#1 Posted by Demmetje (201 posts) -

A lot of fps games from the early 90's posit the gun in the middle of the screen.

Which game was first in putting the gun at the right side of the screen?

#2 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

Rise of the Triad?

#3 Posted by Bollard (5598 posts) -

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

#4 Posted by Demmetje (201 posts) -

@SomeDeliCook: Didn't that game only have it while dual wielding?

#5 Posted by PsychoPenguin (176 posts) -

@Chavtheworld: Because that's how a gun appears when you close one eye and look through the sights. You're not just bringing the gun closer to your face.

#6 Edited by believer258 (11949 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games. Remember Doom? 90 miles per hour? No reloads? Tons of enemies? Gun in the center of the screen? And none of the levels resembled anything?

Anyway, I'm going to hazard a guess at Quake 2?

EDIT: Before you let your fingers type something along the lines of "BUT ARMA", I've already responded to that. Read it before quoting me again.

#7 Posted by SomeJerk (3262 posts) -

1995, Star Wars Dark Forces.

#8 Posted by Bollard (5598 posts) -

@PsychoPenguin said:

@Chavtheworld: Because that's how a gun appears when you close one eye and look through the sights. You're not just bringing the gun closer to your face.

You're not meant to close one eye when you're looking down sights. Also, it still doesn't account for the gun being to the side of your head.

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

Aye, I'm just wondering because no-one has ever done it, you can't necessarily say it would be bad. It could be awesome if it was implemented right, but who knows?

#9 Posted by Skanker (254 posts) -

@Demmetje: Does it matter? It was a gun (two guns! that makes it cooler by default) and they were on not only one side of the screen but on both sides. The remake better not put both of those pistols in the middle of the screen, grr.

#10 Posted by mordukai (7153 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

The same way that you can ask "What's up with FPS and regenerating health? No where near as in real life" I know it's a vedio game and all but at least find a half assed excuse to that. I don't know, maybe the main character has some sort of experimental nano machine that excelerate his healing rate.

#11 Posted by beeftothetaco (425 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Depends who you ask.

#12 Posted by ShaggE (6473 posts) -

CyClones KIND of did, since the gun sprite pointed where you aimed. It was still in the middle of the screen, but at least you got the side view.

I thought for sure there would be a real, concrete example before ROTT, but I'm drawing a blank.

Online
#13 Posted by Bollard (5598 posts) -

@mordukai said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

The same way that you can ask "What's up with FPS and regenerating health? No where near as in real life" I know it's a vedio game and all but at least find a half assed excuse to that. I don't know, maybe the main character has some sort of experimental nano machine that excelerate his healing rate.

You missed my point:

@Chavtheworld said:

Aye, I'm just wondering because no-one has ever done it, you can't necessarily say it would be bad. It could be awesome if it was implemented right, but who knows?

#14 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games. Remember Doom? 90 miles per hour? No reloads? Tons of enemies? Gun in the center of the screen? And none of the levels resembled anything?

Anyway, I'm going to hazard a guess at Quake 2?

None of those are fun, and no, realism doesn't suck the fun out of FPS games. Plenty of people have a blast playing games like ArmA 2 and Rainbow Six Rogue Spear.

#15 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Hmm, now that I think about it, yeah, good point. Now I really want to see a realistic take on this very specific thing! Maybe Battlefield 4...?

#16 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games.

The original Ghost Recon on Xbox is still the pinnacle of online multiplayer for me. Having to line up targets with binoculars with zero auto-aim? Hell yeah.

#17 Posted by Nightriff (5096 posts) -

Goldeneye 007? I wasn't into the PC then so that is my guess. I'm actually surprised that Goldeneye had the gun on the side and not in the middle.

#18 Posted by BurningStickMan (206 posts) -

@SomeJerk said:

1995, Star Wars Dark Forces.

This is the earliest I can think of. ROTT was only when dual wielding.

#19 Posted by keris (168 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

FPSs aren't anything more than point-and-shoot cameras. Point at something, then press a button to shoot. In that paradigm, it makes sense to have important elements in the center of the screen (as the center of attention). Since old FPSs put the aiming reticle in the center of the screen, newer FPSs followed convention with both shoot-from-the-hip and aim-down-sights having the targeted point of impact in the center of the screen.

In short, it's not about how you hold the gun, it's about what's the center of attention.

#20 Edited by hakunin (393 posts) -
#21 Edited by Ghostiet (5284 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Because it's practical and effective. Almost every video game gets the guns wrong due to practicality and rule of cool - even the one with ludicrous amount of gun porn in it. For example, guns always eject shells towards the player, even though it's obviously dangerous. But if you are firing an LMG, you want to see these bullets get spent.

