Get rid of the linear aiming.

[jreeter]

[Shishkarob]

Ghost recon series has ALWAYS had this kind of aiming. Why would they change the whole system for one whiner? And then make 500,000 whiners.

[jreeter]

I'm not really whining, but I do think the aiming system sucks. However, I will get used to it because I love the GR series.

[ick0xbox]

The linear aiming system sucks and isn't "realism" at all.

You know you had me considering your argument until you made this statement that is completely full of it.

Have you ever shot a rifle at all? That is about the most untrue statement I have ever heard.

If you ever did some actual in-field shooting you would realize that the Ghost Recon aiming system, especially for automatic rifles, is VERY accurate.

This series CONTINUES to receive accolades from a variety of military sources that this is the most real shooter out there...and they are including the aiming system in that statement.

Try to go to the range and hit something while you are moving. $50 says you can't hit an oil barrel:
-50 meters away
-with a 30 round mag
-while you walk
-with the wind blowing
-1000 other real life variables in weapons fire

What did you want, a halo 2 sniper that fires the round where your reticule dot is at 1,000 yards WHILE you jump and rotate?

Apparently you were looking for a flame. Well, there it is.

[Shishkarob]

He wants the call of duty type of aiming, i dont really see a difference exept one is first person and one is third.

[TexasMerQ]

When I read the thread title I thought he was onto something. If anything I would actually like to see a more complex system that takes into account wind direction, ballistics (speed v. weight of the bullet) as well as bullet drop. I think that would make it a lot more realistic but it would definately make it more unfriendly towards new players of the series.

[BiggSlic]

Doesn't America's Army have a similar aiming method? I think America's Army has done it a little better then Call of Duty. Ick, I respect and admire your work and experience with GR but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

When a soldier is walking around he doesn't always have an aiming reticule in front of his face to shoot at anything that moves. And the expansion of the reticule to represent recoil works but is not as realistic as the actual weapon and sight movement with COD2 and AA. In America's Army, the weapon has to be shouldered and steadied before sending lead down range, using the sights on the rifle.

I realize this would require GRAW to be changed to 1st person view only and that would piss off a lot of it's new fan base (and please the old hard-cores).

Using you oil barrel example let's say in the games. I think this would be easy in GR and not so easy in COD2 and AA.

Just my opinion...

I have loved playing every GR game since it came out and will continue to do so because it is always in the lead when it comes to shooter games. This issue would never prevent me from playing but my perfect world would have GR in first person with the aiming methodology from America's Army.

[jreeter]

Originally posted by ick0xbox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The linear aiming system sucks and isn't "realism" at all.

Have you ever shot a rifle at all? That is about the most untrue statement I have ever heard.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edit: I'm not trying to flame anything/anyone. Lets keep this a good civilized discussion.

Yes, but when shootig a rifle your usually not moving. Also, a warzone is totally different than a range. In a range you usually have targets in a linear path, this part of your statement is true. In a warzone a enemy can come from anywhere, this is were COD2 shines. Also if IW will get their **** together I think COD2 could possibly top GRAW as most game played on live. I think alot of new people will try GRAW and be detoured by the horrible aiming system.

[ick0xbox]

In a range you usually have targets in a linear path, this part of your statement is true. In a warzone a enemy can come from anywhere, this is were COD2 shines.

What does enemies coming from multiple directions have to do with the aiming system? I am not understanding your connection of a linear rifle range to enemies "come from anywhere."

[Dom211]

let's not try to make it too realistic....remember it's still a videogame. if you want it just like real life then go join the army or something.

[SG_VintageGamer]

Originally posted by ick0xbox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The linear aiming system sucks and isn't "realism" at all.

You know you had me considering your argument until you made this statement that is completely full of it.

Have you ever shot a rifle at all? That is about the most untrue statement I have ever heard.

If you ever did some actual in-field shooting you would realize that the Ghost Recon aiming system, especially for automatic rifles, is VERY accurate.

This series CONTINUES to receive accolades from a variety of military sources that this is the most real shooter out there...and they are including the aiming system in that statement.

