I dont know. I just run to the nearest cap zone and prone there until my team gets there. I wouldt say i'm making any tactical calls
The thing is, most things are pretty much common sense in that they aren't very common, but if you stop and think about it, it's not like they aren't obvious things to do.
Like not skylining yourself. You know that if someone pops up in front of you with the blue sky behind them, they are easy to shoot, so you naturally avoid doing that. You move from cover to cover as much as possible, not lingering in the open. Stuff like that.
I may be wrong, but if you aren't doing stuff like that then you are either pretty damn lucky or playing with some pretty crap opponents.
Authenticity essentially refers to things being genuine. Was the the mp40/II used in stalingrad? No? Then it's not authentic.
True. That would make it unrealistic. It is "over powered" for the time frame this game is set in and shouldn't be there. You won't find me disputing that the MkB42 shouldn't be there, but this game is and always was meant to be about mods as much as anything.
This game is set up so that it can be modified into the funnest most awesomest FPS evar! (or whatever is the current lingo) or can be as real as you want it. Want so many people describe isn't actually real, but it doesn't really matter, if they or someone else likes that style enough, they will mod the game.
By tactical im refering to actions done careflully and deliberately with strategic mindset. Running room to room with my k98 and clearing whole buildings is not what i'd call tactical play.
How do you think they did it? They REALLY didn't sit at opposite ends of 4m hallways, peaking around trying to inch out a kill, taking turns to shoot at an enemy doing the same thing.
While you were sitting there, they either threw a grenade or moved away in case you threw one. They weren't stupid, they both used the same kinds of tactics. What if the guy at the other end is just trying to distract you while someone else flanks you?
Nope, constant movement from room to room, is what the did. They had little holes all over the place in walls and little tunnels and they constantly moved around. So that the enemy never really knew how many defenders or attackers there were.
That is the strategic mindset "deny the enemy information". If you camp and snipe, you are not denying the enemy information on your location. He knows where you are, but you don't know where he is. He has won the strategic battle and will have the element of surprise, the freedom to manoeuvre, and the tactical advantage as a result.
Perhaps you could try fleshing out what you mean when you use terms like "strategic mindset". I find most people do not actually understand what they mean, and it the basis for their errors. I can explain in detail why "moving" is better than "stationary" at the strategic and tactical level. I can even explain the technological, psychological and physiological factors that underlie the reasoning.
If you want to hear it, let me know. It will be a lot.
Well Ost Front did something right, it captured the intensity and rush of actually being shot at. One example i can bring up is the MG, in Ost Front it was terrifying, almost reminiscent of the stories that soldiers told.
Which stories? The ones where they cowered at the bottom of the trench? Or the ones where they popped up and tried to fight back, or the rare ones where some absolute nutter would jump up and charge the damn thing, killing all the enemies and then coming back and yelling out for you to hurry up, he needs to take a piss?
All of those kinds of stories are told. In WWII there were millions of people fighting. It was a lot more common than you think, I bet.
In RO2, half the time i dont even know its a machine gunner shooting at me, they're just as easy to take out head on as anyone else.
It's the sound. At least for me. The audio is all wrong positionally. Close things are quiet and far things nosy a lot of the time, especially incoming bullets. An MG bullet is no more scary than the equivalent rifle bullet. They make the same noise. The difference is there is more of them.
So we are in a dilemma here. Ost Front, by having "unrealistic" features, made the game play somewhat more realistic. With RO2 its the oposite...
Actually it's because you have an unrealistic idea of real. The vast majority of soldiers were just sloggers. They didn't charge MG nests, but they didn't cower at the bottom of the foxhole. Both of those types died too quick. Natural selection kicks in and the veterans are the ones that don't take STUPID chances. They survive to become veterans by killing when they can and getting out of dodge when they can't, and they know that those other two options are deadly.
They try to tell the FNG's, but they never listen.
