The Unrealistic MW2 Thread

Recommended Videos

DazBurger

New member
May 22, 2009
1,339
0
0
Alusin86 said:
EightGaugeHippo said:
A 50. cal sniper can shoot through helicopter cock pit and kill the pilot irl.
But not in MW2!

Alusin86 said:
1: You can't take out a UAV with a full Scar magazine and stopping power pro, IRL.
A UAV is just a millitary rc plane. Its pretty much one of these
But bigger and longer range.

Im pretty sure any firearm shooting at it could bring it down with out a doubt.
You forgot to take into account bullet spread. Chances are you can do it with a sniper rifle, but not an assault rifle.
An M4 have an effective range of 500m. And thats only a carbine.
The Scar H have a longer barrel and is using a heavier caliber.

My guess is, that any soldier worth his money could shoot down any UAV if they are flying as low as they are in MW2, where they fly just a few hundred meters above, opposed to the 8 kilometers ist able to fly above irl :p
 

The Giggling Pin

New member
Jan 7, 2009
282
0
0
Tim_Buoy said:
i agree mw2 is fun but its as realistic as the imaginary bunny next to me that tells me to burn things
1.when you have the ability to knife someone by flying 20 feet across a room
2.when your gun can detect enemy heartbeats
3.when you can get shot in the chest three times and just duck behind cover and be ok in less than 10 seconds
but i recommend bad company 2 mostly because it doesnt take itself to seriously and it feels slightly better
All very true statement these, especially the one about Bad Company! I loved MW2 until I played BC2 and have since sent MW2 to the garbage pile. BC2 is just so much more fun and I think it helps that I am actually quite good at it too!
 

drphil1234

New member
Nov 9, 2009
41
0
0
If I may, Id like to pose a counter question. Who here actually bought Modern Warfare two expecting it to be a "realistic" shooter? That feeling of being superhuman is what most video games use as a hook anyways. As for gun1 = gun2 = knife, there needs to be some semblance of balance or everyone would use the same guns and just complain about that.

Is it a realistic game? maybe, its most likely as realistic as you can get while appealing to mass audience and remaining somewhat fun.

OT: there are too many fallacies to count, but, for example, like the book the da vinci code... you didnt read it expecting to hear the word of god did you? They made it up as they went along, while sticking to a basic theme.
 

Mr.Petey

New member
Dec 23, 2009
521
0
0
I hate how MW2 along with so many other shooters insist that a certain amount of bullets anywhere on the body will kill someone.
If I want to blow someone's leg off or arm off in an FPS with a shotgun etc, it would dismember them into a hail of screams and dropping whatever control they had over any two handed weapons (but if they had a pistol, they could surely blindfire with their uninjured arm)

Sick I know but it just seems daft that people can pump a couple of sniper rounds into a leg or foot and it'll register enough damage to kill that person. Perhaps a crippling effect like Fallout would be handy as it would prohibit you from running/using a weapon with that arm until you've rested WITH a medical pack of sorts instead of running off to go suck your thumb in the corner
 

psivamp

New member
Jan 7, 2010
623
0
0
somelameshite said:
Noone should be able to dual fire shotguns without breaking their wrists.
I can't find the video, but there's definitely footage of a marksman doing trickshots one-handed with a Mossberg or Baretta. Obviously, still a far-cry from sprinting around carrying two shotguns - and with most shotguns you'd definitely be in trouble, but there are some low-recoil models. I would defy someone to fire a pair of sawed-off shotguns like that, certainly.

Disclaimer: I am not claiming that MW2 is realistic. I have not personally fired a shotgun for many years and never one-handed. The individual mentioned above is a professional marksman.

Edit: Found a video where a low-recoil shotgun is fired one-handed, but it isn't the one I was thinking of.


Edit(x2): I'm a failure. I found the video I was referring to originally.

 

captaincabbage

New member
Apr 8, 2010
3,149
0
0
The bullets are retarded (except in realism mode, mostly)

It doesn't matter wether you shoot someone with a 5.56, .50cal or a 9mm, motherfuckers going down.

[/thread]
 

psivamp

New member
Jan 7, 2010
623
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
6) Shotguns firing buckshot have effective ranges far exceeding 20 metres.
I believe the ballistics rule of thumb for shotguns is negligible spread at ranges of less than 2 meters (grouping just larger than the bore of the weapon) and an additional inch spread for each meter past that range. In MW2 (and other games), shotguns fire a wide cone of death that dissipates a few meters away.
 

Xyliss

New member
Mar 21, 2010
347
0
0
Yea, as much as I enjoy MW2, from my very limited experience of war zones even I can tell that it's not realistic. Mostly the perks are what make it unrealistic (ignoring the ability to call in armoured helicopters for killing a few people) as most of them, like commando, make it so you have an upper hand against your opponent and by no means are realistic
 

Sgt AssHead

New member
Jun 28, 2010
128
0
0
TerribleAssassin said:
1. The FN FAL is a selective fire rifle, this makes it fully automatic (I thinks)
2. The L86 LSW is the A1 version, this version was pulled out of service and wouldn't remain at the time the game is set in. And it would be impossible for the Spetsnaz to gain control of them as they're only issued to the British Army and Cadet Forces
3. A Barret M82 would be extremley heavy and hard to sprint with.
4. It would be impossible to fire a Javelin from a standing position without your spine curling over from the kickback.
5. The Glock 18 isn't a machine pistol, it's a semi-automatic handgun used by law inforcement units.