Putting the crosshairs and iron sights in the middle of the screen makes you focus on them. It's easy to pick up for everyone, since all you have to do is insert a target in the small reticule or in the front of your Glock and it doesn't distract you by constantly having to switch points of focus on the screen, which would screw up your peripheral vision.

#22 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@keris said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

FPSs aren't anything more than point-and-shoot cameras. Point at something, then press a button to shoot. In that paradigm, it makes sense to have important elements in the center of the screen (as the center of attention). Since old FPSs put the aiming reticle in the center of the screen, newer FPSs followed convention with both shoot-from-the-hip and aim-down-sights having the targeted point of impact in the center of the screen.

In short, it's not about how you hold the gun, it's about what's the center of attention.

All true, but with the recent trend of realism (or semi-realism at least) in modern FPSs, it doesn't seem unreasonable or inappropriate necessarily. Not perfectly analogous, but look at how RE4 revolutionized TPSs by moving the camera placement away from the center. Gears of War somewhat followed suit, and now that's the standard expectation for games in that genre. I'm not saying they should move the reticle away from center focus necessarily, but maybe make the perspective more realistic. It just seems like an interesting idea to me.

#23 Posted by mordukai (7153 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

@mordukai said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

The same way that you can ask "What's up with FPS and regenerating health? No where near as in real life" I know it's a vedio game and all but at least find a half assed excuse to that. I don't know, maybe the main character has some sort of experimental nano machine that excelerate his healing rate.

You missed my point:

My point was, and I should have made it clear enough, that sometimes what is in real life won't work inside a video game world. I'm sure there's a good enough reason why Iron Sights work the way they do in a video game. I think it has something to do with the way our vision works as apposed to how a video game works.

#24 Posted by believer258 (11949 posts) -

@Rohok said:

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games. Remember Doom? 90 miles per hour? No reloads? Tons of enemies? Gun in the center of the screen? And none of the levels resembled anything?

Anyway, I'm going to hazard a guess at Quake 2?

None of those are fun, and no, realism doesn't suck the fun out of FPS games. Plenty of people have a blast playing games like ArmA 2 and Rainbow Six Rogue Spear.

Doom isn't fun? Are you nuts!?

I'm kidding, of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'm just baffled as to how Doom's insane speed and other such things could be considered not fun, but whatever

@Sooty said:

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games.

The original Ghost Recon on Xbox is still the pinnacle of online multiplayer for me. Having to line up targets with binoculars with zero auto-aim? Hell yeah.

I spoke too broadly. There's nothing wrong with trying to implement realism into a game, as long as the realism is done for the sake of the gameplay or story. It's when realism is done for the sake of realism (i.e. equating realism to better game design) that it starts to get problematic and annoying.

Or I'm just too old fashioned for my young age. Damn kids.

#25 Posted by StarvingGamer (8284 posts) -

@Chavtheworld: Because, from a gameplay perspective, doing it any other way would be really, really, really fucking stupid.

#26 Edited by keris (168 posts) -

@PillClinton said:

@keris said:

FPSs aren't anything more than point-and-shoot cameras. Point at something, then press a button to shoot. In that paradigm, it makes sense to have important elements in the center of the screen (as the center of attention). Since old FPSs put the aiming reticle in the center of the screen, newer FPSs followed convention with both shoot-from-the-hip and aim-down-sights having the targeted point of impact in the center of the screen.

In short, it's not about how you hold the gun, it's about what's the center of attention.

All true, but with the recent trend of realism (or semi-realism at least) in modern FPSs, it doesn't seem unreasonable or inappropriate necessarily. Not perfectly analogous, but look at how RE4 revolutionized TPSs by moving the camera placement away from the center. Gears of War somewhat followed suit, and now that's the standard expectation for games in that genre. I'm not saying they should move the reticle away from center focus necessarily, but maybe make the perspective more realistic. It just seems like an interesting idea to me.

None of those games changed what I was talking about though. The reticle is still in the center (or near center) of the screen for all those games. All they did was move the character off center. The focus (i.e. where you shoot) is still very much in the center.

The thing is, even in real world aiming, the focus is where the rear and front sights line up the target in front. Everything else is just peripheral. In real life, you don't look to the side of your head when you aim down sights. You align your eye so that the center of your eye is lining up the front and rear sights superimposed on the target. The focus is on maintaining the sight picture.

So then in a game, why would you have a moving target in the center of the screen only to have to look to the side of the screen when you try to aim down the sights? The brain automatically compensates for these discrepancies. A TV screen does not.