Try to go to the range and hit something while you are moving. $50 says you can't hit an oil barrel:
-50 meters away
-with a 30 round mag
-while you walk
-with the wind blowing
-1000 other real life variables in weapons fire

What did you want, a halo 2 sniper that fires the round where your reticule dot is at 1,000 yards WHILE you jump and rotate?

Apparently you were looking for a flame. Well, there it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't forget recoil and weapon shyness.

[RazorWind_NPPL]

Someone explain really what you are talking about. I don't see the difference between "linear" and "fluid" aiming systems. I see the Ghost Recon way, and I see the COD2 way(I play both games). Both aiming systems are done very well I think, however, since I don't really understand the technical "difference," I am picturing GRAW weapons in a call of duty setting, and I really don't like that. Call of Duty is set up to be way too Run and Gun to even THINK about using something like it in a GR Game.

[jreeter]

Basically the aiming system COD2 has, and every other fps for that matter.. "free look".. GRAW also has this buts its a bit linear.. Its hard to explain, if you have played cod2 and the gr series you know what I mean.

[Shishkarob]

Originally posted by RazorWind_NPPL:
Someone explain really what you are talking about. I don't see the difference between "linear" and "fluid" aiming systems. I see the Ghost Recon way, and I see the COD2 way(I play both games). Both aiming systems are done very well I think, however, since I don't really understand the technical "difference," I am picturing GRAW weapons in a call of duty setting, and I really don't like that. Call of Duty is set up to be way too Run and Gun to even THINK about using something like it in a GR Game.

I agree. Ghost recon isnt a run and gun game.

[Climatik]

COD2 has auto aim in it. If they dare throw auto aim in a game where you die in 1 shot i wouldnt even consider this game anymore.

[SiKHaBit]

i would say that the GR series has always and will always be more realistic than COD or just about any first person shooter. I agree with IcK about the shooting range thing and i dont understand jreeter when says something about multiple enemies??
Cause i can take out multiple enemies in GR just as fast as you can in COD!

[ick0xbox]

When you fire your M4 carbine at a target, on a range or otherwise, the soldier brings the weapon to his eye. The pip closure represents his time to stabilize and get the target in his sights.

Whether he has 10 seconds or 1 minute when he fires, the bullet does not go exactly where he intended it to go. Generally speaking when he fires his bullets do not hit the bulls eye with all following shots going through the exact same hole on the target, no, there is a circular "grouping". Of course you know that, I am not questioning anyone for thinking that is how bullets react.

If you launch a game and shoot at a target (Like a metal door) 25 meters away, taking time for the rifle to stabilize, you will notice a circular pattern. This is how bullet patterns look in real life. GR matches this well.

Things like weather, air current, barrel temperature, ammo inconsistencies, shooter habits, shooter "tendencies", inherent problems with shooting through "air", and general weapon inaccuracies cause this effect. This causes every round from the rifle to represent a "cone" emanating from the end of the barrel, widening as you get further form the weapon.

This is exactly how the GR series represents bullets. Granted, one can argue that "accuracy is way-horrible for an M4 in trained hands", but that is a different argument...and to a certain extent it must be that way to maintain a great balance between sniper rifles and the other weapons.


When a soldier is walking around he doesn't always have an aiming reticule in front of his face to shoot at anything that moves. And the expansion of the reticule to represent recoil works but is not as realistic as the actual weapon and sight movement with COD2 and AA. In America's Army, the weapon has to be shouldered and steadied before sending lead down range, using the sights on the rifle.


The fact that you have "crosshairs" on your screen at all times is definitely an "un-real" aspect of almost every game, including Ghost Recon. COD2's option for "no crosshairs" adds a certain element of realism that this game does NOT have....but it would seem to me that lack of crosshairs at all times adds a much greater barrier for a new player, and one that needs to be avoided for that reason alone.


In America's Army, the weapon has to be shouldered and steadied before sending lead down range, using the sights on the rifle.


Certainly the "bouncing" weapon and "bouncing" iron sights of COD2 adds to the realism...but in GR this "bouncing" is represented by he pips widening. You can fire a second shot right away, but in BOTH COD2 and GR you have no real idea where the second shot will be...just like a trained soldier would be in reality. It takes him a fraction of a second to re-align his target with his scope or irons after a shot. Each game "decided" how to represent this, and they represent them differently.

