From what I read btw there wont be read dot sights, those were just kind of like old glass sights with a painted black cross on them or sth.
Oh, I have been looking for that image ever since I first saw it on their website! I should have copied it then
Yah well probably not painted, sure it was something professional i just wanted to show difference between some hyper-modern red dot sight.Thats even worse, because that would never, ever, work as a gunsight, it's not possible to aim with, a dot painted on a pane of glass will allways look like a dot in the center of the glass, you could be aiming way off to either side, or up or down, but the dot would still look centered on the glass to you, thats why iron sights allways consists of two sepperape sights you must align.
Red-Dot sights work because they do not just draw a dot in the center of the scope, the dot allmost behaves like a laserpointer, only the dot can only be seen inside the scope, it will allways aim where it was intended to aim, so if you look through it at an angle, the dot wont be in the center, but pointing at where you are going to hit (and you wont even see the dot in there if your aim is too off center).
Scoes work like that also, you can only see though a scope if you are looking directly thought it, look though it at an angle and it will turn black, so you know that if you can see though the scope, your eye is propperly aligned with it.
Old fashioned Reflex sights and modern holographic sights do it too, the reticle is not drawn in the center of the sight, but at where you are aiming, and its up to you to align your eye propperly with the sight so you can see the reticle.
A dot painted on a pane of glass wont do that, and thus it cannot be used for aiming, the dot will allways be in the center of the glass and not where you are actually aiming.
Using Red-dots was BS because they didn't exist back then, but this is doubly BS because not only did it not exist, it's also not possible to use it as a sight in real life.
Yah well probably not painted, sure it was something professional i just wanted to show difference between some hyper-modern red dot sight.
Without re-reading the entire post, are they having a "hardcore" mode as in COD4? I haven't played any COD4, but from what it sounds like, that would be the only way I would play it, and certainly they only way I might even think about this one...
It's Call of Duty 4 in a WWII setting. It's all it is.
It's Call of Duty 4 in a WWII setting. It's all it is.
There are much larger maps that are not in the beta. There are just a few maps in the beta to give a taste of the game.I was hoping for some big maps with the vehicles now, but it looks like they are content with the tiny maps that have tanks in them.
I see nothing wrong with CoD4 gameplay in a WWII setting. The CoD series has never been realistic, so why should anyone start complaining now if something is "out of place."I think we all saw that comming miles away, CoD4 was a hit, so it was no suprice that CoD5 would try to emulate it.
But i must admit that i did not forsee just how far they would be willing to go to crowbar in CoD4's features, even though they clearly cannot be defended as beeing part of a WW2 setting, i thought they would be a wee bit smarter about it than this..
I see nothing wrong with CoD4 gameplay in a WWII setting. The CoD series has never been realistic, so why should anyone start complaining now if something is "out of place."
No CoD has never been really realistic, but it used to be stuff like grenades killing tanks and dolphin diving that detracted from the realistic feeling, IE stuff that was not out of place as such but was implimented in an unrealistic way, this however is just taking it from "unrealistic" to "downright silly".