Game rules that make no sense

[Neverhoodian]

Being able to carry an absurd amount of loot/gear on your character. This happens most frequently in RPGs and older FPS games. Where the hell does the DOOM marine store that BFG 9000 when he switches to the shotgun (and where the hell was he keeping the shotgun for that matter)? How does Link manage to find room on his tunic for all those items? Moreover, how do these characters still manage to RUN, much less walk, while carrying all that stuff?

 

[Korolev]

Well, the most obvious one is - how come it takes more than 2 bullets to kill a human in a game? Why does shooting a soldier in the foot only cause him pain momentarily? How come you can take 10 bullets to the chest, yet be totally fine and stand up after hiding in a corner for about 6 seconds? Why does reloading with a half-empty magazine not waste the bullets in that magazine you threw away? How come link can survive being hit by a sword even once? How can hedgehogs be blue and run at super-sonic speed? Why do monsters in RPGs just wait for you to do your turn and line up in neat rows/groups?

Games aren't realistic in the slightest. That's one of the reasons I PLAY THEM.

 

[Enigmers]

I can only keep six pokémon with me, but I have room for 99 of every conceivable type of pokéball there is (so long as they don't have pokémon in them yet). I've also got room for 99 bottles of water, 99 cans of lemonade, 99 potions, super-potions, hyper-potions, Max potions, full restores, revives, max revives, a bicycle, some portable berry pots, and the list goes on and on and on). If I catch a pokémon I can't hold on to, it's somehow teleported to a computer network which I can access from almost any PC anywhere.

But nope only six pokémon on your person, no exceptions.

 

[The Hot Sauce Thief]

When im forced to look for a key or a specific kind of key to open a door or chest, all the while carrying an axe or a crowbar or a assault rifle or something that could break the door with ease
And then again, why dont i run shoulder-barge to door its wood...
but no, go get the specific key from some random location to pad out gameplay...

 

[subject_87]

Being able to carry an absurd amount of loot/gear on your character. This happens most frequently in RPGs and older FPS games. Where the hell does the DOOM marine store that BFG 9000 when he switches to the shotgun (and where the hell was he keeping the shotgun for that matter)? How does Link manage to find room on his tunic for all those items? Moreover, how do these characters still manage to RUN, much less walk, while carrying all that stuff?

Well, as we all know, any item that you're not holding/using is invisible, weightless, and microscopic. But really, in, say, TF2, how the hell can you carry 20 rockets/200 pistol rounds/24 sticky bombs/32 shotgun shells?

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

OT: DEFCON and the fact that submarines can launch NUCLEAR MISSILES!

That's factually correct. Subs can launch nukes in real life.
Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

It's generally a bit more complex than this game would imply. There are certain safety mechanisms to make sure that nukes can't get launched without a lot of thought. Also how did Mr.Muttonchops reprogram that nuke to go off at such high altitude? I can't really imagine nukes would be pre-set to cause minimal damage.

Nukes can, and are, set to explode at different altitudes and even can punch into the ground before exploding. This is cause it is all computer controlled, the triggering mechanism is made of multiple high explosives that have to go off at the same millisecond to get a chain reaction. The only way to ensure this is if it is pre-programed to go off, be it from a trigger plate (the first nukes) or an altimeter.

A altitude burst is more dangerous then the nuke going off at ground level. I... seem to have had lost the reason as why but I can look into that later. Physics fail, I will look into this later.

Added: Nuclear weapons are not all shock waves, they are released in several forms of energy all at the same time. A high altitude burst, due to low air density, does not create a shock wave of energy as a sea level burst will. This energy does not vanish though, instead more of it is released in gamma and x radiation. This energy then baths down over a larger area then the shock wave could, causing more lethal damage and less physical damage, a win win in the military books.

However... nukes do NOT always cause EMPS. There is a chance of a nuke causing a EMP shock wave but it is a low chance, to the point that in the tens of thousands of nukes we have set off over the years we have not seen more then a few dozen of this EMP effect. Higher altitude weapons do have a higher ability to create an EMP however, but betting on a EMP to take down a communication grid that will magically make an enemy retreat... yeah, I'll put my chips on black thank you, not 00.

