<!--quoteo(post=1869674:date=Aug 17 2011, 09:28 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 17 2011, 09:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->World War 2 is retarded and I'll flay my own hand open before I play another FPS game set in that time era.
Everything is so incredibly dull, predictable, and played-out. Hell even if WW2 were 'fresh' I still don't get it - everything sucked, why is that fun? Even in regards to aircraft, WW2 combat flight sims are the most mind-numbingly repetitive things ever made. Fly almost-identical planes around, lead enemies, push button to fire cannons. Repeat. A lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because that's more interesting than 'push button to fire homing missiles at everything in front of you' or 'hold down button to fire assault rifle variant #247569 instagib machinegun at everyone in front of you' which is the modern equivalent.
Doing the same world war 2 game can be a bit tedious, but there's nothing stopping you doing something more intersting with it, like say communists vs nazis vs aliens vs dinosaurs or something, or hell even the battlefield approach, which is allies vs nazis with jetpacks in the secret weapons expansion.
The point is that the general tech level means that everything has its weakness, a WW2 tank might have a fixed gun or be really slow to aim or be really boxy or be kinda slow or its gun might not do much damage. A modern tank has a gyro stabilised 120mm cannon that can also fire homing missiles and a side-mounted .50cal machinegun and another 50 cal machinegun on top which is operated by remote control from inside the tank and the armor can just bounce RPGs right off more or less indefinitely and it has FLIR wallhack vision and nine different types of ammunition and it goes 50mph on good terrain. It isn't good for balance.
Same thing with guns, in WW2 you have to choose between accuracy, fire rate, damage, setup time, ease of aiming, that sort of thing. You might use a rifle that hurts like hell but has a low fire rate, you might use a machinegun that requires five seconds to set up and leaves you really open when using it, you might use an SMG which has crap accuracy but is really easy to use close up.
In a modern setting the basic gun fires a thousand rounds a minute, has a 30 round magazine, is pinpoint accurate, does like half your health in damage per bullet, has a laser sight, has a scope on it, has another magazine taped to the side of it so you can reload it really fast, has a grenade launcher stuck on the bottom, has a shotgun taped underneath the grenade launcher, switches between three different firemodes, has built in night vision, and uses explosive bullets.
It's like playing UT with the instagib mutator turned on only the instagib rifles are now instagib machineguns and everyone moves like they're wading through treacle. Not much fun.
I'm still pissed off that EA, thinks that modders are too stupid to create mods for this game and won't make a SDK for this. I haven't read the news in a while, but maybe something changed? I've always loved playing vanilla BF1942+BF2, along with the others mods like Project Reality and Forgotten Hope. Gotta love custom community content.
I'll still buy this, I had to many good memories with the first two. Hind D gunship runs were always fun :D
<!--quoteo(post=1869566:date=Aug 17 2011, 09:40 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 17 2011, 09:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869566"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Interesting reaction, especially considering the two game companies most people think of as "the good guys" have already implemented both the things you're complaining about.
Do you have a steam account? Because Valve has done the same thing. Try to find some Valve game on Impulse or Direct 2 Drive. When Valve forced everyone to use Steam people complained, 'boycotted,' etc. but now look at how successful that platform is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->While I agree with the premise of your argument (it's within their right and it's not really that big a deal, and it has positives for PC gaming) the Steam comparison misses the mark. Valve were very quick to start selling other people's games on their service. They have said that their approach to Steam is that it offers a service; a service that has to outperform not only their business competitors but the lure of piracy. While you may agree/disagree that it does either of the last two, at least you're not installing a service for literally one or two games. Valve lets you manage not just their games, but mods for their games and other games. You also have in-built Metacritic which makes browsing easier and an unmoderated peer recommendation service for all games on Steam. You have a screenshot service with free online hosting and communities that support games released on the platform by enabling the playerbase. Then you have Steam sales. There are quite a few reasons to use Steam other than 'it's required to play Valve games'.
Me, I'm going to give Origin a try because BF3 looks arm-pinchingly fantasmic. If Origin sucks, I won't use it again, but I haven't lost anything other than what's detailed in the privacy policy, which would be my prerequisite to installing it in the first place.
Yeah the point of steam is that lots of people use it, because it was the first and because it sells loads of games. If steam wasn't popular, it wouldn't be any good.
If a service doesn't have that, it isn't a very good service, it's a crappy attempt to dress up DRM as something good.
Although my memory isn't the best, and at this point in time it's all kind of moot anyway, but I'm pretty sure Steam didn't have any third party games until a year after everyone was forced to adopt Steam. Then, it was another year before any 'big name developers' took advantage. Not exactly quick, but at least the intent to allow 3rd party games was there from the get-go. Not sure if EA is planning the same thing.
EA has tried their own digital distribution before. The first version was "EA Download Manager," then "EA Link," and now "Origin." Thankfully the purchases I made on the prior programs still carried over. Maybe their third time will be the charm?
<!--quoteo(post=1869681:date=Aug 17 2011, 09:12 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Aug 17 2011, 09:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869681"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because that's more interesting than 'push button to fire homing missiles at everything in front of you' or 'hold down button to fire assault rifle variant #247569 instagib machinegun at everyone in front of you' which is the modern equivalent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow, hyperbole much? Good job basing your entire knowledge of how weapons in WW2 worked off the way they were imagined in balanced video games. Yeah, MG42s overheated constantly and sprayed bullets everywhere! That's why thousands of people were gunned down by them at Normandy, because in the bunker, the Germans were going 'Oh no, stop firing for a few seconds, the gauge is turning red!'. Not that that's saying much, you also think that infrared lets you see through walls and tanks have homing missiles.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Same thing with guns, in WW2 you have to choose between accuracy, fire rate, damage, setup time, ease of aiming, that sort of thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because why, because the developers of a game who've never fired any of those guns themselves once made one like that? Congratulations, welcome to the world of game balancing, maybe you didn't realize that, but all these inane, stupid ways they designed these weapons are all following the same carbon-copy implementation not because it's realistic but because that's how Medal of Honor once did it.
If you want to know the moment your dumb post 'jumped the shark', it was when you said 'damage', by the way. You do realize that weapons in WW2 used extremely large caliber rounds compared to today, and thus getting hit by just about anything was more or less lethal? A 30.06 from a Springfield or Garand would knock your arm apart. Modern body army is rated to stop no more than a SINGLE 7.62 round per SAPI plate, which means a 30.06 will break right through it. German and Russian forces used 7.62 or larger calibers, and used AP and API rounds, but because "WW2 simulators", as you seem to think they are, have never modeled the fact that getting hit in the gut with an incendiary bullet will end your ###### life, you seem to think they didn't exist. Even if you want to compare SMGs, the Thompson fired .45 ACPs compared to the 9mm of an MP5, the Tommy gun's going to knock your crap apart.
Ah, but wait, Call of Duty didn't really simulate that, because realistically in WW2 every single weapon was a compromise...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are seriously comparing a Flight sim (WW2 era) to an arcady shooter like the Battlefield Series... GTFO :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The dynamics behind combat are still the exact same. Besides, WW2 'fight sims' like IL2 are about as realistic as BF2 anyway, so what's the difference?
