I'm sure this has been done plenty of times before, but so has most of the topics on The Escapist. Always nice with a fresh discussion now and then, me thinks. This thought was implanted in my brain after a post by BENZOOKA, and I feel I can't rest easily tonight if I don't get it out of my system!
---
How much damage guns do in games vary a lot. A LOT. But in recent times, pretty much all FPS's claim they are realistic, something that tends to match poorly with the weapon damage. I'm sure I'm not alone about thinking about these things, but I am a self-proclaimed gun-nut and I do so every time I get into a new FPS, which is a bit too much for my sanity.
First of all, the BENZOOKA issue, pistols. Pistols in games tend to be very weak. Some games will require you to hit your enemy with about 80% of your magazine, and when the average magazine is 13 rounds, that's a bit too much in my opinion. Even for gameplay purposes, 3-4 should be plenty. Some seem to think it would be problematic because deaths would be too quick, but a very easy way to fix that is by making accuracy more realistic too. It's indeed a fine balance, but insead of lowering damage to compensate I feel the developers should rather put some more effort into the ballistics physics of their games.
Conventional rifles in games are at times quite well balanced, meaning 3-6 rounds to kill. Obviously head shots and legs will have varying results, I'm talking torso here. Still, you get some examples where you'll literally have to empty half a clip to kill your enemy, where 90% of those are hits (again accuracy is too high). In this category there also seems to be an assumption that (I'm not going to go with any specific names, so it's easy for everyone to understand) an AK74 of the standard long configuration should be more powerful than the short AK74 configuration. Though there would be a slight power drop due to the shorter barrel, this is often over-done and the real difference should be in accuracy. I don't much agree when my short AK74 is confined to an SMG role due to this.
Sniper rifles are some times a source of annoyance for me too. A few games will end up having them so powerful a shot in the leg will instantly kill you, others will require you to fire 3-5 rounds at an enemy before they die. For a heavy caliber bolt action rifle, I believe the preferred is a 1-shot-kill when hitting the torso. I can understand when a semi-automatic rifle has a 2-3-shot-kill in the torso, but not more. Luckily games seem to get these quite well, but seeing as you'll occasionally have quite wide differences between the effective semi-automatic rifles and the fully automatic assault rifles in power, the fully automatic rifle will lack too much in both range, accuracy and stopping power.
Well, uh that's basically what I've got for this one. Discussion thanks ^^.
---
How much damage guns do in games vary a lot. A LOT. But in recent times, pretty much all FPS's claim they are realistic, something that tends to match poorly with the weapon damage. I'm sure I'm not alone about thinking about these things, but I am a self-proclaimed gun-nut and I do so every time I get into a new FPS, which is a bit too much for my sanity.
First of all, the BENZOOKA issue, pistols. Pistols in games tend to be very weak. Some games will require you to hit your enemy with about 80% of your magazine, and when the average magazine is 13 rounds, that's a bit too much in my opinion. Even for gameplay purposes, 3-4 should be plenty. Some seem to think it would be problematic because deaths would be too quick, but a very easy way to fix that is by making accuracy more realistic too. It's indeed a fine balance, but insead of lowering damage to compensate I feel the developers should rather put some more effort into the ballistics physics of their games.
Conventional rifles in games are at times quite well balanced, meaning 3-6 rounds to kill. Obviously head shots and legs will have varying results, I'm talking torso here. Still, you get some examples where you'll literally have to empty half a clip to kill your enemy, where 90% of those are hits (again accuracy is too high). In this category there also seems to be an assumption that (I'm not going to go with any specific names, so it's easy for everyone to understand) an AK74 of the standard long configuration should be more powerful than the short AK74 configuration. Though there would be a slight power drop due to the shorter barrel, this is often over-done and the real difference should be in accuracy. I don't much agree when my short AK74 is confined to an SMG role due to this.
Sniper rifles are some times a source of annoyance for me too. A few games will end up having them so powerful a shot in the leg will instantly kill you, others will require you to fire 3-5 rounds at an enemy before they die. For a heavy caliber bolt action rifle, I believe the preferred is a 1-shot-kill when hitting the torso. I can understand when a semi-automatic rifle has a 2-3-shot-kill in the torso, but not more. Luckily games seem to get these quite well, but seeing as you'll occasionally have quite wide differences between the effective semi-automatic rifles and the fully automatic assault rifles in power, the fully automatic rifle will lack too much in both range, accuracy and stopping power.
Well, uh that's basically what I've got for this one. Discussion thanks ^^.
