Re: Shooting for Realism: How Accurate are Video-Game Weapons?

**Elwenil** · 03-28-2008, 02:10 PM

Here's the kicker, I don't feel PR is realistic enough, lol. I play PR regularly but I find myself getting more and more fed up with getting blasted with L-AT and tanks that a huge block of C4 can't even scratch. Foolishness.

**SmokingTarpan** · 03-28-2008, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Elwenil

Here's the kicker, I don't feel PR is realistic enough, lol. I play PR regularly but I find myself getting more and more fed up with getting blasted with L-AT and tanks that a huge block of C4 can't even scratch. Foolishness.

Well I can't speak about the C4 on tanks (why do you have infantry engaging tanks in hand-to-hand anyway?), but I've heard accounts from actual soldiers about using L-AT weapons to deal with infantry (generally snipers and such). So in that case, you're getting reality just as you want it, heh.

**Elwenil** · 03-28-2008, 02:30 PM

Dealing with infantry in buildings or fortifications, yes, but out in an open field? You can't even guarantee that the weapon will explode under those circumstances.

As for engaging armor on foot, it's a classic move. We found out in WWI that tanks without infantry support were vulnerable to attack and destruction by foot soldiers. The British even invented the "sticky bomb", a No 74 ST Grenade, that could be stuck to the tank and blow off the treads.

**Strag** · 03-28-2008, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Elwenil

I like ArmA and I am now just getting into really playing it, but I Googled around quite a bit and honestly, I haven't seen anything about the military using it. The characters in the game are US Army, and the US Army really doesn't have much need for a video simulation when they themselves make America's Army.

America's Army is a recruiting tool.

Do a search on Virtual Battlespace (VBS 1 or 2); they're more feature-rich versions of OFP and ArmA. These Marines, among others, use VBS for virtual training. Magnum owns VBS2, and I'm sure he could tell you quite a bit about it. In fact, check out one of his threads about it here.

**westyfield** · 03-28-2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Elwenil

As for engaging armor on foot, it's a classic move. We found out in WWI that tanks without infantry support were vulnerable to attack and destruction by foot soldiers. The British even invented the "sticky bomb", a No 74 ST Grenade, that could be stuck to the tank and blow off the treads.

Mine in front of tank, C4 on back of tank. Wait 5-10 seconds after placing C4 and getting to a safe distance, detonate C4. Explosion pushes tank onto mine and finishes it off.
This only works with stationary tanks or one man tanks.
Sticky bombs in PR would be good, but I don't know if they are still used or not. Maybe insurgents/militia would use them...

**Elwenil** · 03-28-2008, 03:54 PM

They aren't used anymore in any real dedicated sense. Anti-tank weapons are usually a much safer option since you can attack from a distance but when you lack those, you have to improvise.

**Skud** · 03-28-2008, 06:17 PM

To be quite honest, the frustration that many of us have with PR is how damn bloody balanced everything has to be.

Asymmetrical maps have proved to be at least 10x better in gameplay and tactics.

**Uranium - 235** · 03-28-2008, 08:04 PM

For the record, C4 on a tank wouldn't do a damn thing without precise placement. If you just glued it to the hull, almost all of the blast is going to be deflected outwards. The only place it'd do some serious damage is on the underside where most of the force is going to be compressed between the hull and the ground, or on the tracks or something.

**Elwenil** · 03-28-2008, 09:08 PM

Actually, on the lightly armored rear hull at the engine cooling grates, it would do a fair amount of damage and most likely disable it. Plus, the tracks are especially vulnerable. Remember that in the BF2 games the block of C4 is enough to take out a bridge, so I think a tank would be at least disabled by it.

**SmokingTarpan** · 03-28-2008, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Elwenil

Remember that in the BF2 games the block of C4 is enough to take out a bridge, so I think a tank would be at least disabled by it.

Unless it's changed in PR, from what I remember in vBF2 and the first few mods after it took 3+ packs of C4 to take out a bridge (wooden, stone or otherwise). Some areas of a tank would be more vulnerable, I agree, but a single block of C4 on the outside armor (especially some of the specialized armor they have now) doesn't seem like it would be enough to totally take it down.