When I have played COD2 there sure seemed to be a poor balance between the snipers and the other weapons. The have the "hold your breath" feature, but a skilled player can pop several shots off quite accurately with the sniper, something that is not real at all. COD2 is a fun game, but more like an arcade shooter if you ask me. If they do get the lobby straightened out in that game, you will see me over there playing that at times.

[ick0xbox]

Originally posted by Dom211:
let's not try to make it too realistic....remember it's still a videogame. if you want it just like real life then go join the army or something.

Boy, you are right about that. There is nothing like firing a weapon at a range. Dumping a 30 round mag down range is even more fun. tap, tap, tap, tap, tap...etc.

[BiggSlic]

Originally posted by ick0xbox:
Try to go to the range and hit something while you are moving. $50 says you can't hit an oil barrel:
-50 meters away
-with a 30 round mag
-while you walk
-with the wind blowing
-1000 other real life variables in weapons fire


This sounds like a fun challenge!
Ick...I'll take you up on this but it will have to be a gentlemen's bet since the only proof I will have is a video and you won't be there to witness first hand and verify distance. How many times do I have to hit it...once?

[CMDillon]

What's linear aiming? :S

idgi

[TexasMerQ]

I think he gave you 30 chances. You would have a 30 round magazine.

I have to mostly agree with Ick's assessment of the aiming sytem. I agree it is fine and fits this game well. Although if anything I think they should make it harder and more sim-like with things like I mentioned a few posts up.

Comparing CoD2 isn't a very good comparison as the only thing they really have in common is soldiers in a wartime environment. CoD2 is a great game but it's arcade style shooter even though it has a lot more realism than say Halo. the average person can still run around with a sniper no scoping people with pinpoint accuracy.

[ick0xbox]

lol.

I set up a 12" by 12" target 120 feet away. I walked slowly to the right like you might as you pop out from a corner to hit an enemy in GR. As I moved I kept the irons (and laser) on the 12" target. Taking my time with individual shots I think I hit the target twice out of 30 rounds.

Granted, I don't have any kind of olympic, military, or VP Cheny training for that sort of thing, but it was obvious that movement and iron sight aiming was just not effective with movement.

[BiggSlic]

Originally posted by ick0xbox:
lol.

I set up a 12" by 12" target 120 feet away. I walked slowly to the right like you might as you pop out from a corner to hit an enemy in GR. As I moved I kept the irons (and laser) on the 12" target. Taking my time with individual shots I think I hit the target twice out of 30 rounds.

Granted, I don't have any kind of olympic, military, or VP Cheny training for that sort of thing, but it was obvious that movement and iron sight aiming was just not effective with movement.

Agreed on the aiming movement...Just sounds like another great excuse to go shoot my Bushie!

[TexasMerQ]

Originally posted by ick0xbox:
lol.

I set up a 12" by 12" target 120 feet away. I walked slowly to the right like you might as you pop out from a corner to hit an enemy in GR. As I moved I kept the irons (and laser) on the 12" target. Taking my time with individual shots I think I hit the target twice out of 30 rounds.

Granted, I don't have any kind of olympic, military, or VP Cheny training for that sort of thing, but it was obvious that movement and iron sight aiming was just not effective with movement.

That's the thing people don't realize who are complaining. It takes longer to get your sight picture for longer targets while "zoomed" in but close quarter stuff doesn't have to be exactly on target to hit. All you have to do is put the person's center mass somewhere within the reticle and shoot a few bursts. That's pretty much how it is using any combat optic such as an Aimpoint, EO Tech, ACOG, or many other combat optic. With the ACOG you could hit long distance stuff out to about 600m all day though.

[Roerei]

Lol i geuss everyone likes bunny rabbits ...

[jreeter]

I see what you guys are saying now... only if i could vote for the bunnies! :*(

[MassiveTurd]

The aiming system dosnt work properly, how many times have you come face to face with an enemy and its that stupid runinng round franticaly moving the aiming reticule left and right becasue the animation sucks? From a distance it works (kind of) but up close it chugs.

[TexasMerQ]

I don't experience those problems. Is it lag or something else.