#27 Posted by Bollard (5598 posts) -

@keris said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

FPSs aren't anything more than point-and-shoot cameras. Point at something, then press a button to shoot. In that paradigm, it makes sense to have important elements in the center of the screen (as the center of attention). Since old FPSs put the aiming reticle in the center of the screen, newer FPSs followed convention with both shoot-from-the-hip and aim-down-sights having the targeted point of impact in the center of the screen.

In short, it's not about how you hold the gun, it's about what's the center of attention.

I think if you did it right you wouldn't have to move the sights away from the centre of the screen, rather instead of (as most, but not all FPS games are at the moment) having a floating camera be the player if we had a more physical model of the player which say, turned its body to the side when aiming and that movement was somehow represented it might feel better. If that makes sense.

#28 Posted by Scrawnto (2452 posts) -

@Chavtheworld: Have you ever played ArmA? It sounds like that might be somewhat like you are asking for.

Generally though, if they really did render holding a gun at the waist realistically, you would barely even see the gun. I think it goes without saying that people like to see the gun they are using.

#29 Posted by AlexW00d (6281 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games. Remember Doom? 90 miles per hour? No reloads? Tons of enemies? Gun in the center of the screen? And none of the levels resembled anything?

Anyway, I'm going to hazard a guess at Quake 2?

If playing ArmA with dudes from these forums has proved anything, is that this is the biggest load of bullshit.

#30 Posted by GreggD (4505 posts) -

@BurningStickMan said:

@SomeJerk said:

1995, Star Wars Dark Forces.

This is the earliest I can think of. ROTT was only when dual wielding.

I was gonna say Duke 3D, but that was 1996, wasn't it?

#31 Posted by believer258 (11949 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games. Remember Doom? 90 miles per hour? No reloads? Tons of enemies? Gun in the center of the screen? And none of the levels resembled anything?

Anyway, I'm going to hazard a guess at Quake 2?

If playing ArmA with dudes from these forums has proved anything, is that this is the biggest load of bullshit.

To which I respond with a later comment in this very thread:

I spoke too broadly. There's nothing wrong with trying to implement realism into a game, as long as the realism is done for the sake of the gameplay or story. It's when realism is done for the sake of realism (i.e. equating realism to better game design) that it starts to get problematic and annoying.
#32 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@keris said:

@PillClinton said:

@keris said:

FPSs aren't anything more than point-and-shoot cameras. Point at something, then press a button to shoot. In that paradigm, it makes sense to have important elements in the center of the screen (as the center of attention). Since old FPSs put the aiming reticle in the center of the screen, newer FPSs followed convention with both shoot-from-the-hip and aim-down-sights having the targeted point of impact in the center of the screen.

In short, it's not about how you hold the gun, it's about what's the center of attention.

All true, but with the recent trend of realism (or semi-realism at least) in modern FPSs, it doesn't seem unreasonable or inappropriate necessarily. Not perfectly analogous, but look at how RE4 revolutionized TPSs by moving the camera placement away from the center. Gears of War somewhat followed suit, and now that's the standard expectation for games in that genre. I'm not saying they should move the reticle away from center focus necessarily, but maybe make the perspective more realistic. It just seems like an interesting idea to me.

None of those games changed what I was talking about though. The reticle is still in the center (or near center) of the screen for all those games. All they did was move the character off center. The focus (i.e. where you shoot) is still very much in the center.

The thing is, even in real world aiming, the focus is where the rear and front sights line up the target in front. Everything else is just peripheral. In real life, you don't look to the side of your head when you aim down sights. You align your eye so that the center of your eye is lining up the front and rear sights superimposed on the target. The focus is on maintaining the sight picture.

So then in a game, why would you have a moving target in the center of the screen only to have to look to the side of the screen when you try to aim down the sights? The brain automatically compensates for these discrepancies. A TV screen does not.

I did say it's not perfectly analogous, didn't I, and point out that everything you said is true? All I'm saying is a slight change in perspective geared toward realism could be interesting, that's all. And, while I haven't played RE4 in a few years, if I remember correctly, they did more than just move the character off center. There's full freedom of aiming with the laser sight, just like GRAW's precision aiming. It is not a simple character placement change.

#33 Posted by Itwastuesday (967 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

I just played through Doom 3 recently. There is a flashlight that only lights up the area that is just to the right of, and below the center of the screen. It was mad annoying to have to look above and to the left of anything I wanted to see in the dark. Keep that stuff in the center!

#34 Posted by keris (168 posts) -

@PillClinton said:

@keris said:

@PillClinton said:

@keris said:

FPSs aren't anything more than point-and-shoot cameras. Point at something, then press a button to shoot. In that paradigm, it makes sense to have important elements in the center of the screen (as the center of attention). Since old FPSs put the aiming reticle in the center of the screen, newer FPSs followed convention with both shoot-from-the-hip and aim-down-sights having the targeted point of impact in the center of the screen.

