No. They add a tactical difficulty to the field that is needed to keep the game interesting. They keep you on your toes. I can't snipe for shit, but I think it's great they are out there.
Poll: Would games be better without snipers?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No of course not. Snipers add to the challenge and fun of games. I myself have tried to play as a sniper, I say tried because I almost always fail. They add an extra element to the game, and well, it's satisfying when you magage to root one out and shoot him, in the face.
yeah other players are so frigging overpowered...psrdirector said:If we remove snipers we should also removed grenades, assault rifles, and other players right?
that would make it so much better
but while i hate it against a skilled sniper snipers shouldn't be removed because they are fun if you can handle em a bit
First person shooters - full of whiners.
I don't really even play them all that much, especially online, but seriously: Shut up about snipers already. If snipers are overpowered, then the game is just broken.
If the game is broken find a better one. If not, then stop complaining.
Either way, it's not a snipers fault he keeps owning you all the time.
I don't really even play them all that much, especially online, but seriously: Shut up about snipers already. If snipers are overpowered, then the game is just broken.
If the game is broken find a better one. If not, then stop complaining.
Either way, it's not a snipers fault he keeps owning you all the time.
Sniper rifles are all fine and dandy, it's the systems for using them that needs a good touching up. or at the very least the rifles should preform the way they are suppose to if this game is going for realism. My case in point being COD- MF2, the Barrett a Sniper Rifle that has the power to knock you on your ass if used incorrectly. But the game allows players to quick scope and machine gun the thing. It just seems wrong. I will occasionally use the sniper rifles but i actually steady my aim and look through the scope, just seems right to me.
You yust can't remove the sniper... well you can but than the game suck even if it have everything perfect it still suck cos' it don't have snipers.
Flames66 said:
It seems like a kind of valid reflex test though. If i see you and you see me at the same time, who ever gets the first shots (providing they hit), should win that little skirmish (also providing the hand of god *lag* doesn't say one person fired while the other didn't).
Snipers can ruin alot of games and gametypes, so I'm leaning towards "yes". But don't remov all of them, do it like they did in ol' Battlefield 1942; limit their numbers based on how many players there are!
Seriously, I'm REALLY getting tired of having a team consisting of 60% snipers in BFBC2, on an objective based gametype like 'Rush', and I'm on the attacking team.
Seriously, I'm REALLY getting tired of having a team consisting of 60% snipers in BFBC2, on an objective based gametype like 'Rush', and I'm on the attacking team.
Think of snipers as a carelessness tax, the more they get you, the more you need to be thinking about what you are doing.awesomeClaw said:
Shooters definately wouldn't be better without them, you need a way to spray'n'prayer's head down.
Most games don't need sniper rifles. In most games, the area sizes are such that an Assault Rifle + ACOG is perfectly acceptable for your designated marksman needs, and in games where the standard assault rifle isn't a "game" gun (Read: inaccurate piece of shit) that's what I tend to use.