Technology actually lets you do interesting things with your game. Maybe you should go make a nice Civil War game and watch it be the dullest most retarded thing ever made. It'll be exactly like your awesome WW2 game without those pesky invincible tanks with armor capable of bouncing off Bazooka rounds that are armed with a cannon that can hit a tiny two foot by two foot target a mile away consecutively and can fire four different types of ammunition, bristling with machine guns with the exact same top speed as the M1 Abrams, oh but that's not how BF1942 portrayed them so that's clearly not right.
<!--quoteo(post=1869742:date=Aug 18 2011, 01:46 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 18 2011, 01:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869742"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow, hyperbole much? Good job basing your entire knowledge of how weapons in WW2 worked off the way they were imagined in balanced video games. Yeah, MG42s overheated constantly and sprayed bullets everywhere! That's why thousands of people were gunned down by them at Normandy, because in the bunker, the Germans were going 'Oh no, stop firing for a few seconds, the gauge is turning red!'. Not that that's saying much, you also think that infrared lets you see through walls and tanks have homing missiles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Wikipedia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wikipedia)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The high rate of fire resulted from experiments with preceding weapons that concluded that since a soldier only has a short period of time to shoot at an enemy, it was imperative to fire the highest number of bullets possible to increase the likelihood of a hit. This principle was also behind the Vickers GO aircraft gun. The disadvantage of applying this principle was that the weapon consumed exorbitant amounts of ammunition and quickly overheated its barrel, making sustained fire problematic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe so many died on Omaha beach (which was really bad one, though the entire Normandy beach invasion usually gets lumped in) was because they were changing out barrels and had plenty of time to do so. Also don't forget that many of the guys on the line were conscripts from Poland and other countries who had German officers pointing pistols at them.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to know the moment your dumb post 'jumped the shark', it was when you said 'damage', by the way. You do realize that weapons in WW2 used extremely large caliber rounds compared to today, and thus getting hit by just about anything was more or less lethal? A 30.06 from a Springfield or Garand would knock your arm apart. Modern body army is rated to stop no more than a SINGLE 7.62 round per SAPI plate, which means a 30.06 will break right through it. German and Russian forces used 7.62 or larger calibers, and used AP and API rounds, but because "WW2 simulators", as you seem to think they are, have never modeled the fact that getting hit in the gut with an incendiary bullet will end your ###### life, you seem to think they didn't exist. Even if you want to compare SMGs, the Thompson fired .45 ACPs compared to the 9mm of an MP5, the Tommy gun's going to knock your crap apart.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Caliber isn't the issue when talking penetration. Here's your 30.06: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield</a> vs the common 7.62 NATO: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO</a> 30.06 is also a caliber of 7.62mm, but is 12 mm longer, meaning more gun powder. That's why it will defeat ceramic plates.
By your logic, the civil war rifles should be able to go right through tanks: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Ammunition" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Ammunition</a>
.75 caliber for God's sake! But it won't. It probably won't even defeat a ceramic plate, if it were accurate enough to hit one. It would just shatter your entire rib cage, which would probably result in death anyway...
It's hard to find a war where weapons aren't deadly, but answering hyperbole with more hyperbole doesn't do any good, either.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->By your logic, the civil war rifles should be able to go right through tanks: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Ammunition" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Ammunition</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say anything to that effect.
I said 30.06 will ###### you up and break through modern body armor. You... apparently agreed after posting wikipedia links, as if I couldn't do that on my own.
Then I said .45 ACP was better than 9mm, which it is, which is why just about everyone in the Army wants us to lose these useless M9s and go back to M1911A1s, because 9mm has zero stopping power.
So someone says WW2 was better for FPS games because guns had different 'damage' levels - my point was that this was retarded because you got shot in reality, you were basically going to ###### die, and that all this silly different variables between guns were made up by game developers <b>for balance</b>. The transiting idea being that if you can make up some horse###### about how you think a BAR is going to perform and put it in a WW2 game, you can do the same thing with modern or futuristic weaponry.
Let me say that again - all your magic guns that have ridiculously different characteristics aren't a reflection of reality, they were implemented that way over a decade ago by video game developers so that their game would be balanced, and people have been copying that ever since. There's no reason you can't do the same thing with modern weapons - wait, they already do, <b><u>it's called Battlefield 2 / 2142 / Vietnam / Bad Company / Bad Company 2 / Call of Duty 4 / Call of Duty 6 / Call of Duty 7 etc. etc. etc.</u></b>.
Further compounding the asinine absurdity of the complaining is that ***there is no ###### game on earth*** where they've implemented modern combat with tanks with 'FLIR that can see through walls' (lol you idiot) and 'homing missiles' that drive around owning the ###### out of everything, and the entire game auto-aims for you and everyone dies with one button push. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MADE BY ###### IDIOTS.
By the way, Chris, I find it funny you're complaining about '.50 cal machine gun that can be controlled from inside' - because the external guns that were never manned except be retards with a deathwish were better for game design? Nobody ever used those guns in any WW2 game because you died the second you got in the spot.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--quoteo(post=1869566:date=Aug 17 2011, 03:40 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Aug 17 2011, 03:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869566"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you have a steam account? Because Valve has done the same thing. Try to find some Valve game on Impulse or Direct 2 Drive. When Valve forced everyone to use Steam people complained, 'boycotted,' etc. but now look at how successful that platform is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I have. There are a number of games available on Steam which are also available on Impulse. For a while I was comparing the sale prices between the two, then settled on Steam for centralization and convenience as a decision on MY part, rather than the company deciding to take their ball and go home so they can charge more.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Upset about online only? Blizzard's already incorporated that in their current and upcoming games and I'm sure countless others will follow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is why I will not be purchasing a copy of Diablo III, until the always-connected DRM is patched out after the first 6-12 months. Companies listen to wallets, not people's complaints.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ironically, despite what gamers think, companies creating their down digital distribution platforms and implementing always-connected DRM is a good thing. It means more profit for them and more competition/deals for us on games that aren't developed by EA/Valve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That isn't ironic at all. It's just (assertedly) against popular belief. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The past few years have not been so kind to PC gaming as developers made their games more for the consoles. If they're able to see more profit from using their own distribution, and if they're able to significantly curve piracy, we'll see better games developed with PC gamers in mind (like BF3) as opposed to potentially great games destroyed by concession to console games (like AvP3).
If this is really such a toxic move it will backfire as people find the restrictions placed on them will be too much. I doubt there will be many gamers who will actually refuse to purchase this game over 1) owning Origin and 2) being always connected to the internet. Personally, going all the way back to Battlefield 1942, I've never even opened BF without already being connected to the internet. It's battlefield for god's sake, why would you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wider distribution has hampered the growth and development of top-end games significantly. Companies are forced to cater to limited, outdated technology when designing effects and set-pieces. Technological illiterates who can only play games on consoles and (shudder) think a <i>gamepad</i> is superior for FPS games have money too... and as the saying (modified somewhat) goes, it's easier to get money from an idiot. Yes, they'll get sales. People who can and are willing to put up with EA's behaviour will give them money and slog through their hoops.
