Official Soldat Forums
Misc => The Lounge => Topic started by: -Skykanden- on May 04, 2007, 08:58:47 am
-
Look what i saw in filefront :P :o a call of duty of the modern times, that will work?
Link to the trailer
http://files.filefront.com/7371763
-
The graphics don't look extraordinary (when compared to crysis)... but COD has always been awesome, especially for LANs. It is nice that they decided not to make ANOTHER WW2 one...
-
they should have done stuff in between ww2 and modern, like korean war, cold war, vietnam...
I tend to dislike modern shooters because they usually put a huge emphasis on gun realism rather then balance.
-
I am a strictly ww2 guy when it comes to shooters really. I might give this a shot though, I love COD :D
-
they should have done stuff in between ww2 and modern, like korean war, cold war, vietnam...
I tend to dislike modern shooters because they usually put a huge emphasis on gun realism rather then balance.
The Cold War includes the Korean War and the Vietnam War.....But if you mean late 80's tech or something like that, that would go into modern. Vietnam would suck. Korean war would be awesome, really awesome.
Also....if the gun's were realistic, they'd be balanced...right?
-
Ha! The point of balance is to reduce realism. In real life, every gun kills in one shot, or at least severely incapacitates someone. Games can't be like that or weapon diversity won't matter.
-
they should have done stuff in between ww2 and modern, like korean war, cold war, vietnam...
I tend to dislike modern shooters because they usually put a huge emphasis on gun realism rather then balance.
Trust me modern games are not realistic. Korean war is gay. and vietnam the Yanks lost, thats y they stopped making those games.
-
Also....if the gun's were realistic, they'd be balanced...right?
Nope, [roll semiautomatic barrett footage from youtube]
they should have done stuff in between ww2 and modern, like korean war, cold war, vietnam...
I tend to dislike modern shooters because they usually put a huge emphasis on gun realism rather then balance.
Trust me modern games are not realistic. Korean war is gay. and vietnam the Yanks lost, thats y they stopped making those games.
Operation Flash Point? Armed Assault? America's Army? Not realistic? They stopped making Vietnam games because the only good one was Battlefield and the rest where just shit made for the ps2.
-
Also....if the gun's were realistic, they'd be balanced...right?
Nope, [roll semiautomatic barrett footage from youtube]
Yes.....of course a soldier is going to be able to use a Barrett as an asault weapon.
Main point being, I think realism is balanced. There is no all powerful gun in real life. For example, if we use modern weapons....One solider is using an M16A2, and another soldier is using an AK47 [retard] The M16A2 has less recoil, and is more accurate, but on the down side it's not all that powerful. The AK47 is powerful, automatic, but has heavy recoil. Alright...I'm not being super realistic here, but still different strategies.
-
Also....if the gun's were realistic, they'd be balanced...right?
Nope, [roll semiautomatic barrett footage from youtube]
Yes.....of course a soldier is going to be able to use a Barrett as an asault weapon.
Main point being, I think realism is balanced. There is no all powerful gun in real life. For example, if we use modern weapons....One solider is using an M16A2, and another soldier is using an AK47 [retard] The M16A2 has less recoil, and is more accurate, but on the down side it's not all that powerful. The AK47 is powerful, automatic, but has heavy recoil. Alright...I'm not being super realistic here, but still different strategies.
It is totally irrelevant when you have
1. always an almost 1 hit kill, especially because if it isn't a 1 hit kill, they are incapable of shooting back, making the m16a1 the better weapon,
2. No, you wouldn't use it as an assault rifle, you would use it as the sniper rifle that hits targets behind concrete from very very far away.
-
Also....if the gun's were realistic, they'd be balanced...right?
Nope, [roll semiautomatic barrett footage from youtube]
Yes.....of course a soldier is going to be able to use a Barrett as an asault weapon.
Main point being, I think realism is balanced. There is no all powerful gun in real life. For example, if we use modern weapons....One solider is using an M16A2, and another soldier is using an AK47 [retard] The M16A2 has less recoil, and is more accurate, but on the down side it's not all that powerful. The AK47 is powerful, automatic, but has heavy recoil. Alright...I'm not being super realistic here, but still different strategies.
It is totally irrelevant when you have
1. always an almost 1 hit kill, especially because if it isn't a 1 hit kill, they are incapable of shooting back, making the m16a1 the better weapon,
2. No, you wouldn't use it as an assault rifle, you would use it as the sniper rifle that hits targets behind concrete from very very far away.
1. In realism you don't have super abilites, and aiming isn't easy. Most hits in real life don't kill you right away anyways. So don't expect alot of one hit kills. Also LOL YOU SAID THE M16A1 IS BETTER
2. Then how would a barrett be unbalanced in a game? sure it's accurate and you can pierce things, but you're screwed if someone comes near you.
-
1. In realism you don't have super abilites, and aiming isn't easy. Most hits in real life don't kill you right away anyways. So don't expect alot of one hit kills. Also LOL YOU SAID THE M16A1 IS BETTER
2. Then how would a barrett be unbalanced in a game? sure it's accurate and you can pierce things, but you're screwed if someone comes near you.
1. No you don't have super abilities, you do however, have a gun, and as long as you hit someone in the chest or head, they are down, they cannot kill you, they die.
2. with a barrett, you can see them before they even know you exist, you can shoot them 10 times before they can locate you, so no, they won't be getting near you.
-
1. In realism you don't have super abilites, and aiming isn't easy. Most hits in real life don't kill you right away anyways. So don't expect alot of one hit kills. Also LOL YOU SAID THE M16A1 IS BETTER
2. Then how would a barrett be unbalanced in a game? sure it's accurate and you can pierce things, but you're screwed if someone comes near you.
1. No you don't have super abilities, you do however, have a gun, and as long as you hit someone in the chest or head, they are down, they cannot kill you, they die.
2. with a barrett, you can see them before they even know you exist, you can shoot them 10 times before they can locate you, so no, they won't be getting near you.
Did you know damage is not the only thing in weapon balance? [retard] That's all I'm saying. Your original post was that most modern FPS's focus on weapon realism rather then balance, and if you implement realistic weapons, it'll be all unbalanced and crap. Well that's wrong. Take into account accuracy, ammunition, rate of fire....and how many weapons of that kind are. You mentioned the barrett, and I'm assuming that it would be the ownage weapon of all time in a realistic game, which....isn't true. You can't possibly be totally aware of the battlefield, and you'll get owned at close quarters combat.