Also, agreed, all the security that is in place these things can not launch without the authorization of three electronically and physically triggered keys, triggering the launch mechanism from at least three different stations at the very same second or else it all locks down tight. One man can not launch a nuke from a sub, it just isn't physically possible to 'hack' these terminals as you need a physical key to activate them as well as getting around the electronic safeguards. Even if you could do it, you would need three arms that can stretch at least ten meters to reach all the locks.

Let alone touching on the fact he launched it from soviet Russia and hit the east coast of America... subs do not carry ICBMs. These things are about the size of the sub itself! What subs carry is the equivalent of a six or so cruse missiles that have nuclear tipped warheads. They use the fact a sub is a stealth based moving platform to make up for this lack of range. You need to get the sub into the gulf to be able to hit DC.

Great I am falling into the whole MW2 story line makes no sense argument.... I'll stop.

So why not put that out there: The rule where when the lights go out the attacking army goes home?

 

[chaosinterlude]

For this kind of question you have to look within the context of the game. I don't think anyone will debate RPG's (or games that try for fantasy settings) are exactly realistic, so it's not fair to put them up to the same standards as say, Call of Duty. Although, any game that is trying to be realistic (or at least the parts that developers try to make within the game), should damn well be realistic.
That being said, the morality system. Evidently I can be a goodie-two-shoes the entire game to get my karma maxed out, then go up to a 4-year-old girl, kill her in a public area while everyone watches, then not one second later have some person come up to me and praise me as their savior.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's generally a bit more complex than this game would imply. There are certain safety mechanisms to make sure that nukes can't get launched without a lot of thought. Also how did Mr.Muttonchops reprogram that nuke to go off at such high altitude? I can't really imagine nukes would be pre-set to cause minimal damage.

I imagine they wouldn't either. But seeing how they also have advanced telemetry targeting, why not programmable detonation altitudes? That being said, I have no idea why you would want to deliberately detonate one in the upper atmosphere.

Either way, the point was that submarines can indeed launch nukes, irregardless of how complicated the process.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

For this kind of question you have to look within the context of the game. I don't think anyone will debate RPG's (or games that try for fantasy settings) are exactly realistic, so it's not fair to put them up to the same standards as say, Call of Duty. Although, any game that is trying to be realistic (or at least the parts that developers try to make within the game), should damn well be realistic.
That being said, the morality system. Evidently I can be a goodie-two-shoes the entire game to get my karma maxed out, then go up to a 4-year-old girl, kill her in a public area while everyone watches, then not one second later have some person come up to me and praise me as their savior.

Not just any person either... the mother of that child.

Then again, that does sort of make sense.

 

[archvile93]

In all call of duty games: I can shoot through 2 feet of concrete wall with a dinky little pistol, but cars are completely impenetrable for no apparent reason.

If I recall, the reason for that is purely techinical; it's stilll annoying but at least there's a reason. I think it had something to do with cars not being placed level textures or something like that so they weren't coded to be penetratable.

OT: The fact that in games the government seems to think that a squad of the world's most badass soldiers can take on an entire army. They're good, but they're not that good. Especially when the bad guys all know where you are and are shooting at you. I really don't think one delta force officer could ever take on an entire battalion of highly trained cloned soldiers, built specifically for combat.

Any health system in almost any game ever. The only exceptions are games like Arma 2, and I'm not sure it's that accurate even then. Halo might also be an exception since while I would always joke that your character must be some kind of cyborg to be able to absorb so much lead, in that case you actually are a cyborg. Still, I think both of these can also be considered acceptable breaks from reality so I'm not complaining.

Also, why does nobody mind in RPGs (mostly old ones) when I break into their homes and steal all their stuff. Even if you talk to them they still somehow fail to realize you're committing a criminal act.

 

[Laxer]

I was an infantry soldier for four years, and I can tell you for damn sure that we didn't do any of that nonsense. The very first thing they teach you as an infantry soldier in the US army is that you never spend more than 3-5 seconds out of cover. If you're out of cover, the only thing you should ever being doing is moving to new cover.