But I will not. Others who feel the same way will not. These are termed 'acceptable negative impressions'; the tricky part comes in when that count rises high enough to make a significant impact on the revenue sheets. Sadly, a large number of gamers have already been trained to accept the BS in order to get their shiny new game, so this does not happen too often. Last time I recall was the 'live advertising' EA tried to foist off in BF2/2142... I would have actually found that acceptable if the ads were weathered and fit the theme, adding versimilitude. The marketers didn't want their billboards shot up and half burned in some cases, or their logos in monochrome and weathered on the side of cargo containers. As a result, I blocked the ad servers on the network level. I'm sure the next time they try to skim another quick buck, the game will simply refuse to start *period* until it can download the most recent batch of ads to plaster all over the screen, or otherwise ensure the monetization of every aspect possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1869768:date=Aug 18 2011, 05:34 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 18 2011, 05:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869768"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't say anything to that effect.
I said 30.06 will ###### you up and break through modern body armor. You... apparently agreed after posting wikipedia links, as if I couldn't do that on my own.
Then I said .45 ACP was better than 9mm, which it is, which is why just about everyone in the Army wants us to lose these ###### M9s and go back to M1911A1s, because 9mm has zero stopping power.
So...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not like you're going to be hit by a 9mm and go on your merry way. I also love the duality of argument when it comes to posting links. If you don't do it, you're talking out of your ass with nothing to back you up. If you do post them, you're apparently just a googler with no real knowledge. Whatever.
The point is weapons are lethal. Talking like a .45 APC is vastly superior to 9x19mm is silly. The Mp5 is more controllable under full automatic than the Ump, though I guess if you're a 'man' that doesn't matter because you can just lean into the Ump like you're supposed to.
However, there are times when you want to the round to do damage, but not go through the cinderblock wall behind your target. It is true the .45 round has more kinetic energy, and will probably go through more crap. That also means it can go through your target and come out with more lethality remaining.
In other cases, we see trends in personal defense weapons of going smaller caliber with more gun powder: Mp7's 4.7mm for example. There's arguments on both sides of this. Some say that yes, it will defeat the body armor, and probably the guy will die bleeding or something, but he's still effective for a time. You need to put him down now. M14 would probably do that, but there's a reason that M14's stopped having a full auto option.
I'll stop now. No need to derail the threads any more. Gun talk usually gets my dander up. :/
Your point about 9mm might be fine for... a SWAT team, but in modern combat it's hardly the foremost concern.
I'm not gonna compare hypothetical what-ifs to what people actually on the ground shooting Talibs want, and they want to lose the 9mm, point being it won't put the target down like a .45 does.
Do realize that the post that this is in response to was complaining that in modern combat games, getting hit by a bullet would take half your health, implying that in WW2 games it's "more realistic" to not have that happen - which is complete bull######. Getting shot in WW2 was far, far more lethal than it is these days, as not only did you not have body armor back then, but you were more likely to get hit by a bullet with enough energy to blow your femur apart. Point is: you got shot in WW2 you were going to ###### die.
<!--quoteo(post=1869770:date=Aug 18 2011, 11:40 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Aug 18 2011, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have. There are a number of games available on Steam which are also available on Impulse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe Steve meant games from Valve; HL2, Portal etc. I just checked impulse and they are not even listed as a publisher.
There's still the argument that if you get hit by a high-powered bullet, it's better to not have body armour. Body armour is great for stopping shrapnel and such and has limited effectiveness against pistol rounds, but stopping an assault rifle or MG round is another thing entirely. The best you can hope for when you get hit by one of those is a clean entry and exit. You don't want body armour to slow it down, squash it out, or make it tumble. That's when it just starts shredding you instead.
But the whole "WW2 vs. modern setting" argument is stupid when there's a much better setting: The future! In the future you can claim that anything is possible, because sci-fi hasn't happened yet. Energy weapons! Equipment construction on the fly! Hovering dropships! Sticky grenades! Etc! You've already got suspension of disbelief going, so you don't have to rationalize as much. And nobody can say "that gun didn't exist back then" or "that gun is far more accurate than that" because ###### them, it's your setting and you make the rules. Do you want to pass off your hitpoint system as powered reactive armour that loses its ability to stop bullets when it runs out of juice? Nobody can tell you no. Do you want old-school dogfighting instead of missile spam? Claim that jammers are so effective that guided missiles haven't caught up. Nobody can tell you you're wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1869792:date=Aug 18 2011, 08:40 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 18 2011, 08:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869792"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's still the argument that if you get hit by a high-powered bullet, it's better to not have body armour. Body armour is great for stopping shrapnel and such and has limited effectiveness against pistol rounds, but stopping an assault rifle or MG round is another thing entirely. The best you can hope for when you get hit by one of those is a clean entry and exit. You don't want body armour to slow it down, squash it out, or make it tumble. That's when it just starts shredding you instead.
But the whole "WW2 vs. modern setting" argument is stupid when there's a much better setting: The future! In the future you can claim that anything is possible, because sci-fi hasn't happened yet. Energy weapons! Equipment construction on the fly! Hovering dropships! Sticky grenades! Etc! You've already got suspension of disbelief going, so you don't have to rationalize as much. And nobody can say "that gun didn't exist back then" or "that gun is far more accurate than that" because ###### them, it's your setting and you make the rules. Do you want to pass off your hitpoint system as powered reactive armour that loses its ability to stop bullets when it runs out of juice? Nobody can tell you no. Do you want old-school dogfighting instead of missile spam? Claim that jammers are so effective that guided missiles haven't caught up. Nobody can tell you you're wrong.
In short, future fps is best fps. Thank you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, another 9mm vs .45 acp debate thread, now with even less informed opinions!
Edit: I would like to bring up this quote from page one: <!--quoteo(post=1869425:date=:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869425"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is why you set a game in the future then you can just make up whatever you want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2011
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The dynamics behind combat are still the exact same. Besides, WW2 'fight sims' like IL2 are about as realistic as BF2 anyway, so what's the difference?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The dynamics between a flightsim and an arcady shooter are nothing alike, what are you smoking... Flightsims are slower in game pace and if you pull things off that will stall your plane they will crash... A flightsim has a lot more thing to keep your eye on. Of course they are not my cup of tea, because of the slower pace and all the different things you have to keep your eye on...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->oh but that's not how BF1942 portrayed them so that's clearly not right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I never mentioned BF1942 (vanilla)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize that weapons in WW2 used extremely large caliber rounds compared to today, and thus getting hit by just about anything was more or less lethal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So someone says WW2 was better for FPS games because guns had different 'damage' levels - my point was that this was retarded because you got shot in reality, you were basically going to ###### die<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Forgotten Hope has mostly one shot kill infantry weaponry and most tanks can be destroyed by a single shot if aimed correctly. Also I never said anything about damage levels (I don't know who or if someone actually said it, so this might not be addressed at me).
