This is the argument that I hear from ppl who support aim assist. There is no real argument, except that they personally enjoy it. This is the criterion that runs modern game market: It has to be casual, accessible at your finger tips, effortless, immediately entertaining, and requiring no investment, well maybe except for your mom's credit card.

Players like these have no valid justification to support AA. When you tell them, that it makes a shooter game meaningless when the computer aims for you and that it takes out a skill and the satisfaction that it brings once you master it; all they have to reply is something along the lines: "COD has it and it's the best console shooter out there." No wonder this generation is obese and ignorant. They are taught from day one that if something requires hard work, it's the wrong way to do it. The modern mantra is "everything should be effortless, otherwise, it's not efficient".

I am starting to think people that complain about the AA just suck. Yes i know it makes the game a little more casual but based on those AA videos from other games, dust's AA is not so bad. Battlefield had the hipfire pretty much lock on to the guy while moving and aim at the guy for you while aiming down the sight. same as cod. halo had you hit the guy as long as you shot a foot away from him

If AA is as good as people say then way are people having a hard time killing my little logi suit? How come people still can't hit me at range while strafing? Why are blue berries still throwing up 1-13 and worse kill counts?

I don't use AA because it messes with my aim while ADS. I tested it and the only real advantage is the hipfire. you can't twich shot lock on someone.

I am just happy hit detection has been improved.