On the subject of Hip-firing : Othor Games

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:46 pm

But that's just the thing - much of the SD fanbase DO like it. And it also wouldn't really be spraying and praying, since the spread and recoil is pretty minimal. If it operates like I hope it does, I will have an advantage over practically everyone on xbox, since I am used to no ironsight games and playstyle, whereas a majority of the console community are used to games like MW2 and BC2 - which are ironsight intensive. So while you're trying to aim up that shot, I'll be circle strafing and dropping your teammates.

Also, the Light body type looses a lot of its advantage, if it is constantly slowing down using sights.

I completely agree with what H0RSE said. I liked rtcw, I liked ET and I still play those games once in a while.
Ironsights shouldn't have any advantages in games. Why not? Because you're PLAYING with a mouse/controller and not shooting with a real gun. If you want ironsights with advantages, go and play BC2, MoH, CoD. (No offense to anyone)
If you want to know what I mean, go to google and download Wolfenstein:ET. When I played cod 4 and go back to ET I get owned in the face, when I go from ET to Cod, then I'm the one who's owning.

Fast paced = Hip fire, low recoil, small spread, sprint while shooting, 7-8 bullets in the chest to drop someone, 3-4 headshots to kill.
Ironsights = slow paced, 3 shot kills, 1 HKO headshots

I think that hipfire should be the main firing mode in Brink. It keeps the action fast paced. Ironsights are good for medium to long range, not for the standard close combat.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:00 am

i dont like that, i mean im not really a big fan of call of duty but i think they got the hip fire/iron site thing right, i dont like that you can hit someone from a mile away without sighting

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:53 pm

why would ANYONE prefer a no-iron sights game????

It betrays logic.

Iron sights = better gaming experience.

C'mon people. I know Counter strike was good and all, but it's the mother [censored] 21st century now.

I won't even consider playing games w/o iron sights anymore.

If AIMING doesn't give even a minor accuracy or at LEAST handling boost... WTF is the point???

If they don't get Iron sights right, I will quickly return this game same day.

and Iron sights do NOT slow down gameplay... unless your inept imbecile ofc.

I play BC2 daily, and I'm CONSTANTLY sprinting around, pulling up my sights, dropping someone, and moving on... its.. you know... how a shooter SHOULD work.

Run, Aim, Kill

Killing without aiming is ludicrously stupid

At LEAST make aiming have benefit on consoles... I don't care if PC prefer their outdated, hip-fire is god, gameplay... but on console, players EXPECT aiming to be SUBSTANTIAL, and for hip-fire to only be useful for CQC. Granted, that WILL still make up probably 50% or more of firefights in Brink...

This game will flop on it's face and have a dying player base in 2 months if they don't get that right on 360.

As I said, if PC players, as a whole, actually prefer pure hip-fire gaming, [censored]in let em

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:09 am

why would ANYONE prefer a no-iron sights game????

Go play Quake 3, UT, RTCW, ET, or TF2 - all fantastic games. All without ironsights

It betrays logic.

it's a game.....

Iron sights = better gaming experience.

This statement = opinion

C'mon people. I know Counter strike was good and all, but it's the mother [censored] 21st century now.

Ok, so because it's "old" we should do away with it? You know what else is old? Splitscreen. It's been around since 90's, I think we should put it to rest - yet a lot of people still swear by split screen.

I won't even consider playing games w/o iron sights anymore.

Then you're missing out on a lot of good games

If AIMING doesn't give even a minor accuracy or at LEAST handling boost... WTF is the point???

Killing without aiming is ludicrously stupid

So hip firing = aimbot?
You still have to aim when you hip fire. The crosshairs still need to be positioned over the target. In games that eliminate ironsights all together, aiming actually takes much more skill.

1. Your vision doesn't zoom in, like it does when ADS
2. Your movement isn't slowed down to make more precise shots

It's all about raw, reflex skills.

and Iron sights do NOT slow down gameplay... unless your inept imbecile ofc.

They actually do, since you can't sprint and your turning speed is slowed while using them, compared to a game like ET or Quake 3, where sprinting and firing is as normal ans day and night. Until you experience or become accustomed to a fast paced, twitch shooter, you really have nothing to compare it to.

This game will flop on it's face and have a dying player base in 2 months if they don't get that right on 360.

TF2 would like a word with you.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:11 pm

I was wondering how long it was gonna take for you to reply

I over-exaggerate, I know, but just to emphasize my points...

I 100% disagree with your point on hip-firing requiring more skill.