In short, it's not about how you hold the gun, it's about what's the center of attention.

All true, but with the recent trend of realism (or semi-realism at least) in modern FPSs, it doesn't seem unreasonable or inappropriate necessarily. Not perfectly analogous, but look at how RE4 revolutionized TPSs by moving the camera placement away from the center. Gears of War somewhat followed suit, and now that's the standard expectation for games in that genre. I'm not saying they should move the reticle away from center focus necessarily, but maybe make the perspective more realistic. It just seems like an interesting idea to me.

None of those games changed what I was talking about though. The reticle is still in the center (or near center) of the screen for all those games. All they did was move the character off center. The focus (i.e. where you shoot) is still very much in the center.

The thing is, even in real world aiming, the focus is where the rear and front sights line up the target in front. Everything else is just peripheral. In real life, you don't look to the side of your head when you aim down sights. You align your eye so that the center of your eye is lining up the front and rear sights superimposed on the target. The focus is on maintaining the sight picture.

So then in a game, why would you have a moving target in the center of the screen only to have to look to the side of the screen when you try to aim down the sights? The brain automatically compensates for these discrepancies. A TV screen does not.

I did say it's not perfectly analogous, didn't I, and point out that everything you said is true? All I'm saying is a slight change in perspective geared toward realism could be interesting, that's all. And, while I haven't played RE4 in a few years, if I remember correctly, they did more than just move the character off center. There's full freedom of aiming with the laser sight, just like GRAW's precision aiming. It is not a simple character placement change.

If not perfectly analogous, how is your point remotely analogous? My point was that the sights were in the middle of the screen because the intended target is in the center of the screen. It makes sense that you'd want to keep a moving target in the center of the screen so when that target moves, some part of the screen still has the target on it.

That's all I meant, the target is kept (by the player controlled camera) in the center of the screen. Then from there it seems best to have the aiming reticle be in the center of the screen.

Gears of War has its aiming reticles in the center of the screen. Aim-down-sights mode also puts the gun sights in the center of the screen. Resident Evil 4 aims the laser slightly off center based on the target's distance from the protagonist. From what I gather, those games were revolutionary because they went with a relatively closer to the action over-the-shoulder perspective as opposed to a relatively more distant overhead perspective. GRAW has the aiming reticle as well as the Aimpoint sight targeting at the center of the screen.

I don't see what kind of point you're trying to make. What would "a slight change in perspective geared toward realism" be exactly?

The way I see it, the only way to provide this supposed increase in realism would be to have an Oculus Rift type device with a screen for each eye and 6-degrees-of-freedom head tracking.

#35 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

goldeneye, that start wars fps game. only thing i can think of.

#36 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

I really hope they figured out the controller+kinect combo for Durango. Being able to aim your controllers (a half one in each hand) at the screen like a lightgun, and shoot at dudes naturally, will reduce the need for silly things like centered crosshairs. Even Move would have been a step in the right direction if they had only thought we weren't too stupid to work a thumbstick while manually aiming with the glowing ball. Instead games like Killzone use a false 1:1 movement that requires you to aim the controller away from your screen to line up shots if the dude isn't directly in front of you when aiming straight. 
 
Games like Arma and Red Orchestra take the middle ground by allowing your crosshair to float around the screen, but they still require you to touch the edge with it to turn the camera, unless you have TrackIR.
 
We'll still need zoom when aiming down the sights until we get ultra high definition 4k due to the resolution of the human eye.

#37 Edited by Hamst3r (4491 posts) -

Perhaps Iron Angel of the Apocalypse, which was called Tetsujin in Japan when it was released in April 1994 for the 3DO, putting it before Rise of the Triad and Tekwar. (Marathon and DOOM II too for that matter.)

I can't find anything earlier than that.

#38 Posted by Bollard (5598 posts) -

@Scrawnto said:

@Chavtheworld: Have you ever played ArmA? It sounds like that might be somewhat like you are asking for.

Generally though, if they really did render holding a gun at the waist realistically, you would barely even see the gun. I think it goes without saying that people like to see the gun they are using.

Indeed I have. ArmA does do a much better job with regards to the physicality of the player model (you can even look separately from your body with alt! Which should be in every game...) But I've never noticed it turning your body when you aim and such. It might be in there but again it could be cooler if it was more phsyical-ised. Or it might be terrible.

