If you mean that the game is actually not a simulation targeted solely at people with a military background then yeah, you're right. It's a game. Meant for gamers. Gamers who may or may not be able to properly identify military hardware...
I am making statements without having any expectations for BF3. Every sequel has a chance to become more realistic, or less realistic. That is why I am making a statement that it has not gotten any more realistic than the prequel.
Recoil is rubber-band-like AND non-existent. Interesting.
Tell you what,
real recoil is "rubber-band"-like in that you automatically bring your weapon back to where you were aiming it before you fired.
Two can play that game. "...you automatically bring your weapon back..." You AND automatically? Interesting. Anyways, I prefer the game to not do automatic reloads for me, or control the recoil for me. When I control my weapon I can predict its behavior a bit more which results in better effectiveness.
The degree to which this is modeled and how close and how fast the weapon returns to its original position in a game depends on a lot of factors. Reliability of the netcode, desired skill-gaps, how many hits it takes to kill someone, typical engagement ranges, how powerful you want the weapons to come across, the general pace of the game...
Again, I am only making a statement. The rubber-recoil is not a necessity in a game today, unless you want to open the game to wider audience, that is. For me it simply kills the immersion of weapon handling mechanics.
As for "conefire", I remember a time when that was all we had to simulate everything that went on with your weapon! It simulated recoil, unstableness due to posture and/or movement and/or injuries, aimed and shouldered positions etc. and it worked outstandingly well (=> Rainbow Six).
Dare I say it worked a heck of a lot better than a whole of bunch of later games that had "iron sights" and what-not...
I agree about the conefire, I used to play Americas Army where it worked just fine. But in these videos it is clear that semi auto gives you better accuracy over doing single shot in full auto mode.
Disregarding that a) it's an alpha and b) without playing the game yourself you don't even know how much of the rubber-band effect you saw was the game and how much was the player adjusting - disregarding all that - just spotting rubber-band-like recoil and a cone of fire is really worthless without discussing the underlying mechanics.
Does "yes I know its only alpha" which I wrote in beginning of my post means to you that I am disregarding of that fact? My whole post is a critic towards the videos, which are open to critic upon publishing.
We may be an easily riled up beehive of arcade-game haters in here but just tossing buzzwords around with no thought behind it at all aside from trying to find factors supporting your predetermined opinion is a little weak. Even for this place.
You'll have a long way to go to become a real EP (tm)
That is exactly what I did, and there is nothing wrong with it. Everyone's opinion is predetermined, or else it would be called a random thought.
And last but most certainly not least: You didn't actually expect the game to be realistic, did you?
See my first answer in this post.
Some suggest indeed. Probably not the best version to judge the destruction effects then, is it?
Yeah, because blowing slightly randomized round holes into flat walls (except the parts of the level you're not allowed to, which are just going to scorch...) is awesome destruction...
"because blowing slightly randomized round holes into flat walls" -
isn't that what happens when you shoot up stuff in real life? And only after you've made a lot of holes does the wall collapse. Red Faction is not perfect, but Destruction 3.0 is kind of a joke. Their marketing plan was all bout showing how buildings collapse only to disable that feature in multiplayer(because of balancing reasons). Turns out TWI were right all along when they said(I think it was Ramm) that shooters cant evolve around destruction feature.
It was a cool idea for the time and with the abstract graphics and the simplistic game mechanics of RF1 it worked but if THIS was what destruction was like in BF3... People one can take more serious than you would laugh at the game.
I'd even take the ridiculous shriveling up of building models in Operation Flashpoint 1 over this cartoon-cookie-bite type of destruction, thank you very much.
You get a cookie for being so literal and another one for missing my point which was: destruction in frostbite engine consists of ninja smoke tricks. There is so much smoke covering up the "destruction process" but in the end I could see 3 blasted windows of the same height and shape.
EDIT: And for the record. No, I'm not a fan of BF3 and I won't buy it until I hear of a good mod coming out for it that I would want to support. And since there are no mod tools, well. Don't care for stock BF3 one bit. Or any other stock BF for that matter, although flinging tanks around with the helicopter with the hook in BF:Vietnam was fun for a while...
Well, why do you reply in here than?