I HAVE played all those games you mentioned. I used to live, eat, and breathe PC gaming throughout all of the 90's, and still a bit when I got back from the army in the early 2000's.

Hip Firing + Mouse Aim = 24+ players run jumping around maps pulling off headshots at the flick of a wrist.

It's 100% reflex gaming....

hip firing has it's place. In CQC you're a fool to aim. But past 20-30m... cmon now.

I don't think this would break gameplay at all, especially given that, from what I've seen, 80% of the combat is within 20m, and so hipfiring should be mostly fine.

But whats the point of having AIM if it doesn't actually grant you any sort of benefit? It would mean anyone actually aiming would be putting themselves at a 100% disadvantage, rather then a give and take.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:43 pm

Whats the problem? As I understand it, it has both hip-firing and ADS, right? I think its gonna be highly situational. If you are running to cover or using SMART your are more than likely gonna hip fire, if you are standing there then take aim down the sights. I would think those that want ADS would be glad that hip-fire does not diminish accuracy because that means that when you are using SMART you dont have to pause to take aim yet you still have the option to ADS if you so choose.

I know BRINK isn't looking to be a sim or anything, but there is seriously a limit to ridiculousness.....
If you want to pretend that you have completely eliminated recoil, go for it, it's possible.....
If you want to say armor has increased and advanced to the point that taking 30rds to the chest is now possible, feel free.......
but without using some type of sight, shooting past a 10yrd radius is EXTREMELY innaccurate......
they don't have to have realistic bullet tragectories.....

You contradict yourself quite a bit you know. I've highlighted some of the things I see wrong with your post. You complain about accuracy but think its perfectly fine to have zero recoil and unrealistic bullet trajectories? A bit oxymoronic dont you think? You cant complain about not having one thing and than praise if for having something else that is in the same catagory, namely accuracy.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:30 am

I have to admit, being an avid shooter and in the military, I'm not a big fan of hip-firing at all.... AT ALL. I can completely understand it working at close ranges, 2-3ft close... lol..... but you seriously can't just run around pointing you're weapon at someone without aiming and expect to hit them accurately. Yes I know there are people that can do it fairly well at 20ish yrds, but they have spent their ENTIRE lives honing that skill. Even experienced personnel will still use their weapon sights because it ensures you are being accurate.... I would pay you money if you could find a guy in Delta that fired form the hip while clearing buildings.

I know BRINK isn't looking to be a sim or anything, but there is seriously a limit to ridiculousness. We all love fast paced gaming, but when you aren't aiming, you are literally just pointing you're weapon in a direction and firing. If you want to pray and spray, have the same effects of praying and spraying. I'm tired of games that don't acknowledge the sights of a weapon (iron or optic) because the developers aren't TALENTED enough to use them quickly and continue doing what they are doing. It's a friggin skill.... if you play COD, BFBC, or any number of shooters that depend on using you're sights for accuracy and you svck at them.... the solution is not to whine and cry about the unfairness of it, the solution is to keep practicing and getting better.

I know, some of you just don't possess the hand-eye coordination to actually do such a thing, but that's why they invented games like WOW.... go have fun with those, pretend you have the ultimate 100m accuracy hip firing you're weapon there..... heck, pretend you're an elf or something.... I really don't care, I'm just tired of shooters that don't want to admit that they are a FRIGGIN SHOOTER!!!!!

You are holding a rifle/shotgun/pistol.... it should be a REQUIREMENT, no matter how "fun/cartoony/enjoyable" a game is meant to be, that ALL people developing the game should fire AT MINIMUM 100 rounds through each category of weapon (rifle, shotgun, pistol, and machine gun)..... that way they can actually understand what they are trying to put in their game. If you want to pretend that you have completely eliminated recoil, go for it, it's possible, 30rd burst staying completely on target would be awesome. If you want to say armor has increased and advanced to the point that taking 30rds to the chest is now possible, feel free....... but without using some type of sight, shooting past a 10yrd radius is EXTREMELY innaccurate...... At LEAST HALO can pull it off because the guy has a friggin Mech suit on that could plausibly have simulated crosshairs on his visor.

sorry for that.... just can't stand when no talent people think they are special because they don't like ironsights.... and yes, i am talking to you developers..... grow up and learn how to play with a friggin gun. You ARE making a game with guns..... they don't have to be realistic.... they don't have to have realistic bullet tragectories..... but for the sake of all that is holy, no matter how special you are, you can't fire from the hip accurately. I would HAPPILY get in a gunfight with anyone that thought so.... and even those "crack-shot" experts.... I would take them on at 100m anyday..... I would love to see them try that crap from a realistic fighting distance.

