably isn't "unnatural".

Yeah, but can't I just look up? I've managed to figure that out in every other FPS I've ever played. It's seems like they're trying to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist. It feels like player coddling. Like we've both said, I'm the only person that this bothers apparently.

It is kind of a small thing, and I can see why it bothers you, but after thinking about I'd say that it's a fine design decision.

You'll probably get used to it. Look on the bright side - at least if you don't get used to it in the Alpha, you won't waste $60 only to come home and find out that the game really bothers you.

#19 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

I noticed it the first time I played Halo 2 and I hated it ever since.

It was also in Goldeneye Rogue Agent

#20 Posted by Tortoise (187 posts) -

This is an interesting question. It seems like something a designer wouldn't even think of changing - I don't think I would have.

#21 Posted by tourgen (4495 posts) -

Bungie have been doing that for a long time. They probably do it to compensate for that fact that pretty much everyone that plays any FPS will put the reticle on the ground. You have to train yourself not to do it. So by putting the reticle lower it allows you to see up more.

totally, I think you hit on the reason. I've noticed my view drifting down in most FPS games due to where I need to be putting the crosshairs. Putting it low on the view allows you to "keep your head up" and it feels much better.

#22 Edited by Itwastuesday (963 posts) -

Bungie have been doing that for a long time. They probably do it to compensate for that fact that pretty much everyone that plays any FPS will put the reticle on the ground. You have to train yourself not to do it. So by putting the reticle lower it allows you to see up more.

I also think it's the reason! I realized this a couple times in Bioshock Infinite, or other FPS games with really nice looking stuff in the sky. You miss it most of the time you're concentrating on the game, you just have your cursor trained on the ground.

#23 Posted by RioStarwind (544 posts) -

Hm I never noticed this in any game that had it. I guess I'm so used to adapting to whatever viewpoint a game has I don't really pay attention to it.

#24 Posted by ajamafalous (11992 posts) -

You guys run around with the reticle pointed at the ground instead of at head-level of where an enemy will be?

I'm with Spoonman, this is something that would annoy the shit out of me, to the point where it might even hinder my enjoyment of the game. I understand the reasoning for the 'fix,' but it seems like they're trying to fix something that isn't broken. I don't have a PS4, so moot point, I guess.

Online
#25 Posted by jkz (4025 posts) -

Okay, I don't really care overmuch about this, because I find I adjust pretty quickly....but do you guys seriously tend to aim towards the ground / the enemy's feet when you play an FPS?

Maybe it's just years of Counterstrike but I ALWAYS keep my crosshair at about neck/chin level when I'm walking around / turning corners in an FPS. The less you have to move your crosshair for a headshot, the better...right?

Not that it really matters unless you're playing a more competitive shooter, but the idea of walking around with your view centered on the ground seems REALLY weird to me. If that's the case though, I guess I can see the impetus for lowering the crosshair a bit. I'd never heard anyone say that they do that before, so I've always found the crosshair placement in Halo and such an odd choice, although again, one adjusts pretty quickly. Makes more sense now, though.

#26 Posted by pinner458 (771 posts) -

Maybe they're trying to go for realism since people don't actually hold guns right in front of their eye line unless they're ATS? ie they hold them just above their hips...