One-hit melees bother me in shooters

[moostar]

to me when i think of one hit melee attacks i think of it as noir a steath attack that involids with quicklity timed attacks

 

[Chamale]

It makes sense, if your enemy got that close to you in the first place, you should die.

As I see it, if you're playing a shooter, which is a genre based primarily around ranged combat, and you let your enemy get close enough to melee-kill you, you sort of deserve it. If they're running right at you, not even shooting or anything, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to drop them before they get close. I mean, unless you're just not very good at FPS combat, in which case I question your judgment in choosing to play a game that consists of nothing but.

There's a major problem with this, though. In most video games, the range of weapons is reduced considerably. A German study in World War II found that the average gunfight took place at a range of 200 metres. It would take a very fast runner 30 seconds to cover that distance, assuming they were only carrying the knife.

Think of the gunfights in video games, however. Most consumers don't want to play a game where the objectives are a long way apart, because they'd spend too much time walking and not enough time fighting. As such, a weapon that is accurate to 600 metres in real life is exclusively useful at ranges of less than 60 metres in the game. Sniper rifles see "across the map", which may be less than a quarter mile in some Modern Warfare maps. The entire battle is compressed.

Since battles in video games occur at much closer ranges than actual battles, we can't simply argue that anyone who lets an enemy reach them deserves to lose. Developers have decided to push enemy soldiers close together, and so the power of knives is out of whack compared to other weapons.

M16: Lethal at 600 metres in real life, rather painful at 60 metres in video games.
Knives: Make you bleed out in a minute in real life, kill you instantly in video games.

See the problem?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It makes sense, if your enemy got that close to you in the first place, you should die.

As I see it, if you're playing a shooter, which is a genre based primarily around ranged combat, and you let your enemy get close enough to melee-kill you, you sort of deserve it. If they're running right at you, not even shooting or anything, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to drop them before they get close. I mean, unless you're just not very good at FPS combat, in which case I question your judgment in choosing to play a game that consists of nothing but.

There's a major problem with this, though. In most video games, the range of weapons is reduced considerably. A German study in World War II found that the average gunfight took place at a range of 200 metres. It would take a very fast runner 30 seconds to cover that distance, assuming they were only carrying the knife.

Think of the gunfights in video games, however. Most consumers don't want to play a game where the objectives are a long way apart, because they'd spend too much time walking and not enough time fighting. As such, a weapon that is accurate to 600 metres in real life is exclusively useful at ranges of less than 60 metres in the game. Sniper rifles see "across the map", which may be less than a quarter mile in some Modern Warfare maps. The entire battle is compressed.

Since battles in video games occur at much closer ranges than actual battles, we can't simply argue that anyone who lets an enemy reach them deserves to lose. Developers have decided to push enemy soldiers close together, and so the power of knives is out of whack compared to other weapons.

M16: Lethal at 600 metres in real life, rather painful at 60 metres in video games.
Knives: Make you bleed out in a minute in real life, kill you instantly in video games.

See the problem?

Not really. It's still quite simple to kill these people at the 60 metre mark. The fact that ranges are compressed doesn't make a difference. It's a shooter, you should be shooting people. If you happen to miss someone enough, giving them the opportunity to knife you, you should die anyway since if there wasn't a knife, they'd have killed you before then since they're better at dodging your shots.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Easy solution: use shotgun. And if you're playing MW2 use the TAR. That gun beasts in close range and mid-range while still being effective a long range.

 

[helldragonX]

I don't mind it really. It give players a reason to stay at range.

 

[viranimus]

I fully approve of one hit melee kills in shooters. Consider the degree of difficulty. In a world populated with weapons that can kill from yards away, its only fair and realistic to make an attack that forces you to dodge fire in order to get close enough to use it as lethal.

Besides, if you have ever been in or seen an actual knife fight you know it only takes one well placed shot even against someone who is defending to be lethal.

What i dont approve of is the notion of some games where it takes like 4-6 attacks with a melee weapon to kill. Its unrealistic. Even with blunt weapons it does not take a lot of force for the trauma to be fatal. Perhaps if you want to make it more realistic grant a fading life effect to those killed with melee weapons, granting you a couple more shots before you actually die. It wont save you, but it gives you the chance to avenge yourself.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I'm probably the only one who cares...

You're not.

Most of the COD Youtube community is crying out for the knife to be changed to a 2-hit kill. Nothing makes me angrier than when I outplay someone, get to the side of them and start to shoot them down, only for them to lunge through my bullets and one hit kill me with the auto-lock knife.

It's worse than ever in Black Ops, you don't even need Commando.

 

[Chamale]

Not really. It's still quite simple to kill these people at the 60 metre mark. The fact that ranges are compressed doesn't make a difference. It's a shooter, you should be shooting people. If you happen to miss someone enough, giving them the opportunity to knife you, you should die anyway since if there wasn't a knife, they'd have killed you before then since they're better at dodging your shots.

My point is that it's too easy, relatively speaking, to kill someone with a knife. True, shooting someone at range is much easier than stabbing them, even in Modern Warfare 2 or Battlefield: Bad Company.

But in reality, rushing across a battlefield and stabbing a guy is so difficult that it may as well be impossible. By the time you reach them, this enemy could have fired several magazines, and maybe even dealt with a jam or two.