Anyway, what I was talking about are the jet speeds compared to prop powered planes, the slower planes work better realistically, compared to slow flying jets.. The biggest problem in this case is the fact that the jets are mostly playing their own little game when they are too fast and when they are too slow they look like crap. I bet they can't even stall, try and do some funky manouvre in FH and you're bound to stall if you're doing it wrong in a plane too heavy for this manouvre. Or simply being unable to pull out of a dive at a wrong angle or too high speed... These BF3 jets look to be mostly on train tracks, as in way to easy to fly (map size and console controllers are the bane of this I'm guessing)
<b>--></b> WW2 planes (especially in FH) were heavily involved with the combat on the ground. AA was also quite deadly if used correctly and in force (mutliple AA batteries), however the planes were quite deadly in themselves. Drawing everyone in any vehicle or location together into an all out war. That is why WW2 planes are better for this type of environment...
Just an FYI, for tanks it has damage value from where certain shells will penetrate or do some serious damage, while other angles simply bounce of at certain distances (depending on angle/shell type (HE,AP, AP HEAT)/tank type). This does not make the heavily armored Tiger II Königstiger invincible. Sure they are hard to kill, but they can still be damaged from the side, behind and from the top. Working together with either tank killing airplanes or with some guy in a tower who happens to have a AT weapon (Bazooka, Piat) Will take that tank down if it doesn't have infantry support scouting ahead. Not to mention the low AP 75mm Shermans can certainly damage the tank by ambushing --> working together with infantry scouts and positioning yourself on top of a hill or behind brush cover to wait for it to show it's rear. All the while hoping their infantry scouts don't spot your wee little tank (mostly a one shot kill in any case vs most bigger German turrets), teamplay, something quite well known on these here forums, right...
FH also has a much higher learning curve, obviously. But again, these here are the NS forums, I'd guess learning curve is something known to us all...
Of course the EA and Dice people have made the entire BF franchise into something WAY TOOOO arcady, but when some modders come together they can most definitely create a much better game, which tries to resemble historic and ballistic realism to the best of what the engine can offer. Sure it's not "real life" as you seem to be preaching it should be, but it certainly is much better then this arcady and seemingly invincible Rambo tank or infantry man in the default BF franchise...
<!--quoteo(post=1869778:date=Aug 18 2011, 10:34 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Aug 18 2011, 10:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who brought up realism and why? I don't play BF games for realism, I play them for some arcadey hijinks. If I want realism I play ArmA.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Because having to cringe at silly stuff that is just a tad bit too arcady or simply unrealistic is bad. A good balance between arcady and realism is the best gaming experience in this sandbox warefare type of environment. I just can't stand tanks getting damage by shrapnel grenades in BF1942 for instance (not mods for anyone reading this as OMG HE SAID BF1942), the jets in this BF3 have the same effect on me and a lot of people I know see this and have quite a similar feeling...
<b>TRLD; (some highlights...)</b>
"the slower planes work better realistically, compared to slow flying jets.. The biggest problem in this case is the fact that the jets are mostly playing their own little game when they are too fast and when they are too slow they look like crap."
"WW2 planes (especially in FH) were heavily involved with the combat on the ground. AA was also quite deadly if used correctly and in force (mutliple AA batteries), however the planes were quite deadly in themselves. Drawing everyone in any vehicle or location together into an all out war. That is why WW2 planes are better for this type of environment..."
The biggest problem in modern (current) warfare, most vehicles are one shot kills due to the sheer AP of the rounds, which is not at all reflected in the BF vanilla games. WW2 adds a lot more depth to this, due to the fact that it was during this war, better types of shells were being researched and tested in combat. So not everything is a one shot kill, making tank armor thickness still quite a deciding factor about what happens during combat
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited August 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1869786:date=Aug 18 2011, 06:05 AM:name=Svenpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Svenpa @ Aug 18 2011, 06:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869786"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do believe Steve meant games from Valve; HL2, Portal etc. I just checked impulse and they are not even listed as a publisher.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If Impulse had come out prior to Steam, or had any superior characteristics or design (it didn't, and doesn't) this *might* be a valid question.
As it applies to the actual <i>situation</i> though, that's a little like asking why a company that has taken the time going through a rough design phase but now builds solid, fully-featured, dependable cars... won't go out and buy a car slapped together by a subcontractor because the subcontractor wanted to SCREW the customers harder, and the main company refused to let them. Or in the case of Impulse/D2D, just crappy cars with terribly user-unfriendly design and a tendency to break down often.
As I read it, the main point of contention was that EA insisted on handling microtransactions/DLC separate from Steam, as they wanted to go with the MS Points trap; it's almost impossible to spend ALL your points, leaving you with incentive to buy more to get other DLC -a nasty psychological marketing trick where you have to write off the remainder as added cost for the DLC- and some MS points *expire* now, giving you incentive to buy more before your existing ones (that you PAID for) vanish. Valve insisted on their own system, which permits one-and-done, only putting in exactly the amount needed for a given piece of DLC, or to match the balance required if a previous points/credit purchase left you with leftovers.
<!--quoteo(post=1869792:date=Aug 18 2011, 12:40 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 18 2011, 12:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869792"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nobody can tell you you're wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you know who I am?
Also, Kouji, most of my post was directed at ChrisRandomNumbers.
Regarding WW2 planes, it's because flying around going 'Dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka' until you eventually hit enough structure to make the tail fall off is dumb.
<!--quoteo(post=1869803:date=Aug 18 2011, 03:35 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 18 2011, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course the EA and Dice people have made the entire BF franchise into something WAY TOOOO arcady, but when some modders come together they can most definitely create a much better game, which tries to resemble historic and ballistic realism to the best of what the engine can offer. Sure it's not "real life" as you seem to be preaching it should be, but it certainly is much better then this arcady and seemingly invincible Rambo tank or infantry man in the default BF franchise...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Personally I don't think this will happen. Sure in 1942 people made their own mod tools for it and made the game shine even brighter. For BF2 I honestly can't remember if mod tools were supplied of made by the fans as in 1942, but they were there non-the-less. In BF3 they have officially announced that there will be no mod tools(at release, granted - but we all know where that band wagon is heading), and the complexity of making new mod tools for BF3 from scratch is just too much for a team of a few hardcore fans.
Originally I was very thrilled when I saw BF3 announced(I'm talking nintendo 64 kid here), but after seeing what they have done to it I'm not so sure anymore. Yes it looks amazing, and yes stuff goes boom while looking and sounding amazing, but in the end that will only keep me occupied for so long. The revamp of the classes wasn't anything to scream "hooray" for, since all in all they took away complexity that gave the game more depth for the coop players(when I say coop I mean the simulated mass assault with the player side trying to neutralize an enemy stronghold, with heavy emphasis on roles such as the commander, squad leader, medic, machinegunner, etcetc - you know... War games). On top of all this they reduced the squad size(guessing to follow the trends of BC2 - which IMO is as much BF as Heroes - it just doesn't compare), so you can no longer have 6 man squads. With the "no tools"-promise they made, the current squad size will stick if the game is released as it is. In the end that will mean that all the squad based team players out there will have to kick 2 people off their squad AND have no one to cover either their rear flank or sides.
Also, and I feel a bit like a grumpy old grandpa for this one, Origin. I don't mind new platforms, but when those platforms originate(hurrdurr) from EA I become skeptical. Thinking back on all the times I have had account troubles with EA, and them not having any proper tech support to fix said account troubles, just turns this into a big red "NO!" button. I still have 3 or 4 EA accounts with stats on them, but the emails used to register them were temp ones(because of the glorious "That Name is already taken" issue when trying to register a new game to an existing account) so all the games registered on those accounts are according to EA tech support "not mine", and they can't do anything to merge the accounts.
<!--quoteo(post=1869803:date=Aug 18 2011, 03:35 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 18 2011, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because having to cringe at silly stuff that is just a tad bit too arcady or simply unrealistic is bad. A good balance between arcady and realism is the best gaming experience in this sandbox warefare type of environment. I just can't stand tanks getting damage by shrapnel grenades in BF1942 for instance (not mods for anyone reading this as OMG HE SAID BF1942), the jets in this BF3 have the same effect on me and a lot of people I know see this and have quite a similar feeling...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well said, but in some cases the cringing does a 180 on you - which I discovered when trying out Just Cause 2, a game with retarded stunts - So retarded in fact that I just had to love it. It's sort of like when a movie is so bad that it turns good.
<!--quoteo(post=1869830:date=Aug 18 2011, 05:42 PM:name=Odda2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Odda2k @ Aug 18 2011, 05:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still have 3 or 4 EA accounts with stats on them, but the emails used to register them were temp ones(because of the glorious "That Name is already taken" issue when trying to register a new game to an existing account) so all the games registered on those accounts are according to EA tech support "not mine", and they can't do anything to merge the accounts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This. Goddammit, what the ###### was up with that. Horrible. Terrible. It's like the idea of someone buying TWO games from EA completely blew their minds.
<!--quoteo(post=1869846:date=Aug 18 2011, 12:01 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 18 2011, 12:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This. Goddammit, what the ###### was up with that. Horrible. Terrible. It's like the idea of someone buying TWO games from EA completely blew their minds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It kind of is, didn't you learn your lesson the first time?
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1869861:date=Aug 18 2011, 06:55 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Aug 18 2011, 06:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869861"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But isn't the whole EA business plan trying to force people to buy multiple copies of the same (rebranded) game?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Their sports series seem to go that way :P
If I was a big battlefield fan, I don't think I'd be prevented from buying it from the origin thing. Just like, at the point when I buy D3 (which may not be soon after release, but mostly because I'm broke as heck), it won't matter to me that I have to be online at all times, even though I primarily am interested in single player play.
That being said, as someone on the fence, the newest battlefield looks GORGEOUS, and I don't care as much about competitive play ability as I used to in the past (I've always considered battlefield a competitively invalid game). However, I won't be buying battlefield 3, because the way I play games, I look through my steam menu and ask myself "which game do I feel like playing today?".
If battlefield isn't on that list, and not only that, but requires me to open up another steam clone, it's not gonna be worth the effort, and I'm not gonna bother with it.
Basically, at this point in time, I think I'm a bigger steam fan than a battlefield fan, so I can't see myself supporting it.
I'm probably not reminiscent of every gamer, but I think EA will see their sales suffer significantly none the less, because I could see many people being like me. Just not caring enough to step outside of their comfort zone.
Honestly, I think this origin thing is a bigger stopping block for most people than constant online will be for diablo.
Comments
Everything is so incredibly dull, predictable, and played-out. Hell even if WW2 were 'fresh' I still don't get it - everything sucked, why is that fun? Even in regards to aircraft, WW2 combat flight sims are the most mind-numbingly repetitive things ever made. Fly almost-identical planes around, lead enemies, push button to fire cannons. Repeat. A lot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because that's more interesting than 'push button to fire homing missiles at everything in front of you' or 'hold down button to fire assault rifle variant #247569 instagib machinegun at everyone in front of you' which is the modern equivalent.
Doing the same world war 2 game can be a bit tedious, but there's nothing stopping you doing something more intersting with it, like say communists vs nazis vs aliens vs dinosaurs or something, or hell even the battlefield approach, which is allies vs nazis with jetpacks in the secret weapons expansion.
The point is that the general tech level means that everything has its weakness, a WW2 tank might have a fixed gun or be really slow to aim or be really boxy or be kinda slow or its gun might not do much damage. A modern tank has a gyro stabilised 120mm cannon that can also fire homing missiles and a side-mounted .50cal machinegun and another 50 cal machinegun on top which is operated by remote control from inside the tank and the armor can just bounce RPGs right off more or less indefinitely and it has FLIR wallhack vision and nine different types of ammunition and it goes 50mph on good terrain. It isn't good for balance.
Same thing with guns, in WW2 you have to choose between accuracy, fire rate, damage, setup time, ease of aiming, that sort of thing. You might use a rifle that hurts like hell but has a low fire rate, you might use a machinegun that requires five seconds to set up and leaves you really open when using it, you might use an SMG which has crap accuracy but is really easy to use close up.
In a modern setting the basic gun fires a thousand rounds a minute, has a 30 round magazine, is pinpoint accurate, does like half your health in damage per bullet, has a laser sight, has a scope on it, has another magazine taped to the side of it so you can reload it really fast, has a grenade launcher stuck on the bottom, has a shotgun taped underneath the grenade launcher, switches between three different firemodes, has built in night vision, and uses explosive bullets.
It's like playing UT with the instagib mutator turned on only the instagib rifles are now instagib machineguns and everyone moves like they're wading through treacle. Not much fun.
I'll still buy this, I had to many good memories with the first two. Hind D gunship runs were always fun :D
Do you have a steam account? Because Valve has done the same thing. Try to find some Valve game on Impulse or Direct 2 Drive. When Valve forced everyone to use Steam people complained, 'boycotted,' etc. but now look at how successful that platform is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->While I agree with the premise of your argument (it's within their right and it's not really that big a deal, and it has positives for PC gaming) the Steam comparison misses the mark. Valve were very quick to start selling other people's games on their service. They have said that their approach to Steam is that it offers a service; a service that has to outperform not only their business competitors but the lure of piracy. While you may agree/disagree that it does either of the last two, at least you're not installing a service for literally one or two games. Valve lets you manage not just their games, but mods for their games and other games. You also have in-built Metacritic which makes browsing easier and an unmoderated peer recommendation service for all games on Steam. You have a screenshot service with free online hosting and communities that support games released on the platform by enabling the playerbase. Then you have Steam sales. There are quite a few reasons to use Steam other than 'it's required to play Valve games'.
Me, I'm going to give Origin a try because BF3 looks arm-pinchingly fantasmic. If Origin sucks, I won't use it again, but I haven't lost anything other than what's detailed in the privacy policy, which would be my prerequisite to installing it in the first place.
If a service doesn't have that, it isn't a very good service, it's a crappy attempt to dress up DRM as something good.
EA has tried their own digital distribution before. The first version was "EA Download Manager," then "EA Link," and now "Origin." Thankfully the purchases I made on the prior programs still carried over. Maybe their third time will be the charm?
Wow, hyperbole much? Good job basing your entire knowledge of how weapons in WW2 worked off the way they were imagined in balanced video games. Yeah, MG42s overheated constantly and sprayed bullets everywhere! That's why thousands of people were gunned down by them at Normandy, because in the bunker, the Germans were going 'Oh no, stop firing for a few seconds, the gauge is turning red!'. Not that that's saying much, you also think that infrared lets you see through walls and tanks have homing missiles.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Same thing with guns, in WW2 you have to choose between accuracy, fire rate, damage, setup time, ease of aiming, that sort of thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because why, because the developers of a game who've never fired any of those guns themselves once made one like that? Congratulations, welcome to the world of game balancing, maybe you didn't realize that, but all these inane, stupid ways they designed these weapons are all following the same carbon-copy implementation not because it's realistic but because that's how Medal of Honor once did it.
