I could be mistaken, but I think flamethrowers in games (with the exception of the Close Combat series) bear more resemblance to commercial and industrial flamethrowers. You spit out a cloud of burning gas, which ceases as soon as the gas source is cut. It cooks things, but that's about it.
Military flamethrowers haven't changed a great deal, and are no longer considered viable weapons, barring some extreme scenarios(?). They spit out a an amount of liquid which is ignited, and thus, sticks and clings to things, which continue to burn, not necessarily because they are on fire, but because of the viscosity of the liquid in question.
This would involve considerably more complex physics than a lot of games could handle, so it's no surprise. Plus, to be truly accurate, they would also have to incorporate the fact that man-portable flamethrowers had a tendency to explode when shot at.
I just imagine how horribly unfun a game would be if they went so realistic with them.
For example. Lets say the new Modern Warfare game used the US Air Forces most recent designs. For anyone that doesn't keep tabs on this sort of thing, the Air Force has actually developed and named their new weapon, the Phazor... yeah, I know.
Anyway, the way it works, and has succesfully been tested, is that its basically a microwave gun. It doesn't fire rounds, just waves. When those waves reach their target, they react to the skin in a way that makes the target feel like they are on fire. No searing of flesh, no physical harm (until they get cancer 10 years later...). Basically, its the best crowd control weapon you could imagine.
Now... tell me how awesome that would be to use in a video game?
In retrospect, that actually sounds fucking awesome to use in a single player campaign.
Almost every weapon in every game is inaccurate in some form. It's so bad that it seems like the only research done by developers is watching movies.
This pretty much falls under that whole "Uzis and the rule of cool" quote earlier in the thread.
I don't like the fact that with most games: it won't remember when a round is in the chamber, the character charges weapons each time you switch, you can cook off a grenade without releasing the spoon, tapping the trigger will fire a complete three round burst, and weapons like the M4 and M16 don't have the last round bolt hold open feature.
Anyone with even a lmited amount of experience with weapons would know these things. They do not increase the cool factor or balance gameplay.
Weapons with backwards textures is something that should never, ever happen yet it does. I could almost not play Farcry 2 because of it! Every time I fire a gun in a game and the brass comes out from the left side of the weapon I die a little inside.
This has nothing to do with game logic. . . it's just a mistake that needs to stop.
BLACK did that strictly for Rule of Cool by the developer's own admission, but yes, that's annoying as well. Unless the player character is the only right-handed guy in a left-handed world, because they do make a few guns for lefties specifically.
The "shotguns are useless outside 10 feet olol" is the one that gets me the most though. :P
Edit - Except for California, Axen.
Well, most assault rifles suited for lefties are either ambidextrious or have an adapter for the brass deflector.
Can you say auto turret? You wouldn't need a constant fire, just random chaotic bursts down a hallway or a choke point to keep people from rushing you. Add a sniper to pick them off...
I could be mistaken, but I think flamethrowers in games (with the exception of the Close Combat series) bear more resemblance to commercial and industrial flamethrowers. You spit out a cloud of burning gas, which ceases as soon as the gas source is cut. It cooks things, but that's about it.
Military flamethrowers haven't changed a great deal, and are no longer considered viable weapons, barring some extreme scenarios(?). They spit out a an amount of liquid which is ignited, and thus, sticks and clings to things, which continue to burn, not necessarily because they are on fire, but because of the viscosity of the liquid in question.
This would involve considerably more complex physics than a lot of games could handle, so it's no surprise. Plus, to be truly accurate, they would also have to incorporate the fact that man-portable flamethrowers had a tendency to explode when shot at.
So is the Worms flamethrower essentially accurate, then?
My gripe would be sniper rifles. COD4 for example, I hit a guy with a .50 cal Barrett he should be dead or unable to move, period. I understand they have the perk Juggernaut, but even with huge amounts of body armor, getting hit with a fucking .50 cal in your body or face and your gonna be done or wounded to the point you can not keep running around with a fucking RPD.
I could be mistaken, but I think flamethrowers in games (with the exception of the Close Combat series) bear more resemblance to commercial and industrial flamethrowers. You spit out a cloud of burning gas, which ceases as soon as the gas source is cut. It cooks things, but that's about it.
