Learned behaviour is absolutely a valid component in pvp/fps style game. Its the next level up from sheer hand eye coordination/reaction time which is akin to learning to kick a ball accurately, wheras theres usually a whole extra layer of skills and tactics associated with games. Then add to this real time decision making with consequences and you get depth AND skill. In RO's case, you learn to account for sway, to anticipate someone's movements knowing their limitations, decide to hip or not because it takes time, which stance to use, moving into particular positions to take advantage of your strengths. Speeding everything up just devolves it into who sees who first and who has the best hand eye coordination/reflexes and takes out a bunch of depth. RO1 felt more tactical and like each player had to make high skill decisions and interact with the game with a minimum skill level beyond simple point and click mechanics.
Sway isn't random, it's based on momentum. You adjust your aim for where the gun is moving to and shoot. Bullet dip makes you judge the distance correctly. Recoil makes you use burst fire (smaller window of accurate shots, make them count. Same with ROF.), or use different stances. Stances have + and - elements. You trade manoeuvrability for visibility and easier recoil.
When a game puts several decisions into a players hands you get strategy, tactics and depth. In RO2 its usually a case of point and click or run, point and click because its far too forgiving for mistakes. What separates good players from average isn't just aim but decisions you make, and the more forgiving a game is the less the decisions matter or more simplistic it ends up.
It just depends what you want from your realism style shooters, in addition to what you expect from an RO game. I like all sorts of games though, and I'm sure I'll find stuff to like about RO2. It just doesn't do it for me from a tactical realism perspective
Last edited:
