Sethos Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 I've got and enjoy messing about in ArmA1, however my PC would promptly cough and die at the prospect of running ArmA2 (I should probably try the demo). I won my copy of OFP2 for PS3 and found it refreshing doing the whole stalking and scouting thing rather than run and gun like every other wargame. My PC wouldn't even run OFP2, so until I've upgraded I'm a bit stuck. As a fellow weapon lover you'd promptly go rob a bank to afford a decent PC. :laugh: Okay, enough Off-topic, sorry 'bout that :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstanov Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 yeah, I prefer using Armalites in semi mode. Full auto for show, semi for a pro. I also think I've been playing OFP2 too much, semi auto is king on that game. one commendable mention has to be the L1A1, which was semi auto in MW2. You try and successfully create a firing line for room clearing while using semi-automatic weapons while not getting shot because they can put ten rounds in you by the time you spit out two rounds, you deserve a medal and to be the center of the next Rambo storyline. I don't care how inaccurate a rifle it is, you will not miss spraying at a guy from four feet away. While semi-automatic is the choice firing mode for modern sniper rifles as you can put more than bullet downrange, it is not recommended. One shot from cover is a surprise, two shots is a dead giveaway to your current position. And that is the only time the accuracy of semi-automatic firing is necessary, any other time fully automatic or burst firing modes are useful. And while Operation Flashpoint 2 and Armed Assault 2 pride itself on realistic combat, that is only realistic in a best case scenario. War is not simply digging in and firing at the enemy, it is battling your conscience, the weather, your orders, and your resolve to stay alive all at the same time. No matter how hard you try, no game will ever be a combat simulator, or even be close to combat. You can not simulate the emotional trauma killing another person has on you, it puts things in a different perspective the rest of your life. And while the argument currently is whether or not a bullet can travel across a map is ridiculous as we have no idea how much area the maps in games are covering, debating on whether a game is realistic or not is the dumbest thing anyone can try and argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 You try and successfully create a firing line for room clearing while using semi-automatic weapons while not getting shot because they can put ten rounds in you by the time you spit out two rounds, you deserve a medal and to be the center of the next Rambo storyline. I don't care how inaccurate a rifle it is, you will not miss spraying at a guy from four feet away. Who you replying to O.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstanov Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Who you replying to O.o Fixed my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 And while Operation Flashpoint 2 and Armed Assault 2 pride itself on realistic combat, that is only realistic in a best case scenario. War is not simply digging in and firing at the enemy, it is battling your conscience, the weather, your orders, and your resolve to stay alive all at the same time. No matter how hard you try, no game will ever be a combat simulator, or even be close to combat. You can not simulate the emotional trauma killing another person has on you, it puts things in a different perspective the rest of your life. And while the argument currently is whether or not a bullet can travel across a map is ridiculous as we have no idea how much area the maps in games are covering, debating on whether a game is realistic or not is the dumbest thing anyone can try and argue. I fully agree, there's is substitute nor can any game ever come close to what war has to 'offer' so to speak but some games still manage to be more realistic when it comes to purely the fact aspects of war - The hardware, the physics etc. yet the emotional side of war, which is a massive part of combat can never be recreated, so we just have to settle for second best. I mean, you can debate the realism by comparing the gear and hardware to the real-life counter-part in some aspects, like bullet drop, recoil, bullet penetration etc. as most games today don't have any recoil, no spread, no jamming, no overheating, no weight recreation etc. which does a lot to a game and the combat. Also, I have to add as a side-note that OFP2 is not about realism at all, it's not even in that genre - It's purely an arcade game like Call of Duty and the likes. I think Bohemia Interactive is one of the few studios who tries to do war simulators ( OFP 1 / ArmA / ArmA II and the whole VBS1 / VBS2 engine for military use ) Oh and for ArmA II, the game you get out of the box is pretty rubbish - Use ACE2 and it's a huge boost in the realism department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstanov Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 I fully agree, there's is substitute nor can any game ever come close to what war has to 'offer' so to speak but some games still manage to be more realistic when it comes to purely the fact aspects of war - The hardware, the physics etc. yet the emotional side of war, which is a massive part of combat can never be recreated, so we just have to settle for second best. I mean, you can debate the realism by comparing the gear and hardware to the real-life counter-part in some aspects, like bullet drop, recoil, bullet penetration etc. as most games today don't have any recoil, no spread, no jamming, no overheating, no weight recreation etc. which does a lot to a game and the combat. Also, I have to add as a side-note that OFP2 is not about realism at all, it's not even in that genre - It's purely an arcade game like Call of Duty and the likes. I think Bohemia Interactive is one of the few studios who tries to do war simulators ( OFP 1 / ArmA / ArmA II and the whole VBS1 / VBS2 engine for military use ) Oh and for ArmA II, the game you get out of the box is pretty rubbish - Use ACE2 and it's a huge boost in the realism department. So is every game developer supposed to have a team of statisticians and physicists dedicated to the creation of physics engine? To determine how often jamming happens, the minute of arc, heat dispersion, and etc. to determine how often all of this would happen? I mean if you leave your chamber open in the desert too long your gun won't fire because sand sticks to the gun oil, or if your put too many rounds through a gun without cleaning it, you run the risk of breaking the weapon. Are we going to have to resort to breaking out gun oil in the middle of a game after a thousand rounds to make sure a gun doesn't break? Games are supposed to be fun, and adding all the tedious repetitive tasks you do in a combat zone to make sure your weapon is maintained would be ridiculous and make games not as fun anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 So is every game developer supposed to have a team of statisticians and physicists dedicated to the creation of physics engine? To determine how often jamming happens, the minute of arc, heat dispersion, and etc. to determine how often all of this would happen? I mean if you leave your chamber open in the desert too long your gun won't fire because sand sticks to the gun oil, or if your put too many rounds through a gun without cleaning it, you run the risk of breaking the weapon. Are we going to have to resort to breaking out gun oil in the middle of a game after a thousand rounds to make sure a gun doesn't break? Games are supposed to be fun, and adding all the tedious repetitive tasks you do in a combat zone to make sure your weapon is maintained would be ridiculous and make games not as fun anymore. Excuse me, so now you want to argue a completely subjective matter? Where did I even say every developer should do that? Seems like you just want to argue something pointless, you even managed to take the conversation in a completely different direction just to start an argument - Well done. And again, "fun" is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstanov Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Excuse me, so now you want to argue a completely subjective matter? Where did I even say every developer should do that? Seems like you just want to argue something pointless, you even managed to take the conversation in a completely different direction just to start an argument - Well done. And again, "fun" is subjective. Maybe it was worded wrong, I didn't mean it as to start an argument. But when do you stop adding realism and start adding arcade elements to the game to keep it fun for a wide enough audience to make the game profitable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Maybe it was worded wrong, I didn't mean it as to start an argument. But when do you stop adding realism and start adding arcade elements to the game to keep it fun for a wide enough audience to make the game profitable? Again, it's a totally different subject. Our discussion was the whole 'realism' aspect compared to real war and what games manage to portray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollick2 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 The last great CoD game was CoD2. IW killed the series with CoD4 for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameOverRob Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Killstreaks and perks ruin multiplayer so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts