<!--QuoteBegin-Zig+Oct 2 2004, 05:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Oct 2 2004, 05:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ok here's the deal: has anyone here played Operation Flashpoint? it's a perfect example of realistic ballistics.
if you've played it, did you enjoy it? by the logic i've seen above (realism destroy game plz), NOBODY who dislikes ballistics should have enjoyed it, because they "had to break out a scientific calculator". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I loved Flashpoint, and all that it entailed. Leading targets with the scope display of a Dragunov sniper rifle, 3-round bursts with an AK47 (I didn't <i>always</i> play as Commies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)... it was a good challenge and a lot of fun.
Thing is, I expected such gameplay mechanics in OFP as it advertised itself as a realistic warfare simulator. Everything takes time; traversing the huge islands, planning out battles and so on and so forth. As a result, the additional demand of having to go prone, aim and estimate how much you would compensate for distance with the shot <b>worked</b>. It worked because you had the time and the distance to do so and the realistic premise to make it gel with the world Flashpoint presented. It felt right.
You stick such a system in Half-Life 2, for example, and things go wrong. You're playing a fast, kinetic arcade-style game which doesn't even pretend to approach 'realism', despite the accurate physics. When Combine soldiers, Striders, Gunships and dropships are making your life an immediate hell punctuated by flanking maneuvers, grenade smoke-outs, strafing runs and general firepower then the last thing on your mind is accounting for wind speed, ammunition characteristics and any other irrelevant rubbish. Some of its weapons may <i>look</i> like real-life technology, but the similarity ends there. As far as I know, the MP7 can't fire grenades from its second 'barrel', and the SPAS-12 isn't double-barreled.
It's all about gameplay that is enjoyable and accessable; realistic ballistics have no place in such a ideology.
The only thing I think that would be interesting to be realistic in games is terminal ballistics (the effect of the projectile on the target). I've never, ever seen a game with realistic terminal ballistics. In all shooting games I've played for now, it is possible to kill someone by shooting a dozen of bullets in his hand or foot, that is ridiculous. Game programmers should watch Deadly Effects video before making a shooter game.
<!--QuoteBegin-Fam+Oct 1 2004, 08:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fam @ Oct 1 2004, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would rather concentrate on such things as completing objectives or (shockingly) having fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> agreed. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Realism is good only to a certain point, then it just gets annoying.
<!--QuoteBegin-BobTheJanitor+Oct 2 2004, 12:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BobTheJanitor @ Oct 2 2004, 12:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All the problems that lag already causes with hitscan weapons, and you want the trajectory of each individual round to be tracked as well? Lag comp for each bullet, no doubt. What happens if your bullet hits a lag spike? "Oh sorry man, didn't mean to TK you, my bullet lagged out and then you ran around the corner!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uhm, its eerily similiar to bilebomb or spit as a weapon. Just alot faster. And you never see either of those hanging up in midair, unless the actual server is having an issue. HL doesn't handle true projectile weapons so horribly, and I'm not sure if FireArms actually used pseudoreal ballistics back in the day (they did have ricochets). Someone mentioned TS does too.
The whole point I tried to first KIND OF FREAKING QUIETLY make in my first post was that the HL engine already has all the facilitys for that, if someone wants to include it in their mod.
I just bought Joint Ops, and I pretty much suck in it, but when I tried sniping in that game I discovered that it is eerily important to have ballistics in realistic games.
I don't think we have come far enough yet to be concerned with ballistics yet. Graphics, sound and artificial intelligence need to get much much better yet. It would also take away precious clock cycles from the important stuff.
I can imagine games having things such as ballistics in the future, though.
I don't see why realistic ballistics would take up precious clock cycles though. Ballistics is fairly consistent hence it's not really necessary to calculate it in real time. You could precalculate most of the conditions the bullet would be travelling in and just use that in game.
<!--QuoteBegin-Strabismo+Oct 2 2004, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Strabismo @ Oct 2 2004, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only thing I think that would be interesting to be realistic in games is terminal ballistics (the effect of the projectile on the target). I've never, ever seen a game with realistic terminal ballistics. In all shooting games I've played for now, it is possible to kill someone by shooting a dozen of bullets in his hand or foot, that is ridiculous. Game programmers should watch Deadly Effects video before making a shooter game. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Soldier of Fortune 2 is the best out there for terminal ballistics afaik. *shrug*
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuSquirrel+Oct 1 2004, 05:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuSquirrel @ Oct 1 2004, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There's a reason they call it 'realistic' and not 'real.'
Gameplay dictates projectile and weapon function in any game, 'realistic' or not. Adding ridiculous amounts of variation, however slight to weapons, just is going to make it more frustrating to play, especially in a faster-paced combat environment like HL2 appears to be, for the most part. You've got to be more worried about the actual engagement than trying to remember which bullet type will travel faster or dip more, and calculating for said dip at the current range. That's tedious, not fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ding ding ding
I'd rather play a game for fun, instead of playing a game with elements that are that "realistic" but take away from the fun.
The entire point we play video games is to entertain ourselves, whats the point if it isn't entertaining?
I'd rather play a game for fun, instead of playing a game with elements that are that "realistic" but take away from the fun.
The entire point we play video games is to entertain ourselves, whats the point if it isn't entertaining? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is that some people would rather have a more "arcade" feel to their games, whereas others want a more "simulation" feel to their games. To each his own, I s'pose.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Tequila+Oct 2 2004, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tequila @ Oct 2 2004, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Zig+Oct 2 2004, 05:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Oct 2 2004, 05:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ok here's the deal: has anyone here played Operation Flashpoint? it's a perfect example of realistic ballistics.
if you've played it, did you enjoy it? by the logic i've seen above (realism destroy game plz), NOBODY who dislikes ballistics should have enjoyed it, because they "had to break out a scientific calculator". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I loved Flashpoint, and all that it entailed. Leading targets with the scope display of a Dragunov sniper rifle, 3-round bursts with an AK47 (I didn't <i>always</i> play as Commies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)... it was a good challenge and a lot of fun.
Thing is, I expected such gameplay mechanics in OFP as it advertised itself as a realistic warfare simulator. Everything takes time; traversing the huge islands, planning out battles and so on and so forth. As a result, the additional demand of having to go prone, aim and estimate how much you would compensate for distance with the shot <b>worked</b>. It worked because you had the time and the distance to do so and the realistic premise to make it gel with the world Flashpoint presented. It felt right.
You stick such a system in Half-Life 2, for example, and things go wrong. You're playing a fast, kinetic arcade-style game which doesn't even pretend to approach 'realism', despite the accurate physics. When Combine soldiers, Striders, Gunships and dropships are making your life an immediate hell punctuated by flanking maneuvers, grenade smoke-outs, strafing runs and general firepower then the last thing on your mind is accounting for wind speed, ammunition characteristics and any other irrelevant rubbish. Some of its weapons may <i>look</i> like real-life technology, but the similarity ends there. As far as I know, the MP7 can't fire grenades from its second 'barrel', and the SPAS-12 isn't double-barreled.
It's all about gameplay that is enjoyable and accessable; realistic ballistics have no place in such a ideology. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> FP, you have made the clearest, most reasonable post so far.
i completely agree with EVERYTHING you said, and what i ask you now is this:
HL2 will be a very "arcadey" sci fi game with aliens and spaceships and zombies oh my..
so if it has all these things, laser guns, etc.. why does it have conventional weapons? having conventional weapons that don't DO what conventional weapons do is like a premise.. a lie.
Cause, while it's meant to have arcadey <b>gameplay</b>, the developers want a modicum of reality to immerse the player into the gameplay. And besides, it just <i>looks</i> cool. The inclusion of futurey kinds of weapons like the grav manipulator combined with the more conventional weapons like the SPAS12 and the MP-whatever makes the player feel like the game is taking sometime in the near future.
Just because a game is loosely based on reality doesn't mean that <b>everything</b> has to follow reality. As said before me, games like OpFlash is based a whole lot on reality. Games like HL2 is <i>loosely</i> based on reality.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Oct 3 2004, 06:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Oct 3 2004, 06:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why not make bullets resonablity ranged and targeted? no need for windage but giving bullets a range makes it
A. Harder for punks to aimbot
B. Adds realism
C. Makes sniping much realier <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree totally so long as it does not effect network performance, as reasons given before "Sorry by bullet lagged!" "OMG TK ****" *Orgy of each team TKing each other over and over* (Yeah it can happen, when Im bored I start these chaos wars in DOD)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Soldier of Fortune 2 is the best out there for terminal ballistics afaik. *shrug*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If in SOF2 a guy can recieve 30 rounds in his chest and can keep returning fire for from seconds to minutes before passing out and/or dying because these bullets did not hit something important, I will admit that the terminal ballistics in this game are realistic.
Did Zig like the abomination I turned the HL2 thread into? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't care for realism games, but I think ballistics has a place. In the super-hyped world of game designs we have now, with complex physics calculations being possible, an actual projectile being used for bullets would be an excellent feature indeed. Calculating windage for games like HL2 would be... not part of the game. But in general, I think Valve should've put the code there so at least people can easilly use it. No, I probably wouldn't even PLAY the games with these realistic ballistics, but we have the technology, I say put it to good use.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuSquirrel+Oct 2 2004, 03:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuSquirrel @ Oct 2 2004, 03:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gameplay dictates projectile and weapon function in any game, 'realistic' or not. Adding ridiculous amounts of variation, however slight to weapons, just is going to make it more frustrating to play, especially in a faster-paced combat environment like HL2 appears to be, for the most part. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It also can get weird. In Battlefield 1942 (not sure if it's just a certain patch), snipers have realistic physics. To hit a stationary target with a sniper, you have to calculate wind, drop and movement of the rifle. However, if you don't feel like doing that, you can always whip out your handgun and get a headshot at two hundred meters.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Oct 3 2004, 10:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Oct 3 2004, 10:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did Zig like the abomination I turned the HL2 thread into? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i didn't even participate in or read the HL2 thread, excepting a single post about ballistics. i just felt like making this one.
Marik_SteeleTo rule in hell...Join Date: 2002-11-20Member: 9466Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Zig+Oct 3 2004, 03:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Oct 3 2004, 03:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Tequila+Oct 2 2004, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tequila @ Oct 2 2004, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Zig+Oct 2 2004, 05:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Oct 2 2004, 05:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ok here's the deal: has anyone here played Operation Flashpoint? it's a perfect example of realistic ballistics.
if you've played it, did you enjoy it? by the logic i've seen above (realism destroy game plz), NOBODY who dislikes ballistics should have enjoyed it, because they "had to break out a scientific calculator". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I loved Flashpoint, and all that it entailed. Leading targets with the scope display of a Dragunov sniper rifle, 3-round bursts with an AK47 (I didn't <i>always</i> play as Commies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)... it was a good challenge and a lot of fun.
Thing is, I expected such gameplay mechanics in OFP as it advertised itself as a realistic warfare simulator. Everything takes time; traversing the huge islands, planning out battles and so on and so forth. As a result, the additional demand of having to go prone, aim and estimate how much you would compensate for distance with the shot <b>worked</b>. It worked because you had the time and the distance to do so and the realistic premise to make it gel with the world Flashpoint presented. It felt right.
You stick such a system in Half-Life 2, for example, and things go wrong. You're playing a fast, kinetic arcade-style game which doesn't even pretend to approach 'realism', despite the accurate physics. When Combine soldiers, Striders, Gunships and dropships are making your life an immediate hell punctuated by flanking maneuvers, grenade smoke-outs, strafing runs and general firepower then the last thing on your mind is accounting for wind speed, ammunition characteristics and any other irrelevant rubbish. Some of its weapons may <i>look</i> like real-life technology, but the similarity ends there. As far as I know, the MP7 can't fire grenades from its second 'barrel', and the SPAS-12 isn't double-barreled.
It's all about gameplay that is enjoyable and accessable; realistic ballistics have no place in such a ideology. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> FP, you have made the clearest, most reasonable post so far.
i completely agree with EVERYTHING you said, and what i ask you now is this:
HL2 will be a very "arcadey" sci fi game with aliens and spaceships and zombies oh my..
so if it has all these things, laser guns, etc.. why does it have conventional weapons? having conventional weapons that don't DO what conventional weapons do is like a premise.. a lie. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm actually with Zig on this one. The "realistic ballistics -> lag" argument gets thrown out the window when you introduce the concept of disabling it for internet play and low-spec computers playing solo. And to people who say that thinking about the different ammo types takes them away from enjoying the game, I say that the difference adds to the atmosphere of the game for me. Atmosphere assists gameplay.
Now, I'm not going to say that hitscan calculations for conventional weapons <i>ruins</i> the game, I'm just saying that because Valve clearly has the tools in place to use more realistic ballistics, they're wasting an opportunity I feel is worth taking. I don't have the coding experience to make a mod that would change all weapons to use the physics engine, but I doubt I'm the only person who feels this way, and I look forward to the day I can download someone else's solution and enjoy my game the way I feel it should be played.
Comments
if you've played it, did you enjoy it? by the logic i've seen above (realism destroy game plz), NOBODY who dislikes ballistics should have enjoyed it, because they "had to break out a scientific calculator". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I loved Flashpoint, and all that it entailed. Leading targets with the scope display of a Dragunov sniper rifle, 3-round bursts with an AK47 (I didn't <i>always</i> play as Commies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)... it was a good challenge and a lot of fun.
Thing is, I expected such gameplay mechanics in OFP as it advertised itself as a realistic warfare simulator. Everything takes time; traversing the huge islands, planning out battles and so on and so forth. As a result, the additional demand of having to go prone, aim and estimate how much you would compensate for distance with the shot <b>worked</b>. It worked because you had the time and the distance to do so and the realistic premise to make it gel with the world Flashpoint presented. It felt right.
You stick such a system in Half-Life 2, for example, and things go wrong. You're playing a fast, kinetic arcade-style game which doesn't even pretend to approach 'realism', despite the accurate physics. When Combine soldiers, Striders, Gunships and dropships are making your life an immediate hell punctuated by flanking maneuvers, grenade smoke-outs, strafing runs and general firepower then the last thing on your mind is accounting for wind speed, ammunition characteristics and any other irrelevant rubbish. Some of its weapons may <i>look</i> like real-life technology, but the similarity ends there. As far as I know, the MP7 can't fire grenades from its second 'barrel', and the SPAS-12 isn't double-barreled.
It's all about gameplay that is enjoyable and accessable; realistic ballistics have no place in such a ideology.
agreed. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Realism is good only to a certain point, then it just gets annoying.
Uhm, its eerily similiar to bilebomb or spit as a weapon. Just alot faster. And you never see either of those hanging up in midair, unless the actual server is having an issue. HL doesn't handle true projectile weapons so horribly, and I'm not sure if FireArms actually used pseudoreal ballistics back in the day (they did have ricochets). Someone mentioned TS does too.
The whole point I tried to first KIND OF FREAKING QUIETLY make in my first post was that the HL engine already has all the facilitys for that, if someone wants to include it in their mod.
Graphics, sound and artificial intelligence need to get much much better yet.
It would also take away precious clock cycles from the important stuff.
I can imagine games having things such as ballistics in the future, though.
Soldier of Fortune 2 is the best out there for terminal ballistics afaik. *shrug*
Gameplay dictates projectile and weapon function in any game, 'realistic' or not. Adding ridiculous amounts of variation, however slight to weapons, just is going to make it more frustrating to play, especially in a faster-paced combat environment like HL2 appears to be, for the most part. You've got to be more worried about the actual engagement than trying to remember which bullet type will travel faster or dip more, and calculating for said dip at the current range. That's tedious, not fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ding ding ding
I'd rather play a game for fun, instead of playing a game with elements that are that "realistic" but take away from the fun.
The entire point we play video games is to entertain ourselves, whats the point if it isn't entertaining?
I'd rather play a game for fun, instead of playing a game with elements that are that "realistic" but take away from the fun.
The entire point we play video games is to entertain ourselves, whats the point if it isn't entertaining? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is that some people would rather have a more "arcade" feel to their games, whereas others want a more "simulation" feel to their games. To each his own, I s'pose.
Exactly, and I'm stating I would rather have a more "arcade" feel to mine. I'm not saying simulation games are bad or anything.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
if you've played it, did you enjoy it? by the logic i've seen above (realism destroy game plz), NOBODY who dislikes ballistics should have enjoyed it, because they "had to break out a scientific calculator". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I loved Flashpoint, and all that it entailed. Leading targets with the scope display of a Dragunov sniper rifle, 3-round bursts with an AK47 (I didn't <i>always</i> play as Commies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)... it was a good challenge and a lot of fun.
Thing is, I expected such gameplay mechanics in OFP as it advertised itself as a realistic warfare simulator. Everything takes time; traversing the huge islands, planning out battles and so on and so forth. As a result, the additional demand of having to go prone, aim and estimate how much you would compensate for distance with the shot <b>worked</b>. It worked because you had the time and the distance to do so and the realistic premise to make it gel with the world Flashpoint presented. It felt right.
You stick such a system in Half-Life 2, for example, and things go wrong. You're playing a fast, kinetic arcade-style game which doesn't even pretend to approach 'realism', despite the accurate physics. When Combine soldiers, Striders, Gunships and dropships are making your life an immediate hell punctuated by flanking maneuvers, grenade smoke-outs, strafing runs and general firepower then the last thing on your mind is accounting for wind speed, ammunition characteristics and any other irrelevant rubbish. Some of its weapons may <i>look</i> like real-life technology, but the similarity ends there. As far as I know, the MP7 can't fire grenades from its second 'barrel', and the SPAS-12 isn't double-barreled.