Jogging and reloading at the same time is a great way to jam your weapon while being shot. It isn't very good for much else though.

I'm confused. Are you saying it takes more than 3-5 seconds for you to reload your weapon? If this is the case I'm severely dissapointed in the weapons training of your armed forces. I, as Gethsemani, spent one year in my nations army, half of which was dedicated to combat training. During this time I was instructed to reload specifically when I was moving to minimize the time which I did not return fire. I don't think that I ever experienced a stoppage or malfunction related to the way which I reloaded during maneuvering. Could this perhaps be a consequence of the weapon model, magazines or cleaning standard which you upheld?

If you insist on reloading in cover, won't you agree that this severely decreases the volume of fire you might be able to put out, which is in itself clearly related to your combat efficiency? And what if there is no cover? Do you go to ground every time you need to reload?

An inability to reload your weapon while moving decreases your mobility, volume of fire and thus overall combat efficiency.

 

[ZephrC]

I was an infantry soldier for four years, and I can tell you for damn sure that we didn't do any of that nonsense. The very first thing they teach you as an infantry soldier in the US army is that you never spend more than 3-5 seconds out of cover. If you're out of cover, the only thing you should ever being doing is moving to new cover.

Jogging and reloading at the same time is a great way to jam your weapon while being shot. It isn't very good for much else though.

I'm confused. Are you saying it takes more than 3-5 seconds for you to reload your weapon? If this is the case I'm severely dissapointed in the weapons training of your armed forces. I, as Gethsemani, spent one year in my nations army, half of which was dedicated to combat training. During this time I was instructed to reload specifically when I was moving to minimize the time which I did not return fire. I don't think that I ever experienced a stoppage or malfunction related to the way which I reloaded during maneuvering. Could this perhaps be a consequence of the weapon model, magazines or cleaning standard which you upheld?

If you insist on reloading in cover, won't you agree that this severely decreases the volume of fire you might be able to put out, which is in itself clearly related to your combat efficiency? And what if there is no cover? Do you go to ground every time you need to reload?

An inability to reload your weapon while moving decreases your mobility, volume of fire and thus overall combat efficiency.

No. Just no. You don't jog around out of cover. Ever. You identify your next piece of cover, jump up as fast as you can, sprint to your next cover and then get behind it quickly. If you slowly get up and jog across an empty space while fiddling around with your ammo pouch and swapping magazines you will be shot.

As for situations where there is no cover... Why are you even there? Don't go anywhere that doesn't have cover. Seriously, pay attention to that. Again, if you're just standing around out in the open, you'll be shot. If you got ambushed out in the open, you're probably already dead. If you aren't, the first thing you should do is find some damn cover.

As for weapon jamming, if you insert the magazine at just the wrong angle while loading it into an M16 or an M4 it will lock into place without seating properly, and after every bullet you fire the rifle will jam because the bullets aren't angled correctly. This is much more likely to happen if you're moving around a lot and paying attention to other things. We were taught how to clear the jam very quickly if this or other similar problems arise, but it better to not have it happen at all.

Also, when you're moving or reloading, the rest of your unit should be firing. Then you can fire while they move and/or reload. Attempting to put a constant stream of rounds downrange by yourself doesn't work with an assault rifle. You need a team that's working together to keep the enemy under constant pressure. Do they teach you to spray random fire from the hip in your military? Because we weren't. We were taught not to shot unless we were aiming at something. The fire, even the suppressing fire, is far more effective that way.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

No. Just no. You don't jog around out of cover. Ever. You identify your next piece of cover, jump up as fast as you can, sprint to your next cover and then get behind it quickly. If you slowly get up and jog across an empty space while fiddling around with your ammo pouch and swapping magazines you will be shot.

As for situations where there is no cover... Why are you even there? Don't go anywhere that doesn't have cover. Seriously, pay attention to that. Again, if you're just standing around out in the open, you'll be shot. If you got ambushed out in the open, you're probably already dead. If you aren't, the first thing you should do is find some damn cover.