**Elwenil** · 03-28-2008, 10:05 PM

In PR it takes one block to take out a concrete/stone bridge like on Qwai River, and two for a steel truss bridge on Fools Road. That would be plenty for blowing the engine covers or treads off a tank according to my SEAL friend.

**Pfeil22** · 03-29-2008, 04:02 AM

Phil Therien, Rainbow Six Vegas 2’s game designer, was recently interviewed by Eurogamer and answered a direct question about realistic shooters that sheds some light on the subject.

Question: I'm a longtime fan of the old Ghost Recon 1 games on Xbox 1 and PC, mainly becuase they were more realistic, with one-hit kills, no recharging health-bars and massive levels. The newer Ubisoft shooters seem geared towards a mass market. Are there any plans to release or re-release any of these old super-realistic shooters on next-gen consoles?

Phil Therien: I doubt we will ever go back to really hardcore only shooters. The market was too narrow for it to be a viable business choice. We would like to be able to please both sides but compromises have to be made. We have some ideas to improve on the situation though - keep in mind however that we want our games to be accessible to as many people as possible, otherwise we just couldn't keep making games.

I am sure Ubisoft isn’t the only company that shares this sentiment, which doesn’t bode well for gamers that enjoy realistic or simulation shooters. However, there is still some light for those of us who enjoy what is obviously becoming a niche market of games. My hope lies with BlackFoot Studios and its development of Ground Branch, but Bohemia Interactive might get its act together with ArmA 2.

**Tarenth** · 03-29-2008, 04:40 AM

Granted that the enjoyment you derive from a game is related to the people you play with. Playing quasi-realistic shooters with a TG group of mature and goal orientated players will be a vastly superior experience then your average public or clan server with half hearted regulations and enforcement.

That said: Just how many TGish groups are there and how much of the gaming population do that comprise?

If you take THAT into account you can see why a realistic shooter is definately a nitch market that won't take off in terms of wide spread popularity. If it wasn't a nitch field then we wouldn't complain and differentiate between "Playing the TG Way" and "Stupid pubbies".

Also there is another thing to consider. If you develop a game with hyper-realism then you really leave no room for player control in terms of development. You're effectively running yourself into a box with no exit. However if you go for a more arcade feel (like BF2, CoD2, and CoD4) then players can choose to either play arcade style or hype up the realism. If BF2 was released in the same condition PR is now (realism enchanced and all) then how many people would play BF2 or even stick with it after playing due to unsatisfactory experience with pubbie play style?

**Uranium - 235** · 03-30-2008, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Pfeil2281

Phil Therien, Rainbow Six Vegas 2’s game designer, was recently interviewed by Eurogamer and answered a direct question about realistic shooters that sheds some light on the subject.

I am sure Ubisoft isn’t the only company that shares this sentiment, which doesn’t bode well for gamers that enjoy realistic or simulation shooters. However, there is still some light for those of us who enjoy what is obviously becoming a niche market of games. My hope lies with BlackFoot Studios and its development of Ground Branch, but Bohemia Interactive might get its act together with ArmA 2.

Ubisoft makes some of the worst, dumbed-down consolized games ever made. His whining that he "couldn't keep making games" means that "he doesn't want to make a game unless it means three new sports cars in his garage."

**Long Bow** · 03-31-2008, 11:24 AM

I agree that game companies need to stay profitable and as such need to cater to the great middle ground. However they need to do a few key things to keep more people happy. First they need to be much more mod friendly. I know EA has been notourisly difficult to mod their games like BF2. Alot of PR's cool things are strange workarounds or required a good deal of effort to figure out instead of having a solid moding tool set straight from EA. If we can buy a game and then find a community, such as TG, that mods the game easily into a quality mod then we all win.

Second I absolutely love what they did with COD4 multiplayer. The vanilla and hardcore modes is exactly what games need to have. You can keep more people happy that way by simply making two slightly different flavours of the game to cater to different sides of the middle ground. No its not perfect but it's better then not having the choice. Two modes or allow the server host to change some rules and settings without making the server un-ranked.

Thread Tools

Display