It's all about gameplay that is enjoyable and accessable; realistic ballistics have no place in such a ideology. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
FP, you have made the clearest, most reasonable post so far.
i completely agree with EVERYTHING you said, and what i ask you now is this:
HL2 will be a very "arcadey" sci fi game with aliens and spaceships and zombies oh my..
so if it has all these things, laser guns, etc.. why does it have conventional weapons? having conventional weapons that don't DO what conventional weapons do is like a premise.. a lie.
Just because a game is loosely based on reality doesn't mean that <b>everything</b> has to follow reality. As said before me, games like OpFlash is based a whole lot on reality. Games like HL2 is <i>loosely</i> based on reality.
A. Harder for punks to aimbot
B. Adds realism
C. Makes sniping much realier
A. Harder for punks to aimbot
B. Adds realism
C. Makes sniping much realier <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree totally so long as it does not effect network performance, as reasons given before "Sorry by bullet lagged!" "OMG TK ****" *Orgy of each team TKing each other over and over* (Yeah it can happen, when Im bored I start these chaos wars in DOD)
If in SOF2 a guy can recieve 30 rounds in his chest and can keep returning fire for from seconds to minutes before passing out and/or dying because these bullets did not hit something important, I will admit that the terminal ballistics in this game are realistic.
I don't care for realism games, but I think ballistics has a place. In the super-hyped world of game designs we have now, with complex physics calculations being possible, an actual projectile being used for bullets would be an excellent feature indeed. Calculating windage for games like HL2 would be... not part of the game. But in general, I think Valve should've put the code there so at least people can easilly use it. No, I probably wouldn't even PLAY the games with these realistic ballistics, but we have the technology, I say put it to good use.
It also can get weird. In Battlefield 1942 (not sure if it's just a certain patch), snipers have realistic physics. To hit a stationary target with a sniper, you have to calculate wind, drop and movement of the rifle. However, if you don't feel like doing that, you can always whip out your handgun and get a headshot at two hundred meters.
i didn't even participate in or read the HL2 thread, excepting a single post about ballistics. i just felt like making this one.
if you've played it, did you enjoy it? by the logic i've seen above (realism destroy game plz), NOBODY who dislikes ballistics should have enjoyed it, because they "had to break out a scientific calculator". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I loved Flashpoint, and all that it entailed. Leading targets with the scope display of a Dragunov sniper rifle, 3-round bursts with an AK47 (I didn't <i>always</i> play as Commies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->)... it was a good challenge and a lot of fun.
Thing is, I expected such gameplay mechanics in OFP as it advertised itself as a realistic warfare simulator. Everything takes time; traversing the huge islands, planning out battles and so on and so forth. As a result, the additional demand of having to go prone, aim and estimate how much you would compensate for distance with the shot <b>worked</b>. It worked because you had the time and the distance to do so and the realistic premise to make it gel with the world Flashpoint presented. It felt right.
You stick such a system in Half-Life 2, for example, and things go wrong. You're playing a fast, kinetic arcade-style game which doesn't even pretend to approach 'realism', despite the accurate physics. When Combine soldiers, Striders, Gunships and dropships are making your life an immediate hell punctuated by flanking maneuvers, grenade smoke-outs, strafing runs and general firepower then the last thing on your mind is accounting for wind speed, ammunition characteristics and any other irrelevant rubbish. Some of its weapons may <i>look</i> like real-life technology, but the similarity ends there. As far as I know, the MP7 can't fire grenades from its second 'barrel', and the SPAS-12 isn't double-barreled.
It's all about gameplay that is enjoyable and accessable; realistic ballistics have no place in such a ideology. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FP, you have made the clearest, most reasonable post so far.
i completely agree with EVERYTHING you said, and what i ask you now is this:
HL2 will be a very "arcadey" sci fi game with aliens and spaceships and zombies oh my..
so if it has all these things, laser guns, etc.. why does it have conventional weapons? having conventional weapons that don't DO what conventional weapons do is like a premise.. a lie. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm actually with Zig on this one. The "realistic ballistics -> lag" argument gets thrown out the window when you introduce the concept of disabling it for internet play and low-spec computers playing solo. And to people who say that thinking about the different ammo types takes them away from enjoying the game, I say that the difference adds to the atmosphere of the game for me. Atmosphere assists gameplay.
Now, I'm not going to say that hitscan calculations for conventional weapons <i>ruins</i> the game, I'm just saying that because Valve clearly has the tools in place to use more realistic ballistics, they're wasting an opportunity I feel is worth taking. I don't have the coding experience to make a mod that would change all weapons to use the physics engine, but I doubt I'm the only person who feels this way, and I look forward to the day I can download someone else's solution and enjoy my game the way I feel it should be played.