You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
You kept lock on, but got rid of any visible reticule unless you were using sights of some kind ( in which case you couldn't use lock on )
Because... You don't exactly need the same feedback as you do with with dual analog. I mean, You can tell generally where you are pointing, regardless of there being a reticule on screen.
I don't think this would work on every set without some real good calibration, but on My tv, I've set it up so that I get about as close to 1-1 movement as you could imagine. So In my living room, I can imagine this actually working out quite well.
The natural feel of lock on is preserved, without it impeding on the skill. And actually I think it will make the aiming more natural as well. ( and as hard as it is naturally too )
I really want to try this out, It may be a bit too difficult... But at the same time... IDK. You learn to throw a ball with pretty good accuracy without having any sort of device to help you aim, and pointing is a lot more simpler than that. It would probably need a hit marker at least.
Its this Idea totally nuts, or do you think it could actually work?
That said, in dual analogue shooters, the crosshair is fixed to the center of the screen, and therefore is less necessary than in a Wii shooter. This idea has some good potential, but it could also totally ruin the game, and really doesn't suit it very well. I can see this working more in the Grinder.
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
I've gone into lengthy explanations, supported by case studies and extensive research, and all you have done to 'disprove' it has been to say "No you're wrong" and have relied on nothing but internal anecdotal evidence to do so.
I really don't think I offered a bulletproof argument in any way, nor am I absolutely sure that my explanation really has anything to do with why I feel lock on is more natural. But so far you have done virtually nothing to break down my argument, except in your own mind.
I really have a hard time believing the results you showed from my demonstrations were not based or altered by your view of lock on, or your position in the argument when a study done by people ( and on people ) with no knowledge of the lock on debate, and not knowing you or I showed the exact opposite results.
And the fact that HVS may have already found their solution really doesn't mean anything to me. I mean, the point in me talking about it never was change what HVS was doing, or to make the game better, or to convince people.
I am interested in how people respond to ideas. And while people may be getting a little sick of the topic, they are still responding.
But, I'll try come up with other topics as well to keep things from getting stale(er).
What if we just take it out completely, learning how to aim/aquire targets without a lock-on isn't that hard. Seriously its not that hard to stay on target without one.(unless your just terrible at video games)
Honestly, the game wouldn't need lock on if the aiming wasn't so wavy. MWR has this thing were the crosshairs are stabilized so the crosshairs dont fiddle around so much on screen. In The Conduit, even the smallest sensitivity settings the crosshairs are wavy. If you haven't played the original Conduit in a while go play it and you'll see what I mean. Till then I still support lock-on.
Proud Student of the University of Pennsylvania MWR: 4893-7948-2427The Conduit: 2836-7869-1737