Unfortunately i dislike counter strike, so even the challenge it presents to me is unenjoyably
You're still not listening. If you are finding RO2 is too easy, it is because the enemy is too weak, not because the game is faulty. Changing the mechanics won't make people better, it will just make it harder for you to shoot them.
But nothing that affects you doesn't also affect them. So if it's harder for you, it's harder for them, and it will still be easy and...
See why I believe you are actually trying to bull**** me? Show me a scoreboard of you doing well, because the longer you go on, the harder I find it to believe.
Well you were directly quoting me so forgive me if i got that impression.
I'm responding to your argument, but you aren't the only one reading it. Does that make sense?
Regardless using your debate analogy, the judges are just mediators, you dont address them, you address me.
See, there you go again, trying to change the rules to suit yourself. Sorry, I do what I want. The rules don't apply to me.
Not too sure what you meant here
It seems pretty clear to me. I'll try again. You are saying RO2 is too easy. many many other are saying it is too hard in some respect. You are in the minority. That means most people are finding the game hard. So that means you are better than most people...
Although I'm doubting it more by the minute. You seem to have trouble following simple logic.
Perhaps, though i wouldnt say its a bias. Its a game mechanic that you got to get used to.
Pardon? Care to repeat that loudly and slowly and maybe listen to yourself?
Seriously.
RO2 on the contrary feels like its holding your hand the whole time.
In what way. You have a feeling, but what is the cause of the feeling? Do you feel like your gun has less recoil and sway than anyone else's gun? Do your bullets fly flatter and faster? What exactly about the game makes you feel so different from all the guys you are beating so easily?
RO was intense, yet RO2 feels like im playing COD2 again.
Maybe that's because RO1 was less realistic than CoD2? Did that occur to you? I'm not saying that, because I never played RO1, but CoD2 was certainly more realistic than anything called CoD today, given the differences in hardware and software.
Now let me bring in ARMA2, we can agree that its rather realistic.
Not as realistic as you would think. They can't possibly put the density or variety of cover and concealment in a game map as any real world location has.Iit's realistic for what it is trying to be, and no more. It is a combat simulator, not a tactical shooter. The difference isn't in realism, it's in the level of detail. ARMA2 wants you to feel the rest of the war around you. RO2 is trying to make a single battle as realistic as possible. The two goals require conflicting approaches because of hardware limitations.
As you can see the pace of ARMA2 is closer to RO than it is with RO2, therefore something has gone wrong with RO2.
In your opinion. You seem to be running under some extremely faulty assumptions, so your opinion is not very trustworthy.
I dont know. Rifles owned at long range, and sucked up close. smg's were usless far away, but decimated at short range. Seemed right to me..
Heh. Seemed right to a guy who has never done it. Must be right, huh? It wasn't right. TWI tested the real weapons. You are going on your gut feeling built on faulty assumptions. Why the hell would I take your word over theirs?
I know my gut feeling when I play, and I have done it in training in the army, says that this is the closest I've eves seen a game get to what you can actually do in real life. It's not perfect, but try to find something closer. RO1 isn't. The guys who made it say so.
No its not. Let me give a silly example to illustrate my point. Imagine if all the germans were given M16A4's. The in game m16's very accurately represented their real life counter parts; hence making them realistic. But does giving german soldiers realistic m16's make it authentic? No, they never used m16's.
Because the capabilities of the M16 were unrealistic given the time frame. If the Russians had AK's it would be a different war... It's a pointless argument. The weapons are realistic in that they are direct copies of real weapons. At a stretch you can say they could possibly have been there. But it doesn't bloody well matter. If you don't like it, others won;t like it and they will make maps that don't have it and have the level of realism you want.
What you are playing is the base model, but everyone knows the difference between a hotrod and a family car is the accessories. The mods will give you what you want, no matter what it is, so quit complaining. The game is hardly out of the womb and people are acting like they only have a week left to live and they need it NOW!
No i havent but my brother served in the Marines, and was wounded in fallujah back in 2004. I have 2 years left before i enter as an officer as well...
