Or strategic crouch shooters.Pretty sure they're really called Bunny Hop Shooters!
Or strategic crouch shooters.Pretty sure they're really called Bunny Hop Shooters!
That is rather rich. I have fired quite a few firearms. They do not fire in any sort of "cone" the way it does in a video game. They fire in a path from where they are aimed, with little variance. Now, your aim might change slightly, resulting in where you're hitting to be different, but that isn't' a cone of fire.
With my shooting, a cone of fire is a very reasonable simulation. lolNot really. The "cone of fire" represents a random spear where a bullet my hit, which is very unrealistic. What would be realistic is, after sprinting, my aim was jerky and moving. Thus, achieving what the cone of fire is trying to achieve, only in a way not so dishonest and bull crap. The bullets are going to travel in a very predictable path from the barrel of the gun. There is very little variation. The problem with that is it gives an unfair advantage to people who have really good aim, thus making the masses of players, upset that one guy can kill him every time no matter what.
I too like both. In general I like the more realistic games, but I'm currently having a blast with Counterstrike: Global Offensive even though it has things that absolutely infuriate me. No one can hit crap when dodging back and forth or leaping off a platform. One's particular cone of fire does a hell of a lot more than double while running. These things should not change in a game. Leaning too I consider highly important, especially in a pure shooter. Nonetheless, I'm having a blast with CS:GO.Both. It's not really an either-or answer. Deus Ex, Doom & Operation Flashpoint were all great fun all with different styles of play. As for new vs old, new games are certainly more realistic, but that's not always the same thing as being more fun (which is the primary reason for playing games). Regenerating health (infinite health per level) is no more "realistic" than stimpacks (finite health per level). Weapon limits work well for ARMA style games, but can make pseudo-arcade shooters boring & rigid. Some of the hardest "conserving ammo" games I've played have been community Doom WAD's which deliberately starved the player on high level settings, so even the same game can fit into both poll categories depending on map design. Cutscenes & QTE's can be annoying as hell in any game. For pure "stress relief", Doom (via Doomsday engine) & Serious Sam still work way better for me than any modern game.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd say many such games work really well when they don't take themselves too seriously and let the gamer game instead of trying to "entertain" them. At the end of the day, you basically just pick whatever game whose style suits your mood at the time you want to play (which can change day by day for each person). I regularly switched from Quake 3 to Thief to Age of Empires, and back again. It all depends on your mood as very few gamers limit themselves to just one sub-genre / style of gaming.
To some degree some games magnify those effects, but it also goes considerably in the other direction, where in the game I am much less accurate than in real life.A good rifle firing good consistent ammunition clamped to a table produces about 1 MOA cone. A military rifle with unmatched ammo might expect 2-3 MOA cone. It is absolutely a cone. It has nothing to do with aim point shifting. It has to do with all sorts of things like the weight of the bullet being slightly different, the amount of powder in the shell being different, how tight the chamber on the rifle is so it chambers the same way every time, etc, etc. That's before the bullet leaves the gun and you deal with environmental variables. Its far from as simple as the bullet hits where the rifle is pointing. Granted games magnify these effects, but firearms aren't hitscan lasers.
Clearly if you have fired 'quite a few' firearms, you learned nothing of shooting at long range.
A good rifle firing good consistent ammunition clamped to a table produces about 1 MOA cone. A military rifle with unmatched ammo might expect 2-3 MOA cone. It is absolutely a cone. It has nothing to do with aim point shifting. It has to do with all sorts of things like the weight of the bullet being slightly different, the amount of powder in the shell being different, how tight the chamber on the rifle is so it chambers the same way every time, etc, etc. That's before the bullet leaves the gun and you deal with environmental variables. Its far from as simple as the bullet hits where the rifle is pointing. Granted games magnify these effects, but firearms aren't hitscan lasers.
Clearly if you have fired 'quite a few' firearms, you learned nothing of shooting at long range.
There is a trade off between realism and making a game fun to play.
You're talking about a tighter grouping. There's lots of variables. The chamber tolerances, barrel material and lining, rate of twist, the bullet weight, the powder used, the air temperature, the humidity, the wind direction and speed. Then you have shooter variables. Breathing, trigger pull weight and discipline, proper sight picture.