+1 :mohawk:

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:34 am

Same for Counter-Strike, you aren't "aiming" down the sights at all, instead you are given crosshairs in the center of the screen that expand when shooting. The reason people stopped doing that though was because game designers did a bit of subject matter research (shot the weapons they were putting in their games) and realized that if done properly, the bullet can be placed in the same place, or very close vicinity to the same place almost every time. They realized that their large circles were not very accurate to real life at all, and that the best way to represent a real weapon was to actually use weapon sights. Then the player was given the distinction of when they were aiming (going for accuracy) and when they weren't (going for mobility).

As such, I would highly appreciate if BRINK realized why so many games have gone this route.... because it adds another element to gameplay. Yes you can shoot from the hip or from a "ready position" without actually looking down the sights of your weapon and have somewhat accurate fire, but you will be able to move much better and faster. Once you look down those sights though, you're bullets are on target every time (unless you don't know how to properly line up you're sights....or you haven't zeroed them, but that's a whole 'nother matter entirely) but you are sacrificing mobility and speed for your increased accuracy.

This prevents people from being able to jump around a map like a monkey and still be popping off headshots left and right. If firing from the hip brought up a fairly large circle for bullets to randomely go in that wasn't very affective past 15ft, I would be extremely satisfied with it. I know I would be running for cover every now and then fire from my hip just trying to keep people from firing directly at me..... but when I see someone else out in the open, running for cover, I would rather not have their fire be just as accurate as mine when I am stationary and aiming. If that's the case, you mind as well give people the ability to fly, why not teleport too.... It's not like we're trying to have any bit of realism AT ALL..... there's got to be a limit.... you can only immerse yourself in the world of the game so much if the game designers don't understand or see those lines, then that is how a game fails.

Anyways, that's just my opinion... essentially it means nothing unless there are many that agree with me. I have no clue if there are or not, I am just stating it. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Welcome to freedom of choice :celebration: :foodndrink: :twirl:

+1 :mohawk:

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:59 pm

As to the above.... notice where the game avatars fire weapons when not aiming.... it's still at the shoulder, just not up to the eye...

It's not literal pure "hip-fire" and you can be semi-accurate that way TBH... which is why I say 20ish meters for "hip-fire" which is in reality "shoulder fired without aiming down the sights"

Also, Aim is left trigger, SMART is left bumper... you won't be doing both.

And if you are doing some [censored] parkour wall jumping, I would hope your accuracy takes at least some sort of penalty. Head shotting a guy poking his head out of cover 40m away should be a literal impossibility.

I 100% support "hip-fire" but it should be balanced with ADS and there is only 1 way to really balance the 2.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:10 pm

But whats the point of having AIM if it doesn't actually grant you any sort of benefit?

You do get a benefit, it's just not as significant as you might be used to.
One of the reasons ironsights are in the game, is simply because a lot of players are used to using them. In today's shooters, not having ironsights has the illusion of making a game appear "cheap" or unfinished. So basically, one of the reasons they have them in, is to please the masses, and to avoid the stereotype. Just because a game has ironsights, doesn't mean they have to put a high emphasis on using them, like in MW2 or BC2.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:10 am

there should be an accuracy/handling penalty for hip-firing and/or firing while moving.

It doesn't need to be a MASSIVE penalty, but a small/moderate penalty that makes head shots impractical/harder (Aim to headshot, if firing while moving/hip-firing, aim for the body), or causes an extra bullet or 2 to miss, is more then reasonable balance.

It's a CHOICE

Precision? or Mobility?

to have both..... blah... I won't be keeping brink. That's for sure.

#1 reason i'm not pre-ordering. I've got it lined up via gamefly, and if it actually meets hype, I'll keep it.

Overall, I'm starting to have doubts

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:42 pm

If you watch the videos you see the circle around the aiming dot grow as they shoot. That to me looks like they accuracy diminishes as you fire whereas if you are aiming down your sights that disappears and you have standard accuracy. So in fact there is a penalty for "hip-firing"

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:11 pm

If you watch the videos you see the circle around the aiming dot grow as they shoot. That to me looks like they accuracy diminishes as you fire whereas if you are aiming down your sights that disappears and you have standard accuracy. So in fact there is a penalty for "hip-firing"

Not necessarily true...

Almost always, Iron sights also suffer recoil penalty... more so then screen shaking would suggest.

That would be an acceptable difference to me though... improved handling.