Military flamethrowers haven't changed a great deal, and are no longer considered viable weapons, barring some extreme scenarios(?). They spit out a an amount of liquid which is ignited, and thus, sticks and clings to things, which continue to burn, not necessarily because they are on fire, but because of the viscosity of the liquid in question.
This would involve considerably more complex physics than a lot of games could handle, so it's no surprise. Plus, to be truly accurate, they would also have to incorporate the fact that man-portable flamethrowers had a tendency to explode when shot at.
So is the Worms flamethrower essentially accurate, then?
I would love it if Worms turned out to be the benchmark for weapon realism in gaming.
I could be mistaken, but I think flamethrowers in games (with the exception of the Close Combat series) bear more resemblance to commercial and industrial flamethrowers. You spit out a cloud of burning gas, which ceases as soon as the gas source is cut. It cooks things, but that's about it.
Military flamethrowers haven't changed a great deal, and are no longer considered viable weapons, barring some extreme scenarios(?). They spit out a an amount of liquid which is ignited, and thus, sticks and clings to things, which continue to burn, not necessarily because they are on fire, but because of the viscosity of the liquid in question.
This would involve considerably more complex physics than a lot of games could handle, so it's no surprise. Plus, to be truly accurate, they would also have to incorporate the fact that man-portable flamethrowers had a tendency to explode when shot at.
So is the Worms flamethrower essentially accurate, then?
I would love it if Worms turned out to be the benchmark for weapon realism in gaming.
Well, its the only game that makes you take into account the wind speed and direction for long distant shots. The shotgun isn't limited to close combat. You're enemies know the difference from you barely missing, to your WTF shots.
It's honestly got more things going for it than you would initially think.
It's not even about being a gun nut, it's just common sense. Anyone can take 3 seconds and look at a picture of a gun and see that the brass comes out on the right side so it will not smack the shooter in his face.
I guess. I mean, sometimes it's not so obvious. For example, I've seen god-knows how many films about the Second World War, and played god knows how many games about it. But until I saw an actual technical sketch a month ago or whatever, I was not aware that the ejection port on an MG'42 is on the underside of the gun.
Pretty sure most games just have it discarding jackets out the opposite side.
It's not even about being a gun nut, it's just common sense. Anyone can take 3 seconds and look at a picture of a gun and see that the brass comes out on the right side so it will not smack the shooter in his face.
I guess. I mean, sometimes it's not so obvious. For example, I've seen god-knows how many films about the Second World War, and played god knows how many games about it. But until I saw an actual technical sketch a month ago or whatever, I was not aware that the ejection port on an MG'42 is on the underside of the gun.
Pretty sure most games just have it discarding jackets out the opposite side.
Actually, most machine guns eject brass from the bottom of the receiver.
It's not even about being a gun nut, it's just common sense. Anyone can take 3 seconds and look at a picture of a gun and see that the brass comes out on the right side so it will not smack the shooter in his face.
I guess. I mean, sometimes it's not so obvious. For example, I've seen god-knows how many films about the Second World War, and played god knows how many games about it. But until I saw an actual technical sketch a month ago or whatever, I was not aware that the ejection port on an MG'42 is on the underside of the gun.
Pretty sure most games just have it discarding jackets out the opposite side.
Actually, most machine guns have their ejection port on the bottom.
I wasn't aware of that. Then again, despite living in the gun-lovin' American South and having been drafted back home, I've never really gotten that close to a machinegun. My memory isn't that good, but the Type 74 and 75 (the closest ones I've ever seen in person) both have them on the side. :?
Synthesis on
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
Indeed. However (with very few exceptions) rifles, pistols, and assault rifles eject brass to the right. This has been the universal default since man first invented conventional bullets.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
It's not even about being a gun nut, it's just common sense. Anyone can take 3 seconds and look at a picture of a gun and see that the brass comes out on the right side so it will not smack the shooter in his face.