As for weapon jamming, if you insert the magazine at just the wrong angle while loading it into an M16 or an M4 it will lock into place without seating properly, and after every bullet you fire the rifle will jam because the bullets aren't angled correctly. This is much more likely to happen if you're moving around a lot and paying attention to other things. We were taught how to clear the jam very quickly if this or other similar problems arise, but it better to not have it happen at all.

Also, when you're moving or reloading, the rest of your unit should be firing. Then you can fire while they move and/or reload. Attempting to put a constant stream of rounds downrange by yourself doesn't work with an assault rifle. You need a team that's working together to keep the enemy under constant pressure. Do they teach you to spray random fire from the hip in your military? Because we weren't. We were taught not to shot unless we were aiming at something. The fire, even the suppressing fire, is far more effective that way.

So, let me help you envision the average battlefield in Sweden: A pine forest with a few rocks and shallow depressions scattered about with the occasional larger rock. Mostly flat ground and fairly dense forest. Since a 5.56 NATO round passes straight through even a tree three times as thick as a man, those trees are not going to offer much cover. So basically, you are in an enviroment without much cover unless you have time to prepare and dig in but with quite a fair degree of concealment.

Now imagine a situation where you encounter the enemy in this forest (either because you were combat patrolling, ambushed them or whatever): going for cover as you fall back is not feasible simply because there isn't enough cover to be had for 8 men. Hence, you leapfrog backwards and try to put as much lead between yourself and the enemy as possible. In this situation it is vital that you keep firing and thus reload while relocating.

There's a whole other different set of skills required for combat in urban enviroment, where cover is far more important. But in your average forest engagement in northern Europe you won't have enough cover to stay in it indefinately and certainly not for any prolonged amount of time while on the move. In those cases your own firepower has to be your cover as per Dupuy's idea of diminishing returns.

EDIT: As for how we are supposed to open fire, it should always be against a target or a position where an enemy could potentially be taking cover or hiding. Always aim even if only in the general direction and never fire from the hip. And as far as I can recall our FNC's never had any problem with being reloaded hastily, at most you had to give it a good slap and cock it again if it hadn't been inserted properly at which point you could continue firing without problem. I had it happen to me twice due to a faulty magasine but after I changed it it never happened again.

 

[ZephrC]

So, let me help you envision the average battlefield in Sweden: A pine forest with a few rocks and shallow depressions scattered about with the occasional larger rock. Mostly flat ground and fairly dense forest. Since a 5.56 NATO round passes straight through even a tree three times as thick as a man, those trees are not going to offer much cover. So basically, you are in an enviroment without much cover unless you have time to prepare and dig in but with quite a fair degree of concealment.

Now imagine a situation where you encounter the enemy in this forest (either because you were combat patrolling, ambushed them or whatever): going for cover as you fall back is not feasible simply because there isn't enough cover to be had for 8 men. Hence, you leapfrog backwards and try to put as much lead between yourself and the enemy as possible. In this situation it is vital that you keep firing and thus reload while relocating.

There's a whole other different set of skills required for combat in urban enviroment, where cover is far more important. But in your average forest engagement in northern Europe you won't have enough cover to stay in it indefinately and certainly not for any prolonged amount of time while on the move. In those cases your own firepower has to be your cover as per Dupuy's idea of diminishing returns.

EDIT: As for how we are supposed to open fire, it should always be against a target or a position where an enemy could potentially be taking cover or hiding. Always aim even if only in the general direction and never fire from the hip. And as far as I can recall our FNC's never had any problem with being reloaded hastily, at most you had to give it a good slap and cock it again if it hadn't been inserted properly at which point you could continue firing without problem. I had it happen to me twice due to a faulty magasine but after I changed it it never happened again.

Just because a bullet will go through a tree doesn't mean the tree isn't providing cover. It will still deflect the path of the round, and even if it does still hit you the tree will have absorbed a significant percentage of the force, flattened the round and set the round to tumbling prematurely, all of which means it will be significantly less likely to seriously wound or kill you. I still wouldn't want to be hit with it, but given the choice I'd rather be behind a tree. Even ignoring all that the tree will still provide, as you noted, quite a bit of concealment, which, while not as good as cover, is still a whole hell of a lot better than nothing.