So long as there IS in fact a BONUS to aiming.

Aiming just for the sake of aiming is idiotic. Like borderlands.... I seem to remember people doing tests and hip-fire vs aimed fire conferred no benefit whatsoever.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:41 pm

If you watch the videos you see the circle around the aiming dot grow as they shoot. That to me looks like they accuracy diminishes as you fire whereas if you are aiming down your sights that disappears and you have standard accuracy. So in fact there is a penalty for "hip-firing"

You do have less accuracy when hip fore opposed to ADS, it's just less severe than some other shooters. Hip-firing is like a last resort or situational tactic in some other shooters, where in Brink, it seems to be a lot more viable to shoot from the hip more often.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:14 am

The standard range of engagement in Brink seems to encourage Hip-firing as it is already.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:55 pm

If you watch the videos you see the circle around the aiming dot grow as they shoot. That to me looks like they accuracy diminishes as you fire whereas if you are aiming down your sights that disappears and you have standard accuracy. So in fact there is a penalty for "hip-firing"

I don't know if it's really growing, but the crosshair definetely seems to be pulsating when you keep shooting.

Not necessarily true...

Almost always, Iron sights also suffer recoil penalty... more so then screen shaking would suggest.

That would be an acceptable difference to me though... improved handling.

So long as there IS in fact a BONUS to aiming.

Aiming just for the sake of aiming is idiotic. Like borderlands.... I seem to remember people doing tests and hip-fire vs aimed fire conferred no benefit whatsoever.

Hipfire --> allows strafing, bigger field op view
Ironsights --> scoped in

Look, there's already a bonus to ironsights. We don't need additional bonuses like less recoil of higher accuracy.
Why is the spread and recoil so low in this? Because it's supposed to make hipfiring easier.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:47 am

This game will flop on it's face and have a dying player base in 2 months if they don't get that right on 360.

*cough* Halo. The single most famous 360 shooter, and less than half the guns had sights at all. And the ones that do have sights don't necessarily need them. I can't even begin to tell you how many no-scopes I've seen. Well, you probably get the idea.

And in Brink at least, hip fire does not equal spray 'n pray. Yes, killing without aiming is stupid. Luckily, since hip firing in Brink is so accurate, you will still have to put your crosshairs on your enemies if you want to hit them. It's accurate hip firing, not magical homing bullets.

And just because you prefer sights doesn't mean that all shooters have to have them, or have them work the way you want them to. That's an opinion of yours, not an irrefutable fact. As an opinion, you, as well as everyone else, are entitled to it, but there's really no need to get that worked up over it. If Brink's style doesn't suit you, then it doesn't suit you, and they're not likely to change it at this point.

EDIT: Dang it, I leave my computer for a few minutes and I get ninja'd by like 10 posts. Oh well...

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:55 pm

Okay, i actually broke down and registered to make this post instead of my usual lurking.

To everyone complaining that ironsights better be used heavily because its the only realistic way of playing a shooter, i would like to ask you to please go back to MW2 and stay away from Brink.

You are complaining about realism? Really? The opening cinematic features a dude shooting while he is doing flips and wall runs for god sake. Not to mention he dodges a RPG by doing a flip. Hell, the whole basis of the game doesn't make realistic sense. A big floating city disappears and no one communicates with them? Really? I can get onto google maps right now and bring up a satellite photo of anywhere in the world. You think we couldn't find a huge city floating in the middle of the ocean?

There are Health Bars! If they want realism why would they have health bars? And why would being thrown a medkit make your health bar magically go up? If i get shot, putting a bandage on it is not going to make the pain go away, let alone get the bullet out.

My point is, Brink is about having fun, not being realistic. The devs have stated in several interviews that "Brink is not about running and shooting, its about running WHILE shooting."

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:42 am

Okay, i actually broke down and registered to make this post instead of my usual lurking.

To everyone complaining that ironsights better be used heavily because its the only realistic way of playing a shooter, i would like to ask you to please go back to MW2 and stay away from Brink.

You are complaining about realism? Really? The opening cinematic features a dude shooting while he is doing flips and wall runs for god sake. Not to mention he dodges a RPG by doing a flip. Hell, the whole basis of the game doesn't make realistic sense. A big floating city disappears and no one communicates with them? Really? I can get onto google maps right now and bring up a satellite photo of anywhere in the world. You think we couldn't find a huge city floating in the middle of the ocean?

There are Health Bars! If they want realism why would they have health bars? And why would being thrown a medkit make your health bar magically go up? If i get shot, putting a bandage on it is not going to make the pain go away, let alone get the bullet out.

