So, it is confirmed that Battlefront will be like its predecessor, no aim down sights, hip fire only. Many fans said it is good, and also many said it is bad. People that said it is good because it sticks to its roots and the jokes of trooper can't hit anything.
People said it is bad because they think the game should follow the market trend and how COD and Battlefield works.
For the lack of ADS, I'm sure players who played Halo, CS, Quake or Toxikk will not have a problem. I myself don't mind the lack of ADS, but as someone who has always wanted to see how the blaster sights are like, I'm kinda disappointed too.
Why is it a bad system? Making it a slower paced game? It is ridiculous that people are crying in the comments that they are not gonna buy the game because there is no ADS.
aiming down the sights... its ok when your wep has scope or something... i'll take it. But aiming down the sights to all weps is slowing down the game... you have less control etc... its not to my tastes. Only good aim down the sights system i've seen was in brutal doom. Everything else is unplayable garbage.
new battlefront is going to suck, and it doesn't have to do anything with aids.
Star Wars Republic Commando had ADS with a fairly good implementation, reducing your view and making longer bursts more difficult given the recoil. Unfortunately it is looking like it will be reskinned battlefield 4, who the hell thought it was okay to omit space battles!?!?
I find ADS in most shooters useless. It's only ever been useful in CoD because they made shooting from the hip useless, forcing you to aim down the sight. If you have to gimp one functionality to implement another, then something is wrong with your game design.
That's the smallest issue this game seems to have right now. No matter what you prefer, it probably won't change your opinion on all the other things like missing space battles, ATATs not being maneuverable, etc.
I do not care for aim down sights as long as the weapons handle right. I can happily do with out. What I wonder now is because this is a battlefield reskin and a bad one at that, will there still be on screen crosshairs and hit markers.
All the many other things they have done will make this game a hollow shell of what it should be, missing features, classes and many other things that were possible on the ps2, now watch it sell like hotcakes.m
Edit: @Rumple the AT-ATs are in rails around the map so predictable and you may or may not be able to fire the guns on it. Other wise it is just a scripted object.
ATATs will be on rails, like the AC-130 in battlefield. So, yeah. Seems like a really shitty implementation that has been annoying before and probably will be just as annoying in this one.
I'm quite into insurgency, and I recently bought CS:GO. The lack of ability to aim down scopes on most weapons really bothered me. It's entirely subjective though, if the majority aren't bothered, then fine, but it's just going to put the game onto the list of games I won't buy. I don't see why, if you don't like using scopes, they can't still be implemented into the game though. If you don't like using them, don't use them.
It's funny, because besides the AWP, the AK-47 is one of the most OP weapons in the game if you use short bursts, giving a lot of damage with great accuracy if you're standing still. You can't ADS with it.
I understand that itch, though - it certainly feels more accurate to be able to zoom in at all, but the gun ends up taking more of the screen as a result. That doesn't matter as much in a game like CS: GO that isn't very vertical, but in a game like COD: AW where you almost have to ADS if you want to get kills, I find myself getting shot and killed from below a lot because the gun was blocking my sight.
The AWP and AK aren't OP, they're totally balanced weapons. You need to learn to play around the AWP when there is one in play is all.
The AK is stronger than the CT's M4 because they need to entry into a site rather than be holding one-- it's a way to give the T's an advantage with the 1 bullet HS vs the 2 bullet HS for the CTs. It's a balance thing.
How does that work? How is CoD a more tactical game than CS? CS has always required a lot of strategy if you want to get anywhere near to a decent level. It has a lot more depth than what it tends to get credited. It's far from a simple twitch shooter.
Not to mention they balanced the power of AK with slower fire rate compared to M4. If you missed the 1 tap head at close range and sprays, the M4 would kill you because of the high fire rate alone. M4 is much much more accurate even at long range allowing 3-5 rounds burst.