In a videogame, the gunfights take place at such a range that a moderately skilled player can charge someone while they try to reload, and reach them before that person has reloaded completely. My point is that since killing someone with a knife is far too easy in videogames, they should be rebalanced to be more similar to the tactics people use in actual battles.

Of course, I'd never claim that Call of Duty tries to emulate actual tactics. But it bothers me when Modern Warfare's unrealistic quirks become ingrained into gaming.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

easy fix: give all solders a lightsaber instead of a knife. those are most diffidently a one hit kill melee weapon.

 

[Sach]

Yeah, but everyone gets a knife... you could always stab first.

 

[Squilookle]

I liked the Battlefield: 1942 system, where a knife did about as much damage as a pistol bullet. As such, you'd only see knives used in rare situations - ammo completely depleted in both weapons, for example. Instead of being a useful weapon, a knife kill would just be a footnote to a gunfight that emptied your magazines: "Yeah, after killing 4 enemies with pistol headshots, I spun around and stabbed the guy coming up behind me with a rifle."

Depends on where you get them. a head knife is instant kill. What I really like about it is that you had to switch TO the knife first I.E. put your gun away. Anyone can do a one button insta kill knife kill, but in '42 it was incredibly humiliating (and therefore good) because without spotting them someone has successfully

1. Spotted you
2. Switched to their knife, putting their gun away in the process
3. Crept up on you undetected
4. Stabbed you probably at least twice before you could move/react, to get the kill.

Also knife fights are a blast, because you can be wounded, yet make a come from behind victory against someone. Not only that, but it's actually possible for someone to take on multiple enemies and actually win. Pretty rare, but at least it's possible.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

As I see it, if you're playing a shooter, which is a genre based primarily around ranged combat, and you let your enemy get close enough to melee-kill you, you sort of deserve it. If they're running right at you, not even shooting or anything, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to drop them before they get close. I mean, unless you're just not very good at FPS combat, in which case I question your judgment in choosing to play a game that consists of nothing but.

Shooters also contain something called 'corners'.

These 'corners' often result in two people arriving face to face right next to eachother.

Also, in COD a player can knife lunge right through your bullets as you shoot them, which enhances the problem.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Tycho from Penny Arcade has a rather interesting way of looking at the one-hit melee buttons.

"It's like a reset button when the combatants get too close to each other, you press the 'reset' button and the fight starts over again."

Food for thought.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Yeah, but everyone gets a knife... you could always stab first.

Good players don't want kills that they don't have to use skill to get.

 

[Danish rage]

Make the knife take up the equipment slot. That would take the edge off i guess.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Not really. It's still quite simple to kill these people at the 60 metre mark. The fact that ranges are compressed doesn't make a difference. It's a shooter, you should be shooting people. If you happen to miss someone enough, giving them the opportunity to knife you, you should die anyway since if there wasn't a knife, they'd have killed you before then since they're better at dodging your shots.

My point is that it's too easy, relatively speaking, to kill someone with a knife. True, shooting someone at range is much easier than stabbing them, even in Modern Warfare 2 or Battlefield: Bad Company.

But in reality, rushing across a battlefield and stabbing a guy is so difficult that it may as well be impossible. By the time you reach them, this enemy could have fired several magazines, and maybe even dealt with a jam or two.

In a videogame, the gunfights take place at such a range that a moderately skilled player can charge someone while they try to reload, and reach them before that person has reloaded completely. My point is that since killing someone with a knife is far too easy in videogames, they should be rebalanced to be more similar to the tactics people use in actual battles.

Of course, I'd never claim that Call of Duty tries to emulate actual tactics. But it bothers me when Modern Warfare's unrealistic quirks become ingrained into gaming.

It shouldn't matter if it's realistic or not. Is knifing someone satisfying? Fuck yes. And that's all that matters. Would the game be better without the insta-knife kill? It's hard to say, does the satisfaction outweigh the annoyance of being killed by a knife? I'm inclined to say yes, in my experience anyway.

 

[brainslurper]

in cod im like a knife ninja. i usually score top 3 without a gun. i think the knife should follow the same system that bullets do- you gotta knife em in the neck or back, or its a 2 hit. or maybe a hit below the neck would make a bleed out.

 

[WaffleGod]

Yeah, but everyone gets a knife... you could always stab first.

Good players don't want kills that they don't have to use skill to get.

If you play CoD, I think it matters little if you want to use skill or not. I mean, you can spray down opponents in full-auto from across the map with some weapons cause there's almost NO recoil on them whatsoever.

IMO, a one shot knife is fine with me. Knife him first...

 

[irani_che]

bulletproof armour is not necessarily knifeproof

 

[Chamale]

It shouldn't matter if it's realistic or not. Is knifing someone satisfying? Fuck yes. And that's all that matters. Would the game be better without the insta-knife kill? It's hard to say, does the satisfaction outweigh the annoyance of being killed by a knife? I'm inclined to say yes, in my experience anyway.

I suppose we should just agree to disagree, then. I don't enjoy being knifed, and I don't particularly like getting one-shot knife kills, either. It breaks my sense of immersion, and removes my feeling of using good tactics to win fights.

Since you enjoy the one-hit melee, it looks like we should just say that you feel the pros outweigh the cons, and I respectfully disagree. This is one of those arguments where neither side is necessarily "right".