My point is, Brink is about having fun, not being realistic. The devs have stated in several interviews that "Brink is not about running and shooting, its about running WHILE shooting."

It's not REALISM we're after

it's IMMERSION.

FFS I'm not asking to make hipfiring useless, but it has it's place as does aiming.

Hip fire for mobility and speed... ideal for CQC fighting

Aiming to get more control, slight zoom (but usually 1.5 or less), and a tad more control to retain accuracy over longer ranges.

That's not to say it should turn an SMG into a sniper rifle either.

And don't insult me with MW2... that game is garbage.

If they want to reduce the difference, I can accept that... but there SHOULD be a difference appropriate to the title.

And whoever mentioned Halo.... Thx for pointing out the #1 reason I don't play that game.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:51 pm

Been lurking awhile, but I also 'broke down' and decided to register for this.

Didn't SD say they didn't want to include any "wasted" features in the game? Granted, I believe they were talking about abilities (and no, I don't remember the exact source), but wouldn't the same mode of thinking apply to ADS? I mean, I'm not asserting that if I'm aiming down my sights and you aren't that I should have a MASSIVE advantage, but I do believe that I should be able to put my shots in a modestly tighter group than you if I am aiming down my sight and moving slowly/not all if you're sprinting across a field hip firing.

In addition, wouldn't giving iron sights improved accuracy over hip firing be closer to balance than both having identical accuracy? After all, the way I see it is, while I'm shooting more accurate, you're running around like a coke head, which makes my attempts to keep my bullets on target more difficult than had you also been using your iron sights.

Essentially it boils down to each method of playing requiring a different skill set - hip firing requires masterful agility to stay competitive, while aiming down the sights requires masterful accuracy, (meaning the player's, not the weapon/reticle's).

Also, I'm referring to mid- and long-ranges with this - obviously in close proximity (which it seems quite a bit of the gameplay will take place anyway) hip firing should reign supreme, so don't think I am disputing that.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:27 pm

TY Jerm

couldn't have said it better.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:13 am

Didn't SD say they didn't want to include any "wasted" features in the game? Granted, I believe they were talking about abilities (and no, I don't remember the exact source), but wouldn't the same mode of thinking apply to ADS?

well, since ADS does in fact increase accuracy, what exactly has been "wasted"?

hip firing requires masterful agility to stay competitive, while aiming down the sights requires masterful accuracy,

How does ADS require "masterful" accuracy when it zooms in your view and slows down your movements to make "aiming" pretty elementary. Compared to games that don't have ironsights, and everything 100% manually with no assistance, and at higher speeds.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:33 am

well, since ADS does in fact increase accuracy, what exactly has been "wasted"?

How does ADS require "masterful" accuracy when it zooms in your view and slows down your movements to make "aiming" pretty elementary. Compared to games that don't have ironsights, and everything 100% manually with no assistance, and at higher speeds.

Please...

the point of adding aiming is to allow for greater bullet spread for hip-firing precisely so you DON'T have high speed accuracy.

the old days of 100% hip-fire accuracy were more tests of who had a better connection then anything.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:31 pm

well, since ADS does in fact increase accuracy, what exactly has been "wasted"?

The impression I've gotten is the difference is too slight to actually have much of an effect. But if I am mistaken, and there is noticeable difference (Not as evident as it is in MW2/BC2, but enough of a difference to actually warrant using sights) then I won't have any issues.

How does ADS require "masterful" accuracy when it zooms in your view and slows down your movements to make "aiming" pretty elementary. Compared to games that don't have ironsights, and everything 100% manually with no assistance, and at higher speeds.

That statement was meant for this game particularly, not the genre as a whole, and I apologize for not making that as clear as I could have.

My point with that statement was that your aim would need to be superior to your opponent's to stay competitive if you're aiming down the sights and your opponent isn't. Otherwise, if your accuracies are equal and the only difference is movement, the person moving will almost always win. Hence my stating it requires "masterful" accuracy. (EDIT: When I say "accuracy" in this last part, I am referring to player accuracy again, not weapon accuracy.)

Also, you mentioned:

...and everything 100% manually with no assistance...

In saying that, are you referring to aim-assist? Because I am in no way advocating THAT if you're thinking I am.

» Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:50 am

In saying that, are you referring to aim-assist? Because I am in no way advocating THAT if you're thinking I am.

No, I'm referring to ADS as assisting with aiming (zooming in, slowed down movements) in comparison with non-ironsight games, where aiming is all raw player abilities.