If you want to know the moment your dumb post 'jumped the shark', it was when you said 'damage', by the way. You do realize that weapons in WW2 used extremely large caliber rounds compared to today, and thus getting hit by just about anything was more or less lethal? A 30.06 from a Springfield or Garand would knock your arm apart. Modern body army is rated to stop no more than a SINGLE 7.62 round per SAPI plate, which means a 30.06 will break right through it. German and Russian forces used 7.62 or larger calibers, and used AP and API rounds, but because "WW2 simulators", as you seem to think they are, have never modeled the fact that getting hit in the gut with an incendiary bullet will end your ###### life, you seem to think they didn't exist. Even if you want to compare SMGs, the Thompson fired .45 ACPs compared to the 9mm of an MP5, the Tommy gun's going to knock your crap apart.
Ah, but wait, Call of Duty didn't really simulate that, because realistically in WW2 every single weapon was a compromise...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are seriously comparing a Flight sim (WW2 era) to an arcady shooter like the Battlefield Series... GTFO :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The dynamics behind combat are still the exact same. Besides, WW2 'fight sims' like IL2 are about as realistic as BF2 anyway, so what's the difference?
Technology actually lets you do interesting things with your game. Maybe you should go make a nice Civil War game and watch it be the dullest most retarded thing ever made. It'll be exactly like your awesome WW2 game without those pesky invincible tanks with armor capable of bouncing off Bazooka rounds that are armed with a cannon that can hit a tiny two foot by two foot target a mile away consecutively and can fire four different types of ammunition, bristling with machine guns with the exact same top speed as the M1 Abrams, oh but that's not how BF1942 portrayed them so that's clearly not right.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42#Service_history" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42#Service_history</a>
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Wikipedia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wikipedia)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The high rate of fire resulted from experiments with preceding weapons that concluded that since a soldier only has a short period of time to shoot at an enemy, it was imperative to fire the highest number of bullets possible to increase the likelihood of a hit. This principle was also behind the Vickers GO aircraft gun. The disadvantage of applying this principle was that the weapon consumed exorbitant amounts of ammunition and quickly overheated its barrel, making sustained fire problematic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe so many died on Omaha beach (which was really bad one, though the entire Normandy beach invasion usually gets lumped in) was because they were changing out barrels and had plenty of time to do so. Also don't forget that many of the guys on the line were conscripts from Poland and other countries who had German officers pointing pistols at them.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to know the moment your dumb post 'jumped the shark', it was when you said 'damage', by the way. You do realize that weapons in WW2 used extremely large caliber rounds compared to today, and thus getting hit by just about anything was more or less lethal? A 30.06 from a Springfield or Garand would knock your arm apart. Modern body army is rated to stop no more than a SINGLE 7.62 round per SAPI plate, which means a 30.06 will break right through it. German and Russian forces used 7.62 or larger calibers, and used AP and API rounds, but because "WW2 simulators", as you seem to think they are, have never modeled the fact that getting hit in the gut with an incendiary bullet will end your ###### life, you seem to think they didn't exist. Even if you want to compare SMGs, the Thompson fired .45 ACPs compared to the 9mm of an MP5, the Tommy gun's going to knock your crap apart.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Caliber isn't the issue when talking penetration. Here's your 30.06: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield</a> vs the common 7.62 NATO: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO</a> 30.06 is also a caliber of 7.62mm, but is 12 mm longer, meaning more gun powder. That's why it will defeat ceramic plates.
By your logic, the civil war rifles should be able to go right through tanks: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Ammunition" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket#Ammunition</a>
.75 caliber for God's sake! But it won't. It probably won't even defeat a ceramic plate, if it were accurate enough to hit one. It would just shatter your entire rib cage, which would probably result in death anyway...
It's hard to find a war where weapons aren't deadly, but answering hyperbole with more hyperbole doesn't do any good, either.
I didn't say anything to that effect.
I said 30.06 will ###### you up and break through modern body armor. You... apparently agreed after posting wikipedia links, as if I couldn't do that on my own.
Then I said .45 ACP was better than 9mm, which it is, which is why just about everyone in the Army wants us to lose these useless M9s and go back to M1911A1s, because 9mm has zero stopping power.
So someone says WW2 was better for FPS games because guns had different 'damage' levels - my point was that this was retarded because you got shot in reality, you were basically going to ###### die, and that all this silly different variables between guns were made up by game developers <b>for balance</b>. The transiting idea being that if you can make up some horse###### about how you think a BAR is going to perform and put it in a WW2 game, you can do the same thing with modern or futuristic weaponry.
Let me say that again - all your magic guns that have ridiculously different characteristics aren't a reflection of reality, they were implemented that way over a decade ago by video game developers so that their game would be balanced, and people have been copying that ever since. There's no reason you can't do the same thing with modern weapons - wait, they already do, <b><u>it's called Battlefield 2 / 2142 / Vietnam / Bad Company / Bad Company 2 / Call of Duty 4 / Call of Duty 6 / Call of Duty 7 etc. etc. etc.</u></b>.
Further compounding the asinine absurdity of the complaining is that ***there is no ###### game on earth*** where they've implemented modern combat with tanks with 'FLIR that can see through walls' (lol you idiot) and 'homing missiles' that drive around owning the ###### out of everything, and the entire game auto-aims for you and everyone dies with one button push. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MADE BY ###### IDIOTS.
By the way, Chris, I find it funny you're complaining about '.50 cal machine gun that can be controlled from inside' - because the external guns that were never manned except be retards with a deathwish were better for game design? Nobody ever used those guns in any WW2 game because you died the second you got in the spot.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Upset about online only? Blizzard's already incorporated that in their current and upcoming games and I'm sure countless others will follow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is why I will not be purchasing a copy of Diablo III, until the always-connected DRM is patched out after the first 6-12 months. Companies listen to wallets, not people's complaints.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ironically, despite what gamers think, companies creating their down digital distribution platforms and implementing always-connected DRM is a good thing. It means more profit for them and more competition/deals for us on games that aren't developed by EA/Valve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That isn't ironic at all. It's just (assertedly) against popular belief. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The past few years have not been so kind to PC gaming as developers made their games more for the consoles. If they're able to see more profit from using their own distribution, and if they're able to significantly curve piracy, we'll see better games developed with PC gamers in mind (like BF3) as opposed to potentially great games destroyed by concession to console games (like AvP3).
If this is really such a toxic move it will backfire as people find the restrictions placed on them will be too much. I doubt there will be many gamers who will actually refuse to purchase this game over 1) owning Origin and 2) being always connected to the internet. Personally, going all the way back to Battlefield 1942, I've never even opened BF without already being connected to the internet. It's battlefield for god's sake, why would you?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wider distribution has hampered the growth and development of top-end games significantly. Companies are forced to cater to limited, outdated technology when designing effects and set-pieces. Technological illiterates who can only play games on consoles and (shudder) think a <i>gamepad</i> is superior for FPS games have money too... and as the saying (modified somewhat) goes, it's easier to get money from an idiot. Yes, they'll get sales. People who can and are willing to put up with EA's behaviour will give them money and slog through their hoops.