#39 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@keris said:

@PillClinton said:

@keris said:

@PillClinton said:

@keris said:

FPSs aren't anything more than point-and-shoot cameras. Point at something, then press a button to shoot. In that paradigm, it makes sense to have important elements in the center of the screen (as the center of attention). Since old FPSs put the aiming reticle in the center of the screen, newer FPSs followed convention with both shoot-from-the-hip and aim-down-sights having the targeted point of impact in the center of the screen.

In short, it's not about how you hold the gun, it's about what's the center of attention.

All true, but with the recent trend of realism (or semi-realism at least) in modern FPSs, it doesn't seem unreasonable or inappropriate necessarily. Not perfectly analogous, but look at how RE4 revolutionized TPSs by moving the camera placement away from the center. Gears of War somewhat followed suit, and now that's the standard expectation for games in that genre. I'm not saying they should move the reticle away from center focus necessarily, but maybe make the perspective more realistic. It just seems like an interesting idea to me.

None of those games changed what I was talking about though. The reticle is still in the center (or near center) of the screen for all those games. All they did was move the character off center. The focus (i.e. where you shoot) is still very much in the center.

The thing is, even in real world aiming, the focus is where the rear and front sights line up the target in front. Everything else is just peripheral. In real life, you don't look to the side of your head when you aim down sights. You align your eye so that the center of your eye is lining up the front and rear sights superimposed on the target. The focus is on maintaining the sight picture.

So then in a game, why would you have a moving target in the center of the screen only to have to look to the side of the screen when you try to aim down the sights? The brain automatically compensates for these discrepancies. A TV screen does not.

I did say it's not perfectly analogous, didn't I, and point out that everything you said is true? All I'm saying is a slight change in perspective geared toward realism could be interesting, that's all. And, while I haven't played RE4 in a few years, if I remember correctly, they did more than just move the character off center. There's full freedom of aiming with the laser sight, just like GRAW's precision aiming. It is not a simple character placement change.

If not perfectly analogous, how is your point remotely analogous? My point was that the sights were in the middle of the screen because the intended target is in the center of the screen. It makes sense that you'd want to keep a moving target in the center of the screen so when that target moves, some part of the screen still has the target on it.

That's all I meant, the target is kept (by the player controlled camera) in the center of the screen. Then from there it seems best to have the aiming reticle be in the center of the screen.

Gears of War has its aiming reticles in the center of the screen. Aim-down-sights mode also puts the gun sights in the center of the screen. Resident Evil 4 aims the laser slightly off center based on the target's distance from the protagonist. From what I gather, those games were revolutionary because they went with a relatively closer to the action over-the-shoulder perspective as opposed to a relatively more distant overhead perspective. GRAW has the aiming reticle as well as the Aimpoint sight targeting at the center of the screen.

I don't see what kind of point you're trying to make. What would "a slight change in perspective geared toward realism" be exactly?

The way I see it, the only way to provide this supposed increase in realism would be to have an Oculus Rift type device with a screen for each eye and 6-degrees-of-freedom head tracking.

It was a throwaway example of how perspective changes from the norm in shooters aren't always bad, which you're reading entirely too much into. Nothing I said is false (including GRAW having a non-traditional 'free' aiming mode, which you seem to be claiming isn't true), so I'm not sure what you seem to take so much issue with. If I somehow offended you, I apologize. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to argue here.

#40 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

First I can remember was Medal of Honor

EDIT : WRONG

#41 Posted by jayjonesjunior (1090 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games. Remember Doom? 90 miles per hour? No reloads? Tons of enemies? Gun in the center of the screen? And none of the levels resembled anything?

Anyway, I'm going to hazard a guess at Quake 2?

I have more fun crawling for one hour in ArmA because i was shot in the leg than playing any run 'n gun shooter.

#42 Posted by Demmetje (201 posts) -

Sigh... I hate the place my thread went...

#43 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

@Demmetje: Me too, man. Me too. I contributed, though, so I'm sorry about that.

#44 Posted by believer258 (11949 posts) -

@jayjonesjunior said:

@believer258 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

In relation to this, what's up with video games putting the gun slap bang in the middle of the screen when using iron sights. That's no way near how you hold a gun in real life! (And yes, I get it, it's a game, but still)

Let's be fair - FPS games have never placed the gun somewhere you would hold it in real life.

And can we please keep it that way? Realism sucks all the fun out of FPS games. Remember Doom? 90 miles per hour? No reloads? Tons of enemies? Gun in the center of the screen? And none of the levels resembled anything?

Anyway, I'm going to hazard a guess at Quake 2?

I have more fun crawling for one hour in ArmA because i was shot in the leg than playing any run 'n gun shooter.

Again, read further into the thread for a better explanation of my statement.