安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Free-aim is best demonstrated in the game Infiltration here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHl2sPT2vyg#t=16
When you move the mouse, it moves the gun around without rotating the entire screen, until the gun reaches the edge of a limited radius - then the whole camera rotates. Because the gun moves a little bit on its own, it's not locked to the exact center of the screen, so without using the sights, you don't know EXACTLY where the shots will go. Even if you draw a dot with a dry erase marker, the gun will actually be pointing off center from it.
Outside of PC tactical shooters, the most mainstream games to use it are Wii shooters like Metroid Prime 3 - usually the wiimote moves your crosshair all over the screen until it gets near the very edge of the screen, then your whole camera rotates.
The aiming system in Timesplitters 1&2 on PS2/Xbox used free-aim as well.
Dead zone = An area of the screen where the player can move the gun around and mouse input doesn't affect the direction the player is looking.
Free aim = The gun isn't tied to the center of the screen. This is a more genral term than dead zone since there are many different implementations of free aim and not all of them include a dead zone.
Insurgency seems to be using a sort of hybrid system where the screen doesn't move while the gun is pointing towards a very small area in the center of the screen, but starts moving as you aim further to the sides. This is my main contention as it makes looking around feel very jerky. A full on dead zone that cover the entirety of the "free aim" area (like in Infiltration or ArmA) would be much better as it would be more consistent.
Even better still though would be free aim with no dead zone at all. You retain full control of the direction you're looking at all times with no annoying mouse acceleration effects. The gun and the direction you're aiming just moves slightly faster. This is exactly how it works in Red Orchestra and it's by far the best implementation I've seen in any game.
To be clear, I'm not aguing against the idea of a free aim at all. I know a lot of people like it (although dslyecxi turned around a while back and laid out some good arguments against it[dslyecxi.com]). What I'm saying is that the implementation in Insurgency is flawed with the dead zone being as tiny as it is.
I have yet to encounter a "free-aim" master that shows that the system is flawed. To me it seems to do exactly what it is supposed to do.
I prefer the insurgency system over the RO2 one.
Of all the games to feature free-aimed point shooting, I think Insurgency strikes the best balance of large vs small free-aim area. Pointshooting in Infiltration and RO feels too inaccurate, while point-shooting in Takedown is too accurate - allowing you to snipe from 100-300 meters by drawing a dot on the screen.
In my day, between tormenting my childhood friends with super soakers, playing lasertag, paintball, and solving rodent infestations with airsoft guns, I have done a lot of point-shooting, and to me, Insurgency's point-shooting feels the most analogous to real life.
I have never tried pointshooting at the range with real firearms, but I think the above experiences should suffice, considering most point shooting training in the law enforcement and military field was done with BB guns for most of the 20th century. The biggest difference from real firearms is recoil, and we already know that Insurgency takes recoil into account.
If anything, I think it'd be cool to have an option to toggle on free-aim for iron sighted shooting. Being able to pull the rifle out of the center of the screen to get an unobstructed view was really nice in Infiltration and enhanced the natural feeling of the game. We shouldn't HAVE to rely on the high ready position all the time to get decent visibility.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Stop judging the game based on assumptions you made when you played it over a year ago.
For starters, random spread is in EVERY CS GAME, it doesn't matter if you're standing still or crouching, it's always there, and the overall spread is actually much smaller in CSGO[imgur.com] except while you're running or jumping.
Second, every gun in CSGO has a single unique spray pattern, the only random factor is a small amount of spread that's only there to prevent spraying from being effective at long range and to reduce the likehood of you getting a random headshot. The recoil in 1.6 was random[i.imgur.com] as hell[/quote].[i.imgur.com]
He's one of those grumpy old guys who believes any games that don't help feed their military fantasies is garbage, and are upset that CS is much more popular than their "hardcore" realistic shooters. Don't mind his opinions on games too much.
By the standards of fantasy shooters, hitscan guns are the most simplistic and least skill-based weapons in a game. This is why classic shooters focused on projectiles like rockets, grenades, nails, and plasma bolts - they involve leading, prediction and mind games rather than just point-and-click reaction shooting. CS dumps all that, putting the entire focus on simplistic, point-and-click hitscan guns.
Of course, the logical counter-measure in a situation like that would be to compensate by increasing the depth of hitscan shooting. Instead, CS just adds wider spreads and a greater luck-based elements, making things even worse.
Even by the standards of reticle bloom-based shooting, CS's recoil system is just bad and so many others achieve a more natural and more skill-based bloom systems - Day of Defeat, FEAR, and HL2 are a few examples.
FFS, you could get a better spread system out of Halo 1 if you took 2 seconds to mod it:
http://youtu.be/mi4QFesMahE
CS is popular because it was the first of its kind. In the tactical shooter genre, it was trumped by Operation Flashpoint, Infiltration, and Ravenshield very quickly. In the competitive genre, it was always trumped by Quake and UT. And now in the casual genre, it's been trumped by COD and BF.
Age-wise, I could still see how bad CS was when I was 14, and I won't be 30 for another few months.
That's the thing - I'm not sure that RO2's free-aim area is much different in sheer size than Infiltration or Insurgency. It's more like the slightest movements within RO2's same free-aim area cause rotation of the weapon that is too extreme.
In INS and INF, even when the weapon is moving all around the free-aim area, it still feels like the avatar is firmly pointing the gun forward, toward what he's looking at. In RO2 it feels like the gun is flopping around sloppily - it feels like you're looking one way and shooting in the other, like a basketball fakeout.