I guess. I mean, sometimes it's not so obvious. For example, I've seen god-knows how many films about the Second World War, and played god knows how many games about it. But until I saw an actual technical sketch a month ago or whatever, I was not aware that the ejection port on an MG'42 is on the underside of the gun.
Pretty sure most games just have it discarding jackets out the opposite side.
Actually, most machine guns have their ejection port on the bottom.
I wasn't aware of that. Then again, despite living in the gun-lovin' American South and having been drafted back home, I've never really gotten that close to a machinegun. My memory isn't that good, but the Type 74 and 75 (the closest ones I've ever seen in person) both have them on the side. :?
I looked those up. The T74 is an FN MAG (M240) clone, so it ejects brass from the bottom. The T75 which is an FN MINIMI (M249) clone does eject brass from the right. The MINIMI is the only machine gun that I know of that ejects brass from the right.
Indeed. However (with very few exceptions) rifles, pistols, and assault rifles eject brass to the right. This has been the universal default since man first invented conventional bullets.
I only remember because the Type 75s used big box magazines that mounted on the bottom. Well, that, and I'm pretty sure I actually saw them eject to the side.
But yes, video game physics: since we've wandered into the area of warmaking and stuff, I'm tired of amphibious vehicles not being amphibious! Namely, games like World in Conflict, Mercenaries 2, Battlefield: Bad Company (I think), and others. Stop doing that! If you're worried about balance, use something that's not amphibious!
I looked those up. The T74 is an FN MAG clone, so it ejects brass from the bottom. The T75 which is an FN MINIMI clone does eject brass from the right. The MINIMI is the only machine gun that I know of that ejects brass from the right.
If you're right, you're right. I spent a lot more time around laundry, shovels and bicycles (in that order) than machineguns, so I'm sure you'll understand my lapse in memory. *renders self prostrate*
Here's a simple area where VG logic fails: that weapons have to be "balanced" in the first place. Your S&W model 29 may pack a high-powered cartridge, but you've only got six shots. If I have an M16 I will cut you down.
Here's a simple area where VG logic fails: that weapons have to be "balanced" in the first place. Your S&W model 29 may pack a high-powered cartridge, but you've only got six shots. If I have an M16 I will cut you down.
It depends on the game really. Jagged Alliance 2 was a strategy game and quite fine with letting you be screwed against rifle wielding enemies if you only had a handgun unless you attacked at night or in close quarters where the range disadvantage was mitigated.
Also, I'm glad someone mentioned the whole brass coming out of the left side. As someone who has had a piece of hot brass from a real firearm bounce off the wall and lodge itself between his shooting glasses and the upper part of my nose followed by doing a "get it off, get it off" dance, I can attest that increasing the risk of such an event happening in a combat situation is ill advised.
Also, I'm glad someone mentioned the whole brass coming out of the left side. As someone who has had a piece of hot brass from a real firearm bounce off the wall and lodge itself between his shooting glasses and the upper part of my nose followed by doing a "get it off, get it off" dance, I can attest that increasing the risk of such an event happening in a combat situation is ill advised.
Also, I'm glad someone mentioned the whole brass coming out of the left side. As someone who has had a piece of hot brass from a real firearm bounce off the wall and lodge itself between his shooting glasses and the upper part of my nose followed by doing a "get it off, get it off" dance, I can attest that increasing the risk of such an event happening in a combat situation is ill advised.
Best post yet.
Bronze foundry in high school. Used the meat hook to rake the impurity sludge off the top. The adult in the room though it would be a good idea to bash meat hook on a cinderblock to get the red hot metal off the hook. Cue the fat, ghetto, white boy running around like a little bitch after it lands near his vulnerable eye socket.
Burning pain dances are the best dances.
I would also like to reiterate the concept of falling from tall heights and taking a disproportionate amount of damage and materials not responding to your fall.
Once again, Deus Ex was good in this seeing as how you could return to NYC, send the transmission, and then jump onto the tower of cardboard boxes taht you had built outside.
Posts
I just imagine how horribly unfun a game would be if they went so realistic with them.
For example. Lets say the new Modern Warfare game used the US Air Forces most recent designs. For anyone that doesn't keep tabs on this sort of thing, the Air Force has actually developed and named their new weapon, the Phazor... yeah, I know.