The problem in games is that they make the crosshair increase in size to simulate bullet spread when moving. In reality that crosshair wouldn't expand, rather the weapon itself and the shooter would be moving left and right and/or up and down when moving. Usually you would be firing in a general direction when moving from cover to cover if you are not given the opportunity to setup and aim properly. In a firefight the shooter would be shaky and wouldn't be able to look down the sight after running 20 yards to cover and headshot the guy peeking out from behind the wall. You'd be breathing heavy and pretty shaky so that shot wouldn't happen except by chance. Almost no game goes for that kind of realism because it wouldn't be a very fun game to most people.
If a seasoned shooter is firing from a rest with an accurized rifle, they would be able to consistently hit very small groupings with the right ammo. Many games embellish the bullet spread and you get flyers more often than you may in real life. Shoot 5 shots at a spot on the wall in most games, bullets impacting what would be a foot apart is not realistic. Though again, realism isn't really what most games aim for. There is a difference between combat accuracy and match grade or competition accuracy. Most service rifles are combat accurate. They can hit a man sized target at most reasonable distances for the caliber. They aren't going to produce 2" groups at 100 yards but they also won't have a foot spread either. There is a trade off between realism and making a game fun to play.
In reality, the only weapon that produces a true cone of fire is a machine gun. ...a mounted machine gun, not Rambo.
While I've love it if games were that realism-based, the dynamic cone of fire seems to me to be a reasonable approximation.You're talking about a tighter grouping. There's lots of variables. The chamber tolerances, barrel material and lining, rate of twist, the bullet weight, the powder used, the air temperature, the humidity, the wind direction and speed. Then you have shooter variables. Breathing, trigger pull weight and discipline, proper sight picture.
The problem in games is that they make the crosshair increase in size to simulate bullet spread when moving. In reality that crosshair wouldn't expand, rather the weapon itself and the shooter would be moving left and right and/or up and down when moving. Usually you would be firing in a general direction when moving from cover to cover if you are not given the opportunity to setup and aim properly. In a firefight the shooter would be shaky and wouldn't be able to look down the sight after running 20 yards to cover and headshot the guy peeking out from behind the wall. You'd be breathing heavy and pretty shaky so that shot wouldn't happen except by chance. Almost no game goes for that kind of realism because it wouldn't be a very fun game to most people.
If a seasoned shooter is firing from a rest with an accurized rifle, they would be able to consistently hit very small groupings with the right ammo. Many games embellish the bullet spread and you get flyers more often than you may in real life. Shoot 5 shots at a spot on the wall in most games, bullets impacting what would be a foot apart is not realistic. Though again, realism isn't really what most games aim for. There is a difference between combat accuracy and match grade or competition accuracy. Most service rifles are combat accurate. They can hit a man sized target at most reasonable distances for the caliber. They aren't going to produce 2" groups at 100 yards but they also won't have a foot spread either. There is a trade off between realism and making a game fun to play.
lol True. ARMA probably is more realistic for modern warfare in its shooting mechanics. It also demonstrates the problem with realism taken too far - how can I shoot things I can't identify?Try hitting a man sized target at 500 yards and tell me you think that is still true. You miss a lot through no fault of your own. Most shooters have super short engagement ranges. Try playing ARMA for a little more realistic idea. That's a game of spot the pixel before he shoots you a lot of the time.
Jeez, they're just games. If I wanted full-on-realistic I'd join the army. In real life you don't get recovering health if you crouch and hide.
In response to an earlier post, I did indeed mean the arena shooter and I realise there is as wide a range of FPS genres as any other category. For a 20 minute multiplayer blast I still think its more instantly accessible and fun. Though I did see mention of lots of more modern games I haven't played yet (but have bought on steam in various sales).
tactics, sneaking, conserving ammo is annoying. Never was a fan of counterstrike. Tactics really require turn-based gameplay or RTS. Not FPS. FPS should be like an orgy of violence.
Why on Earth would you need to conserve ammo in Counterstroke? Even the Desert Eagle is very difficult to run dry.tactics, sneaking, conserving ammo is annoying. Never was a fan of counterstrike. Tactics really require turn-based gameplay or RTS. Not FPS. FPS should be like an orgy of violence.
Try hitting a man sized target at 500 yards and tell me you think that is still true. You miss a lot through no fault of your own. Most shooters have super short engagement ranges. Try playing ARMA for a little more realistic idea. That's a game of spot the pixel before he shoots you a lot of the time.
Why on Earth would you need to conserve ammo in Counterstroke? Even the Desert Eagle is very difficult to run dry.
Personally I like some tactical depth in FPS games. Last really mindless shooter I really enjoyed was Serious Sam.
I mean, you do have to reload every so often. More than UT2004.
they are all worth playing
I mean, you do have to reload every so often. More than UT2004.