Anymore you want?

All very true, except the last one, since the G18 is actually a selective fire machine pistol.
 

Israirie

New member
Apr 17, 2010
61
0
0
captaincabbage said:
It doesn't matter wether you shoot someone with a 5.56, .50cal or a 9mm, motherfuckers going down.
[/thread]
Often game developers overestimate the stopping power of some ammunition as much as they underestimate it. Some NATO cartridges are bloody hopeless.

The NATO 5.56x45mm cartridge is a clear cut example. Notorious for its lack of stopping power - bullets tend to pass clean through flesh. If you don't hit vitals there's no guarantee they're going down and that's not as easy as most seem to think. Sure, they might bleed out six hours later, but who the fuck cares about six hours later in the middle of a firefight? Soldiers need a cartridge that can stop a threat immediately, reliably.

And funnily enough assault rifles / carbines chambered to this round seem to be king of the hill in video games. Every nerd out there seems to think the M4 is some kind of a super weapon despite its short barrel and crap cartridge. Not so subtle propaganda, but it sure hooked a lot of people nonetheless.

As for MW2, I saw a friend play it once. That shit was fucking retarded.
 

Deofuta

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,099
0
0
[post="9.219189.7379253"]All you have to do is to show him ARMA 2. In fact, make him complete ARMA 2.

[/quote]

Why ARMA 2? Isn't there an ARMA 3 out? Or am I just insane?
 

swolf

New member
May 3, 2010
1,189
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
All you have to do is to show him ARMA 2. In fact, make him complete ARMA 2.

But because that isn't much of an answer, I'll just include a few details, because if I were to go into everything, I'd be here all day.

1) Ballistics and firearm damage are modelled completely wrong. The cartridge dictates range, accuracy and what not a lot more than the gun does. An FN FAL is considerably more powerful than an M16, and there shouldn't be a huge difference in traits between 5.56mm rifles.
2) Dual-wielded pistols don't work, particularly Desert Eagles.
3) The only thing that dual-wielded shotguns are useful for is the humour factor when you break both of your wrists.
4) Desert Eagles are terrible, terrible guns, and nobody uses them in combat unless they're complete fools.
5) Unless you're a superhuman, you cannot carry a rifle calibrated in .50 BMG on your shoulder while standing up, and you definitely can't fire it without the sort of accuracy that would make people who can't hit the broad side of a barn laugh with derision.
6) Shotguns firing buckshot have effective ranges far exceeding 20 metres.
7) Grenades are a lot more effective - and dangerous to both sides.
8) It takes a lot more than a second to take out, use and sheath a knife, and the reason that most soldiers carry a knife is for utility purposes, and because of the morale boost that an extra weapon gives you, regardless of its utility on most aspects of the battlefield.
9) Russian soldiers shouldn't be using Tavor TAR-21 rifles, as most of the Israeli army haven't had them fully rolled out yet. Conversely, militia soldiers shouldn't be using Winchester Model 1887 shotguns (or more accurately, Model 1901 shotguns, as the Model 1887 is a black-powder gun without the provision to fire smokeless cartridges).
10) Soldiers should be using dedicated marksman weapons for short-range sniping, rather than bolt-action weapons or the like. The Intervention, Barrett M82 and Walther WA2000 don't belong in the game at such short ranges.
11) In fact, as only a few hundred WA2000s were made, all of them being very expensive and notably unreliable thanks to their internals being made for accuracy rather than battlefield conditions, it shouldn't be in the game at all.
12) The M240, a general-purpose machine gun firing the 7.62mm NATO round, should not have substantially lower damage than machine guns firing 5.56mm NATO rounds, like the L86 LSW and Steyr AUG HBAR.
WHY?! Why won't they make that game for the 360? I've heard great things about it but don't have a gaming pc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy_osU-eA8s&feature=related
 

Alusin86

New member
Jul 19, 2010
175
0
0
MiracleOfSound said:
Why do people even care if games are realistic?

They're more fun when they're not.
This isn't about realistic games, we're just showing how MW2 isn't realistic, and games that are more realistic, since before I had a friend who was ignorant, constantly saying that MW2 was the most realistic game of all time, and not excepting anything else.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
Alusin86 said:
This isn't about realistic games, we're just showing how MW2 isn't realistic, and games that are more realistic, since before I had a friend who was ignorant, constantly saying that MW2 was the most realistic game of all time, and not excepting anything else.
Ok then...

You don't recover from bullet wounds in 5 seconds

People don't survive air-strikes just because they're on your side

In real life you can see your own legs

Guns have recoil

You can't sprint for 10 minutes straight carrying two shotguns and a Barret and not get tired