Anyway, the way it works, and has succesfully been tested, is that its basically a microwave gun. It doesn't fire rounds, just waves. When those waves reach their target, they react to the skin in a way that makes the target feel like they are on fire. No searing of flesh, no physical harm (until they get cancer 10 years later...). Basically, its the best crowd control weapon you could imagine.
Now... tell me how awesome that would be to use in a video game?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
I don't like the fact that with most games: it won't remember when a round is in the chamber, the character charges weapons each time you switch, you can cook off a grenade without releasing the spoon, tapping the trigger will fire a complete three round burst, and weapons like the M4 and M16 don't have the last round bolt hold open feature.
Anyone with even a lmited amount of experience with weapons would know these things. They do not increase the cool factor or balance gameplay.
Well, most assault rifles suited for lefties are either ambidextrious or have an adapter for the brass deflector.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
So is the Worms flamethrower essentially accurate, then?
C'mon, even i laugh at how absurd it is in CODMW
I would love it if Worms turned out to be the benchmark for weapon realism in gaming.
Yeah, I don't think I could do that with a regular, normal person sized, handgun.
Also, great name? :?
Well, its the only game that makes you take into account the wind speed and direction for long distant shots. The shotgun isn't limited to close combat. You're enemies know the difference from you barely missing, to your WTF shots.
It's honestly got more things going for it than you would initially think.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
I guess. I mean, sometimes it's not so obvious. For example, I've seen god-knows how many films about the Second World War, and played god knows how many games about it. But until I saw an actual technical sketch a month ago or whatever, I was not aware that the ejection port on an MG'42 is on the underside of the gun.
Pretty sure most games just have it discarding jackets out the opposite side.
Yeah it's something similar to napalm.
Actually, most machine guns eject brass from the bottom of the receiver.
I wasn't aware of that. Then again, despite living in the gun-lovin' American South and having been drafted back home, I've never really gotten that close to a machinegun. My memory isn't that good, but the Type 74 and 75 (the closest ones I've ever seen in person) both have them on the side. :?
I looked those up. The T74 is an FN MAG (M240) clone, so it ejects brass from the bottom. The T75 which is an FN MINIMI (M249) clone does eject brass from the right. The MINIMI is the only machine gun that I know of that ejects brass from the right.
I only remember because the Type 75s used big box magazines that mounted on the bottom. Well, that, and I'm pretty sure I actually saw them eject to the side.
But yes, video game physics: since we've wandered into the area of warmaking and stuff, I'm tired of amphibious vehicles not being amphibious! Namely, games like World in Conflict, Mercenaries 2, Battlefield: Bad Company (I think), and others. Stop doing that! If you're worried about balance, use something that's not amphibious!
EDIT:
If you're right, you're right. I spent a lot more time around laundry, shovels and bicycles (in that order) than machineguns, so I'm sure you'll understand my lapse in memory. *renders self prostrate*
It depends on the game really. Jagged Alliance 2 was a strategy game and quite fine with letting you be screwed against rifle wielding enemies if you only had a handgun unless you attacked at night or in close quarters where the range disadvantage was mitigated.
Also, I'm glad someone mentioned the whole brass coming out of the left side. As someone who has had a piece of hot brass from a real firearm bounce off the wall and lodge itself between his shooting glasses and the upper part of my nose followed by doing a "get it off, get it off" dance, I can attest that increasing the risk of such an event happening in a combat situation is ill advised.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Best post yet.
Bronze foundry in high school. Used the meat hook to rake the impurity sludge off the top. The adult in the room though it would be a good idea to bash meat hook on a cinderblock to get the red hot metal off the hook. Cue the fat, ghetto, white boy running around like a little bitch after it lands near his vulnerable eye socket.
Burning pain dances are the best dances.
I would also like to reiterate the concept of falling from tall heights and taking a disproportionate amount of damage and materials not responding to your fall.
Once again, Deus Ex was good in this seeing as how you could return to NYC, send the transmission, and then jump onto the tower of cardboard boxes taht you had built outside.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534