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.
You arrive at this conclusion over the idea that some random dude who played the alpha version of the game didn't know the correct designation of a piece of military hardware?
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.
a) yes, you AND automatically, because the elasticity of your hopefully strong body holding the weapon absorbs the recoil and automatically returns to its state from before firing the weapon.
You said two can play? Call that other person to the keyboard please!
b) what do automatic reloads have to do with anything?
c) you most certainly cannot predict actual recoil that for some weird reason does NOT have a rubberband effect (like the odd SMGs in RO1) with "better effectiveness" than recoil in a game where recoil is per your own statement both rubberband-like AND non-existent.
It's preposterous.
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.
What!? What does this have to do with anything you wrote before?
Well, if that is the case, then it's a valid concern, I guess. I don't see how screaming "conefire" was supposed to alert us of this though.
And now you're the boy who cried conefire and the villagers won't take you seriously anymore...
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?
No. Your disregarding of that fact meant to be that you were disregarding of that fact.
My whole post is a critic towards the videos, which are open to critic upon publishing.
Ah. My mistake. I thought this was the BF3 topic and not the "review youtube videos of the game, but not the game itself, which is most certainly different than what is shown in the videos, a fact we are acutely aware of, which is why we criticize only the video as such!" thread.
Now that I know, personally, I hate how so many BF3 videos on youtube have melodramatic neopunk rockballads of whiny blink182 and Linkin Park successors as their soundtrack and when you're lucky enough to find one without, you get to hear some kid talking.
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.
a) my problem with you isn't that you have an opinion, it's how you explain it and thus how we must think you got it. Either you got your opinion from ridiculous peripheral non-issues like that one alpha gamer and his muzzle-thingy, the digital identification of conefire yes/no, rubber-recoil yes/no without thinking about it or you just explained it really bad.
b) having a
determined opinion is bad enough, because it means you drew your conclusions and are now very resistant to new, valid points other people might bring up. Having a
predetermined opinion is even worse because it means you didn't even look at the points at hand and just formed the opinion out of the blue and then started looking for supporting facts.
So while it is indeed exactly what you did, there is something wrong with it.
"because blowing slightly randomized round holes into flat walls" - isn't that what happens when you shoot up stuff in real life?
No. It is not. Disregarding blast force, heat, structural weak-points, deformation and all that jazz, an explosion won't make round spheres disappear.
And real-life battlefields, contrary to popular opinion, and as awesome and it would be, do not look like levels in Worms: Armageddon after people/worms fought in them.
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.
The thing is, all hostile jabs aside, there is destruction as a gameplay feature and there is a destruction sandbox. With actual, realistic destruction, that has no limits, people will do stupid things with it, like dig holes, level everything, sculpt penises, etc. Which is obviously awesome fun in itself (the more penis the better, as I always say), but which isn't the goal in a shooter!
The goal is to make it look as close as possible to what young gamers see in the news. Which are moderately destroyed battlefields. If you just let them go nuts that's not what the game is going to look like.
If Ramm said full dynamic destruction doesn't work as a game concept, that's what he probably meant.
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.
a) in a video of the alpha? Where destruction is limited?
b) we knew the destruction was going to be (at least partially) predetermined, which is why they needed all the destroyed building models they talked about.
c) the tiny bits of Red-Faction-like pieces that can be removed, coupled with the model-swap for the bigger changes gives us ten times better looking destroyed buildings than just having cartoon-cookie-bites blown out all over the place. If it means you can spot broken windows looking the same that's a small price to pay for most people.
d) real destruction doesn't mean blowing clean round spheres into things. It's messy. Whether that messiness is randomized (and would look stupid with today's technology) or aided and steered into the right (i.e. realistic looking) direction with "ninja smoke tricks" is something a software engineer can nerd-spazz about with his buddies, but all a gamer has to know is that his destroyed buildings look like destroyed buildings and not like swiss cheese.
For now anyway. When we get to the point that every piece of model on a level is actually made of material that can be affected by physical conditions we can fire this discussion back up again. On super-high-speed cables, because we'll have ridiculously good internet speeds before something like this can be realized in a multiplayer environment.
Well, why do you reply in here than?
I thought you'd never ask: Because as little as I care about the game and as little interest I have in defending this corporate money-making monster your post was really obnoxious. Well, mostly the part about the dude and the silencer.
But look, a nice discussion about destruction came from it. Thank you.