A lot of the terrain in the United States is very similar to what you described, and American soldiers are trained to fight in it. Honestly though, that post sounded a lot more similar to what we were taught. More emphasis on mobility and less on minimizing exposed time, which is dangerously close to a rout when disengaging, but otherwise pretty similar. I still don't buy the idea that trying to run and reload at the same time is worth the distraction, especially since we didn't ever run, we only sprinted, and jams that only take a second or two to clear still leave you vulnerable when you should be the one covering someone else, but I'll stop being a dick about it now. Sorry about that, didn't realize how much I was doing that until just now.

 

[Drakane]

So, let me help you envision the average battlefield in Sweden: A pine forest with a few rocks and shallow depressions scattered about with the occasional larger rock. Mostly flat ground and fairly dense forest. Since a 5.56 NATO round passes straight through even a tree three times as thick as a man, those trees are not going to offer much cover. So basically, you are in an enviroment without much cover unless you have time to prepare and dig in but with quite a fair degree of concealment.

Now imagine a situation where you encounter the enemy in this forest (either because you were combat patrolling, ambushed them or whatever): going for cover as you fall back is not feasible simply because there isn't enough cover to be had for 8 men. Hence, you leapfrog backwards and try to put as much lead between yourself and the enemy as possible. In this situation it is vital that you keep firing and thus reload while relocating.


There's a whole other different set of skills required for combat in urban enviroment, where cover is far more important. But in your average forest engagement in northern Europe you won't have enough cover to stay in it indefinately and certainly not for any prolonged amount of time while on the move. In those cases your own firepower has to be your cover as per Dupuy's idea of diminishing returns.

EDIT: As for how we are supposed to open fire, it should always be against a target or a position where an enemy could potentially be taking cover or hiding. Always aim even if only in the general direction and never fire from the hip. And as far as I can recall our FNC's never had any problem with being reloaded hastily, at most you had to give it a good slap and cock it again if it hadn't been inserted properly at which point you could continue firing without problem. I had it happen to me twice due to a faulty magasine but after I changed it it never happened again.

Just because a bullet will go through a tree doesn't mean the tree isn't providing cover. It will still deflect the path of the round, and even if it does still hit you the tree will have absorbed a significant percentage of the force, flattened the round and set the round to tumbling prematurely, all of which means it will be significantly less likely to seriously wound or kill you. I still wouldn't want to be hit with it, but given the choice I'd rather be behind a tree. Even ignoring all that the tree will still provide, as you noted, quite a bit of concealment, which, while not as good as cover, is still a whole hell of a lot better than nothing.

A lot of the terrain in the United States is very similar to what you described, and American soldiers are trained to fight in it. Honestly though, that post sounded a lot more similar to what we were taught. More emphasis on mobility and less on minimizing exposed time, which is dangerously close to a rout when disengaging, but otherwise pretty similar. I still don't buy the idea that trying to run and reload at the same time is worth the distraction, especially since we didn't ever run, we only sprinted, and jams that only take a second or two to clear still leave you vulnerable when you should be the one covering someone else, but I'll stop being a dick about it now. Sorry about that, didn't realize how much I was doing that until just now.

when did this thread become a military training pissing contest? Every weapon has its own quirks, when properly trained on them you know how to over come them.. be it a slap and reload or proper clipping/loading. every region has trained its forces to be the best in its own backyard and be prepared for any situation. Though run-n-gun is never ideal, it is non-the-less a technique that can be employed, and should be trained for, when shit hits the fan. Yes every second you out in the open is another second you could be shot... but every second your chamber is empty is another second you can't defend yourself. I am not trained by the military or even civil service (aka police or the such)... but I am able to load a clip style weapon, hand gun or rifle, while moving at a pretty good clip of speed... shotgun, not so much.... so thats my 2 cents

Edit: Didn't actually read all of the last post I quoted tell just now... so my pissing contest statement might be a bit rude.

 

[Chrono180]

I personally hate it when there is an artificial limit to the number of people in your party even if there is no sane in-game reason. I mean, I loved baldur's gate 2 but the fact that you could only have 6 people in your party drove me up the wall because I desperately wanted to hear more banter.