Trust me it won't be what you think it's like. Neither this game nor any other has captured even a tiny fraction of what it is really lie. This is pretty good for what it is trying to be.
Regardless, that doesnt make him a military historian.
I never said it did. I'm not, but wouldn't you **** if I was
Yes and no. The kick feels about right so does the accuracy (that is when your firing slowly and deliberately real life), but the speed at which you shoulder it and fire accurately is over the top.
Well, I've watched the external animations and they look like they are going in slow-mo. I've done snap shots with rifles as heavy as the K98 and it never took that long to raise it. I just assumed they had slowed it down a bit because it felt too quick, even for them. I never said it was totally real.
That thing kicks, so when bringing up to your shoulder, it take a second to adjust it before firing; unless you want to mess up your shoulder.
Or have done it so many times in so many positions that it's there most of the time without you even thinking about it. When you are expecting imminent contact, you should always be looking down your sights, even if you are turning to look behind you. No point looking, if you can't shoot. I'm pretty sure you'll be taught that too,
Maybe the Germans and Russians were dumb, but that seems to be common sense to me. Having said that, it's a game trying to appeal to a wide audience but openly calling for its audience to modify it to be exactly what they want, and promising to do as much of that as they can themselves.
You have the base. Now try to find like minded friends and turn it into what you want. Stop being selfish and expecting everything to just be handed to you. You're not the only customer.
this is coming from someone who did construction work and lugged 100lb concrete bags up several stories dozens of times a day...
It's not all about strength. It's about conditioning the muscles for the task. Soldiers do it with all sorts of exercises and by always doing it. You don't have to have strong muscles to have durable muscles.
Ad hominem means attacking the person, which you were doing (to me).
Yes, but I never said I wasn't engaging in an ad hominem argument. I simply explained why.
wolf 3d was not the first fps
The way we think of it. I said it right there beside the name.
"Wolfenstein 3D is a video game that is generally regarded by critics and gaming journalists as having both popularized the first-person shooter genre on the PC and created the basic archetype upon which all subsequent games of the same genre would be built.[1][2][3][4][5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D
You only had to type the name into Google, if you didn't remember the game. Would have been a little less embarrassing. Do you always charge into situations you do not understand?
You'd be around your 40's or 50's, thats pretty old
So, how old are you? I''m guessing I'm old enough to be your father. My experience tells me younger people are often over confident of their abilities.
Just because you think its the first fps doesnt make is so. wolf3d just popularized fps'.
I said "the way we think of it". Before Wolf3D, no game had all the elements we see in every FPS since then. It was the first of the FPS' the way we think of them. It's simple English.
Also ET was a mod for Return to Castle Wolfenstien, not wolfenstein 3d. And yes it was arguably one of the best
Yeah you're right. My OLD memory fails me. It does that. Of course I AM speaking from memory... not the results of a Google search.
That's why I know ET was awesome. I was pretty good at that too
True Combat:Elite a mod based on ET, featured a lot of the things TWI is proud of having been so strong on. For example 3D scopes, and proper ballistics. I was also good at that one. That came out before the first RO mod.
I've been playing realistic tactical shooters since before RO existed. RO2 is the best I've ever seen. My opinion of course, but it is no more or less true than anyone else's opinion. I didn't just pluck it out of thin air, though. I can defend my stance from experience. That's the only benefit from being old, I guess.
Sprinting through a building and clearing people with k98 is not what i'd call realistic.
Do you think 1/4 to 1/3 of the squad did all the work? It can be done, because they did it. They had to. A whole lot of them died trying.
Nor would i call the 2sec bandaging realistic
I wouldn't call a war with never ending supplies, but no actual infrastructure, realistic either. Most soldiers died without ever having seen an enemy. Not because they were in the thick of battle and never saw them, but because there were no such things as front lines. Artillery can reach 20km behind the "front" and air power even further. Most troops died while they were moving to the positions we start our battles at. It's not realistic but it's better than the alternative.
I'm pretty sure you don't want to be doing a 2 hour forced march under fire before the start of every round. So even you are not wanting REALISM. Not really. Close enough is good enough, even for you.