But I will not.
Others who feel the same way will not.
These are termed 'acceptable negative impressions'; the tricky part comes in when that count rises high enough to make a significant impact on the revenue sheets. Sadly, a large number of gamers have already been trained to accept the BS in order to get their shiny new game, so this does not happen too often.
Last time I recall was the 'live advertising' EA tried to foist off in BF2/2142... I would have actually found that acceptable if the ads were weathered and fit the theme, adding versimilitude. The marketers didn't want their billboards shot up and half burned in some cases, or their logos in monochrome and weathered on the side of cargo containers. As a result, I blocked the ad servers on the network level. I'm sure the next time they try to skim another quick buck, the game will simply refuse to start *period* until it can download the most recent batch of ads to plaster all over the screen, or otherwise ensure the monetization of every aspect possible.
I said 30.06 will ###### you up and break through modern body armor. You... apparently agreed after posting wikipedia links, as if I couldn't do that on my own.
Then I said .45 ACP was better than 9mm, which it is, which is why just about everyone in the Army wants us to lose these ###### M9s and go back to M1911A1s, because 9mm has zero stopping power.
So...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not like you're going to be hit by a 9mm and go on your merry way. I also love the duality of argument when it comes to posting links. If you don't do it, you're talking out of your ass with nothing to back you up. If you do post them, you're apparently just a googler with no real knowledge. Whatever.
The point is weapons are lethal. Talking like a .45 APC is vastly superior to 9x19mm is silly. The Mp5 is more controllable under full automatic than the Ump, though I guess if you're a 'man' that doesn't matter because you can just lean into the Ump like you're supposed to.
However, there are times when you want to the round to do damage, but not go through the cinderblock wall behind your target. It is true the .45 round has more kinetic energy, and will probably go through more crap. That also means it can go through your target and come out with more lethality remaining.
In other cases, we see trends in personal defense weapons of going smaller caliber with more gun powder: Mp7's 4.7mm for example. There's arguments on both sides of this. Some say that yes, it will defeat the body armor, and probably the guy will die bleeding or something, but he's still effective for a time. You need to put him down now. M14 would probably do that, but there's a reason that M14's stopped having a full auto option.
I'll stop now. No need to derail the threads any more. Gun talk usually gets my dander up. :/
I'm not gonna compare hypothetical what-ifs to what people actually on the ground shooting Talibs want, and they want to lose the 9mm, point being it won't put the target down like a .45 does.
Do realize that the post that this is in response to was complaining that in modern combat games, getting hit by a bullet would take half your health, implying that in WW2 games it's "more realistic" to not have that happen - which is complete bull######. Getting shot in WW2 was far, far more lethal than it is these days, as not only did you not have body armor back then, but you were more likely to get hit by a bullet with enough energy to blow your femur apart. Point is: you got shot in WW2 you were going to ###### die.
--Scythe--
I do believe Steve meant games from Valve; HL2, Portal etc. I just checked impulse and they are not even listed as a publisher.
But the whole "WW2 vs. modern setting" argument is stupid when there's a much better setting: The future! In the future you can claim that anything is possible, because sci-fi hasn't happened yet. Energy weapons! Equipment construction on the fly! Hovering dropships! Sticky grenades! Etc! You've already got suspension of disbelief going, so you don't have to rationalize as much. And nobody can say "that gun didn't exist back then" or "that gun is far more accurate than that" because ###### them, it's your setting and you make the rules. Do you want to pass off your hitpoint system as powered reactive armour that loses its ability to stop bullets when it runs out of juice? Nobody can tell you no. Do you want old-school dogfighting instead of missile spam? Claim that jammers are so effective that guided missiles haven't caught up. Nobody can tell you you're wrong.
In short, future fps is best fps. Thank you.
But the whole "WW2 vs. modern setting" argument is stupid when there's a much better setting: The future! In the future you can claim that anything is possible, because sci-fi hasn't happened yet. Energy weapons! Equipment construction on the fly! Hovering dropships! Sticky grenades! Etc! You've already got suspension of disbelief going, so you don't have to rationalize as much. And nobody can say "that gun didn't exist back then" or "that gun is far more accurate than that" because ###### them, it's your setting and you make the rules. Do you want to pass off your hitpoint system as powered reactive armour that loses its ability to stop bullets when it runs out of juice? Nobody can tell you no. Do you want old-school dogfighting instead of missile spam? Claim that jammers are so effective that guided missiles haven't caught up. Nobody can tell you you're wrong.
In short, future fps is best fps. Thank you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A rousing speech!
Edit: I would like to bring up this quote from page one:
<!--quoteo(post=1869425:date=:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869425"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is why you set a game in the future then you can just make up whatever you want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->oh but that's not how BF1942 portrayed them so that's clearly not right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I never mentioned BF1942 (vanilla)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize that weapons in WW2 used extremely large caliber rounds compared to today, and thus getting hit by just about anything was more or less lethal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So someone says WW2 was better for FPS games because guns had different 'damage' levels - my point was that this was retarded because you got shot in reality, you were basically going to ###### die<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Forgotten Hope has mostly one shot kill infantry weaponry and most tanks can be destroyed by a single shot if aimed correctly. Also I never said anything about damage levels (I don't know who or if someone actually said it, so this might not be addressed at me).
Anyway, what I was talking about are the jet speeds compared to prop powered planes, the slower planes work better realistically, compared to slow flying jets.. The biggest problem in this case is the fact that the jets are mostly playing their own little game when they are too fast and when they are too slow they look like crap. I bet they can't even stall, try and do some funky manouvre in FH and you're bound to stall if you're doing it wrong in a plane too heavy for this manouvre. Or simply being unable to pull out of a dive at a wrong angle or too high speed... These BF3 jets look to be mostly on train tracks, as in way to easy to fly (map size and console controllers are the bane of this I'm guessing)
<b>--></b> WW2 planes (especially in FH) were heavily involved with the combat on the ground. AA was also quite deadly if used correctly and in force (mutliple AA batteries), however the planes were quite deadly in themselves. Drawing everyone in any vehicle or location together into an all out war. That is why WW2 planes are better for this type of environment...
Just an FYI, for tanks it has damage value from where certain shells will penetrate or do some serious damage, while other angles simply bounce of at certain distances (depending on angle/shell type (HE,AP, AP HEAT)/tank type). This does not make the heavily armored Tiger II Königstiger invincible. Sure they are hard to kill, but they can still be damaged from the side, behind and from the top. Working together with either tank killing airplanes or with some guy in a tower who happens to have a AT weapon (Bazooka, Piat) Will take that tank down if it doesn't have infantry support scouting ahead. Not to mention the low AP 75mm Shermans can certainly damage the tank by ambushing --> working together with infantry scouts and positioning yourself on top of a hill or behind brush cover to wait for it to show it's rear. All the while hoping their infantry scouts don't spot your wee little tank (mostly a one shot kill in any case vs most bigger German turrets), teamplay, something quite well known on these here forums, right...
