Medal of Honor (2010 reboot)

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:are you really trying to say this stuff is like real war?

when was the last time you saw a realism shooter that actually applied some concept of weapon weight? where fights ended in moments and 20 mags were spent to get like 2 kills?

like civ said. War sucks, thus 'realism' shooters should never even stress realism. cause they always fail anyway.

Fair enough. But MoH is more realistic than other most other games.

War sucks in real life. Games are there to give things a lighter mood, and to just fuck around in. Video games shouldn't be realistic.

@NT: In MW2, weapons had different weights. i.e., an MG would make you slower than if you were holding an M9.

When I said "based on reality", I meant as in story for the most part.

Yeah but you get his point though. They at least tried.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Like Ruski said, play on Tier 1, and that shit won't happen.

I responded to that.

Rotaretilbo wrote:You missed the point entirely. No one is saying it doesn't happen. We're saying "so what?" and "that makes sense."

And you're missing my point entirely as well. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense; it's just a stupid feature. No matter what I do, there's always that chance that an enemy lands a lucky shot and I start over.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Care to make an assertion and then support it, too? I can't really pick apart the inherently flawed argument if you don't give me anything to actually pick apart (though the act of not giving support itself allows me to pick it apart, so I don't mind too much).

You're a walking bullet magnet that can carry five times your weight in lead. Blood falls off your face after a few seconds under cover. You're engaging in face-to-face warfare with a guerrilla army. The guns don't even kick (at least, not the ones I've used - including the not-MG42). Sure, it has a more realistic storyline and is very well researched, but the PREMISE of the game is not realistic in the least.

Rotaretilbo wrote:We're talking about two entirely different genres here. On one hand, we have science fiction, which doesn't have to be realistic to today's information, but has to be realistic in some manners. On the other, we have historical shooters, which are expected to be fucking realistic.

My first example was Nazis. You CAN'T make a good realistic game. I mean, you can, but it would be horrible. Real war isn't fun. Most of the time that ISN'T spent doing grunt work you're either fighting for your life against horrible odds or you can't even find who you're supposed to shoot at.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Oh, CoD has changed. It just hasn't changed for the better. The original CoD, the expansion, and CoD2 (or so I've heard) are amazing games. Modern Warfare was decent, but everything after that...meh.

I have all of the CoDs aside from #1. Not much has changed; it just got old after a while.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I got it from Treyarch when I was at e3. They complained that enemies could one-hit kill you with a headshot, that grenades didn't fly very far, and that your character felt bulky. We laughed and pointed out that a bullet to the head should kill you, that grenades are heavy as fuck, and that soldiers wear like sixty pounds of gear.

I only have a problem with the first one, and that's only because it's a terrible feature. TECHNICALLY, a bullet ANYWHERE will make it much more difficult to fight back and, if you're unlucky it'll just kill you. Most people wont survive after the second and third.

If you're going to include headshots for enemies, you may as well have each shot force you to be unable to fight back for a few seconds and severely decrease your aim thereafter. Sometimes these single shots should be fatal. Oh, and if you take any shots, you're probably going back to a field hospital, so you loose anyway.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Ya. At the top of the food chain when it came to what went in and didn't go into MoH were actual Tier 1 Operators. Actually military personnel with actual military experience got to decide what went into the game.

It's still just a game, though.

Rotaretilbo wrote:No, I'm pretty sure frustrating == challenging. The catharsis of beating a challenging mission comes from the pent up frustration.

That's not true. There is a fine line between frustrating and challenging. Challenging is where you are forced to take a new, less familiar approach. Something that's frustration is where the only way to get through something is with dumb luck. Challenges require thought.



Now, so we don't have any misunderstandings, I think realism is okay. In fact, I think a game like this should STRIVE for realism. BUT, gameplay cannot be sacrificed for realism. It's a game first, documentary last.

Nocbl2 wrote:

@NT: In MW2, weapons had different weights. i.e., an MG would make you slower than if you were holding an M9.

but what you don't realize is the M240G (one of the common MGs in MW2) weighs 24 lbs without its tripod and the tripod weighs another 20lbs to stabilize it. And that's BEFORE you add 200+ round ammo drums. The weapon is meant to be employed by a gunner an A gunner from an overwatch position.

KristallNacht wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:

@NT: In MW2, weapons had different weights. i.e., an MG would make you slower than if you were holding an M9.

but what you don't realize is the M240G (one of the common MGs in MW2) weighs 24 lbs without its tripod and the tripod weighs another 20lbs to stabilize it. And that's BEFORE you add 200+ round ammo drums. The weapon is meant to be employed by a gunner an A gunner from an overwatch position.

Not to mention that in the altitude in which Afghanistan is, the weight feels a lot heavier. I read a book recently about a soldier's experience in the first few years of Afghanistan, and he talked about how, traditionally, 60-80 pounds of equipment felt like 120+. So that weight would be even heavier in a sence, bolstering NT's point.

I've made no such claim. I said it SOUNDS like it would be frustrating.