Nor engaging targets well beyone 150m after just running out of breath.
You wouldn't be running out of breath so easily either. I was unfit, but I still had to run 9KM with a full pack and webbing and weapon, then make 50m shots. A 200m runs shouldn't even make me breathe hard.
I dont want this to be a simulator, but i want it to capture some of the intensity.
One minute you want the game to slow down, the next to speed up. What else could you mean by intensity? It's not "intense" to be sitting somewhere waiting for the perfect shot. It's intense when you can't get that perfect shot and have to move to try and get it even though he's doing the same thing, rather than just waiting for another opportunity to shoot at someone.
Maybe you need to tell me what you mean by "intensity"?
Looked like you were addressing me alone
But you were confused because I was talking about things you hadn't talked about? It never occurred to you on a public forum that I may be addressing the public?
You saw ads of developers stating how they longed to make realistic games but their hardware couldnt handle it?
No, I saw the ads of developers claiming to have made the most realistic game ever... right until after they started actually getting close and the sales plummeted. Then they started talking about "balance"...
Also, considering the target audience of wolf3d would be around 13-15yrs old, i doubt they'd be much into realistic shooters even if they had it back then.
Speak for yourself. I was 18. I played it. I loved it. I was under no illusion that it was real, but knew they were trying to make it as real as they could. The entire computer back then wasn't as powerful as your phone.
Yeah i was born 1990. PC gaming since i was 8 though. i played wolf3d, quake, UT, half life, etc
Wolf3D was six years old by the time you were 8. I was 24, just old enough to be your father if your mother was a ****
I kid, I kid. Lighten up
Something about them maneuvering units for 2 hours and having the engagement as a whole take only 10seconds or whatever
You are carrying a weapon that can kill half a kilometre away, but there are weapons that can kill you much further away. You are carrying a pack and weapons and everything you will need. Plus people may shoot at you at any moment. An average unencumbered person can walk about 4KM in an hour.
Just getting from where they cant hit you to where they are, will take two hours of walking at least, in a real war.
In the urban areas of course it's not as far, but because of how dangerous it is, it's a lot slower. So on average, 2 hours is not that strange at all.
I have been arguing on the internet since 1995. You would have been 5. Most people are learning to write around that age. What I am talking about is people who do things like post a link and then hope you don;t read it, then later ask if you had read it, waiting for you to say yes, so they could prove you didn't read it.
They usually use something that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, because it is just a distraction being used to spring a "gotcha" trap. What is in it is actually irrelevant. If it was relevant, you would have told us what it was anyway, so the link is just there so I can verify you haven't misunderstood your source. If I trust you I don't have to read it and you'll never know it.
So tell me, what was so important in that link that you want me to pay attention to, that you have to keep bringing it up?
-wolf3d was not the first fps
You were TWO. How would YOU know? Clearly you weren't "there" and I have shown that the industry certainly considered it that way. So how do you know what was first?
-the developer's attempts at making a realistic shooter was not hampered by the existing technology
Yeah man, our quad core GFX cards were just humming along!
Oh wait... You think YOU have performance issues? Trying tweaking DOS autoexec files to get a game to run. You have to reboot every time you change a setting... and that took a lot longer than now.
Yeah... TOO YOUNG. You should have taken the hint. I was building computers when you barely even knew what a computer was, let alone how to build one.
-the market for realistic shooters were very small back then
"Wolfenstein 3D won the 1993 Best Arcade/Action Game Software and Information Industry Association CODiE award,[17] and the 1993 Best Action/Arcade Game award for the Shareware Industry Awards.[18] It was placed in Computer Gaming World's "150 Best Games of All Time" for its 15th anniversary issue.[19]"
Sure... I believe you kid. Now run along
Reading a rambling post on the internet has what in common with a tactical shooter exactly?
Well, if you have the mental agility to follow long arguments without becoming confused and disoriented, you'll have the mental agility to play a tactical shooter.