FH also has a much higher learning curve, obviously. But again, these here are the NS forums, I'd guess learning curve is something known to us all...
Of course the EA and Dice people have made the entire BF franchise into something WAY TOOOO arcady, but when some modders come together they can most definitely create a much better game, which tries to resemble historic and ballistic realism to the best of what the engine can offer. Sure it's not "real life" as you seem to be preaching it should be, but it certainly is much better then this arcady and seemingly invincible Rambo tank or infantry man in the default BF franchise...
<!--quoteo(post=1869778:date=Aug 18 2011, 10:34 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Aug 18 2011, 10:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who brought up realism and why? I don't play BF games for realism, I play them for some arcadey hijinks. If I want realism I play ArmA.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Because having to cringe at silly stuff that is just a tad bit too arcady or simply unrealistic is bad. A good balance between arcady and realism is the best gaming experience in this sandbox warefare type of environment. I just can't stand tanks getting damage by shrapnel grenades in BF1942 for instance (not mods for anyone reading this as OMG HE SAID BF1942), the jets in this BF3 have the same effect on me and a lot of people I know see this and have quite a similar feeling...
<b>TRLD; (some highlights...)</b>
"the slower planes work better realistically, compared to slow flying jets.. The biggest problem in this case is the fact that the jets are mostly playing their own little game when they are too fast and when they are too slow they look like crap."
"WW2 planes (especially in FH) were heavily involved with the combat on the ground. AA was also quite deadly if used correctly and in force (mutliple AA batteries), however the planes were quite deadly in themselves. Drawing everyone in any vehicle or location together into an all out war. That is why WW2 planes are better for this type of environment..."
The biggest problem in modern (current) warfare, most vehicles are one shot kills due to the sheer AP of the rounds, which is not at all reflected in the BF vanilla games. WW2 adds a lot more depth to this, due to the fact that it was during this war, better types of shells were being researched and tested in combat. So not everything is a one shot kill, making tank armor thickness still quite a deciding factor about what happens during combat
Oh, aaaah, shiny graphics look at the Ka-BOOOOMS!!!!
If Impulse had come out prior to Steam, or had any superior characteristics or design (it didn't, and doesn't) this *might* be a valid question.
As it applies to the actual <i>situation</i> though, that's a little like asking why a company that has taken the time going through a rough design phase but now builds solid, fully-featured, dependable cars... won't go out and buy a car slapped together by a subcontractor because the subcontractor wanted to SCREW the customers harder, and the main company refused to let them. Or in the case of Impulse/D2D, just crappy cars with terribly user-unfriendly design and a tendency to break down often.
As I read it, the main point of contention was that EA insisted on handling microtransactions/DLC separate from Steam, as they wanted to go with the MS Points trap; it's almost impossible to spend ALL your points, leaving you with incentive to buy more to get other DLC -a nasty psychological marketing trick where you have to write off the remainder as added cost for the DLC- and some MS points *expire* now, giving you incentive to buy more before your existing ones (that you PAID for) vanish. Valve insisted on their own system, which permits one-and-done, only putting in exactly the amount needed for a given piece of DLC, or to match the balance required if a previous points/credit purchase left you with leftovers.
Do you know who I am?
Also, Kouji, most of my post was directed at ChrisRandomNumbers.
Regarding WW2 planes, it's because flying around going 'Dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka dakka' until you eventually hit enough structure to make the tail fall off is dumb.
Personally I don't think this will happen.
Sure in 1942 people made their own mod tools for it and made the game shine even brighter.
For BF2 I honestly can't remember if mod tools were supplied of made by the fans as in 1942, but they were there non-the-less.
In BF3 they have officially announced that there will be no mod tools(at release, granted - but we all know where that band wagon is heading), and the complexity of making new mod tools for BF3 from scratch is just too much for a team of a few hardcore fans.
Originally I was very thrilled when I saw BF3 announced(I'm talking nintendo 64 kid here), but after seeing what they have done to it I'm not so sure anymore.
Yes it looks amazing, and yes stuff goes boom while looking and sounding amazing, but in the end that will only keep me occupied for so long.
The revamp of the classes wasn't anything to scream "hooray" for, since all in all they took away complexity that gave the game more depth for the coop players(when I say coop I mean the simulated mass assault with the player side trying to neutralize an enemy stronghold, with heavy emphasis on roles such as the commander, squad leader, medic, machinegunner, etcetc - you know... War games).
On top of all this they reduced the squad size(guessing to follow the trends of BC2 - which IMO is as much BF as Heroes - it just doesn't compare), so you can no longer have 6 man squads. With the "no tools"-promise they made, the current squad size will stick if the game is released as it is. In the end that will mean that all the squad based team players out there will have to kick 2 people off their squad AND have no one to cover either their rear flank or sides.
Also, and I feel a bit like a grumpy old grandpa for this one, Origin.
I don't mind new platforms, but when those platforms originate(hurrdurr) from EA I become skeptical.
Thinking back on all the times I have had account troubles with EA, and them not having any proper tech support to fix said account troubles, just turns this into a big red "NO!" button.
I still have 3 or 4 EA accounts with stats on them, but the emails used to register them were temp ones(because of the glorious "That Name is already taken" issue when trying to register a new game to an existing account) so all the games registered on those accounts are according to EA tech support "not mine", and they can't do anything to merge the accounts.
<!--quoteo(post=1869803:date=Aug 18 2011, 03:35 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 18 2011, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1869803"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because having to cringe at silly stuff that is just a tad bit too arcady or simply unrealistic is bad. A good balance between arcady and realism is the best gaming experience in this sandbox warefare type of environment. I just can't stand tanks getting damage by shrapnel grenades in BF1942 for instance (not mods for anyone reading this as OMG HE SAID BF1942), the jets in this BF3 have the same effect on me and a lot of people I know see this and have quite a similar feeling...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said, but in some cases the cringing does a 180 on you - which I discovered when trying out Just Cause 2, a game with retarded stunts - So retarded in fact that I just had to love it. It's sort of like when a movie is so bad that it turns good.
This. Goddammit, what the ###### was up with that. Horrible. Terrible. It's like the idea of someone buying TWO games from EA completely blew their minds.
It kind of is, didn't you learn your lesson the first time?
Their sports series seem to go that way :P
That being said, as someone on the fence, the newest battlefield looks GORGEOUS, and I don't care as much about competitive play ability as I used to in the past (I've always considered battlefield a competitively invalid game). However, I won't be buying battlefield 3, because the way I play games, I look through my steam menu and ask myself "which game do I feel like playing today?".
If battlefield isn't on that list, and not only that, but requires me to open up another steam clone, it's not gonna be worth the effort, and I'm not gonna bother with it.
Basically, at this point in time, I think I'm a bigger steam fan than a battlefield fan, so I can't see myself supporting it.
I'm probably not reminiscent of every gamer, but I think EA will see their sales suffer significantly none the less, because I could see many people being like me. Just not caring enough to step outside of their comfort zone.
Honestly, I think this origin thing is a bigger stopping block for most people than constant online will be for diablo.