Modern Military style FPS games

[keird]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: minmaster
NO DON'T GET ARMA2. sucks balls.

Uh...no. Not if you like realism. If you like bunnyhopping/spam etc, stick with COD/CS:S

The engine has its problems, but amazing game if you have a decent system.

I grabbed ARMA 2 because I was an Operation Flashpoint fan. ARMA 2 is starting just like OFP did. Recent patches have helped ARMA2, as well. It was initially clunky, but very open to modding and scripting with superb support from BIS. Two nights ago I was unpacking .pbo files, editing and changing the original single player scenarios after reading a couple of threads on Bohemia Interactive's forums.

I just dig that users can script and map easily, paving the way for better products. IRL I'm also in the U.S. Army, so I've gotten to use and work with many of the weapons and vehicles portrayed in-game. U.S. equipment, as well as a few Eastern Bloc things. BIS is accurate enough for me.

I used to be a huge fan of America's Army, but just wasn't thrilled with the 3.0 version. I was relieved to find BIS was producing ARMA2 and OFP2.

mimmaster has a different opinion. I think it was 'sucks balls', but I don't know what experiences he's had with this genre.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Nizology

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Nizology

Originally posted by: pontifex
Any recent modern military FPS games out? Played CoD4, both Rainbow Six Vegas games, both advanced warfighter games.

It needs to be with modern real world weapons, enemies, and locations. No sci-fi BS. Can also deal with mercenaries, counter terrorist groups, etc, but still needs to be real world stuff.

Battlefield 2 is still a great game. More for MP though.

The only decent EA Battlefield game is Bad Company on PS3 and even then I suck at that because of the controller.

I hate BF2 and anything related to it with a passion.

May I ask the reasons for this passionate hate for BF2? Just curious really...

hmm...where do I start?

Unload a clip into a guy who is standing 5 feet from you and he doesn't die. He then shoots you once and you die.

Never getting a vehicle to use.

Getting killed by teammates who want a vehicle you are trying to get to.

Requiring a vehicle to go to where the fights are all the way across the map.

Not getting a vehicle, having to run all the way there only to die as soon as you get there, making you do it all over again.

Spawn camping.

and thats just with the gameplay, not even touching anything else. Should I continue?

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Nizology

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Nizology

Originally posted by: pontifex
Any recent modern military FPS games out? Played CoD4, both Rainbow Six Vegas games, both advanced warfighter games.

It needs to be with modern real world weapons, enemies, and locations. No sci-fi BS. Can also deal with mercenaries, counter terrorist groups, etc, but still needs to be real world stuff.

Battlefield 2 is still a great game. More for MP though.

The only decent EA Battlefield game is Bad Company on PS3 and even then I suck at that because of the controller.

I hate BF2 and anything related to it with a passion.

May I ask the reasons for this passionate hate for BF2? Just curious really...

hmm...where do I start?

Unload a clip into a guy who is standing 5 feet from you and he doesn't die. He then shoots you once and you die.

Never getting a vehicle to use.

Getting killed by teammates who want a vehicle you are trying to get to.

Requiring a vehicle to go to where the fights are all the way across the map.

Not getting a vehicle, having to run all the way there only to die as soon as you get there, making you do it all over again.

Spawn camping.

and thats just with the gameplay, not even touching anything else. Should I continue?

That's not gameplay concerns, just crappy teammate issues. In fact most of it can probably be chalked up to crappy teammates screwing with vehicles.

As for the other issues, depends on what class you play. Medics have less hp and a lower damage weapon than assault classes. Snipers cant take as many hits as anti-vehicle loadouts. It's called game balance.

Also looks like you never bothered getting in a squad, you can spawn next to your squad leader once in a squad.

 

[brblx]

someone mentioned swat 3.

swat 4 is better, maybe the OP should try that. old, but still on the unreal 2 engine, so altogether not a terrible looking game. great mix of strategy and shooter- basically like the original rainbow six games, but with emphasis on on-the-fly planning rather than pre-mission. much more deep that the current CQB shooters that might as well just be straight FPS's.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: pontifex
Counterstrike sucks.
I'm looking for games that are already released. Already have Modern Warfare 2 on pre-order anyway.

You hate Counter-Strike, yet you like COD: MW. :roll:
Unless you mean Counter-Strike sucks at being Modern Military style, then yes, Counter-Strike sucks.

I also recommend America's Army. I play 2.5 in Linux all the time. I also liked the Rainbow Six games when I played them.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: brblx
someone mentioned swat 3.

swat 4 is better, maybe the OP should try that. old, but still on the unreal 2 engine, so altogether not a terrible looking game. great mix of strategy and shooter- basically like the original rainbow six games, but with emphasis on on-the-fly planning rather than pre-mission. much more deep that the current CQB shooters that might as well just be straight FPS's.

I have played SWAT 4 a little bit. a bit too slow to my liking and aren't you supposed to arrest the bad guys? yeah...fuck that.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX

Originally posted by: pontifex
Counterstrike sucks.
I'm looking for games that are already released. Already have Modern Warfare 2 on pre-order anyway.

You hate Counter-Strike, yet you like COD: MW. :roll:
Unless you mean Counter-Strike sucks at being Modern Military style, then yes, Counter-Strike sucks.

I also recommend America's Army. I play 2.5 in Linux all the time. I also liked the Rainbow Six games when I played them.

Yep, loved CoD: MW SP. MP wasn't too bad. Way better than CS. Can't get into CS. I've tried a few times. 1 reason I hate CS is the whole waiting period after you die. If I die in the 1st minute of the game, I have to wait until the round is over to play again. fuck that BS.

Also, since the game has been out forever, EVERYONE that plays is godlike at it. It was the same with the UT games. The people who play it are just insane and a newcomer might as well just walk around unarmed with a big flashing neon sign.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: pontifex
Yep, loved CoD: MW SP. MP wasn't too bad. Way better than CS. Can't get into CS. I've tried a few times. 1 reason I hate CS is the whole waiting period after you die. If I die in the 1st minute of the game, I have to wait until the round is over to play again. fuck that BS.

Okay, I have to agree with you on the respawn time, total bullshit. At least in Rainbow 6 you got two chances. It's not so bad when you get better at the game, but it does deter newbs. There are also n00b servers that have no respawn time (basically deathmatch servers) so you can get used to the game without the fear of having to wait like a git everytime you die.

Also, since the game has been out forever, EVERYONE that plays is godlike at it. It was the same with the UT games. The people who play it are just insane and a newcomer might as well just walk around unarmed with a big flashing neon sign.

I never understood this mentality, I used to really suck at CS:S, but now I can do some damage. Hell, sometimes I go without playing CS:S for several months, get rusty and have to re-learn everything. Not everyone is god-like at the game. Just stick with it, that neon sign will go away, eventually.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: pontifex
Yep, loved CoD: MW SP. MP wasn't too bad. Way better than CS. Can't get into CS. I've tried a few times. 1 reason I hate CS is the whole waiting period after you die. If I die in the 1st minute of the game, I have to wait until the round is over to play again. fuck that BS.

Also, since the game has been out forever, EVERYONE that plays is godlike at it. It was the same with the UT games. The people who play it are just insane and a newcomer might as well just walk around unarmed with a big flashing neon sign.

I agree 100% with Pontifex. I remember trying CS:S back in 2006, after playing BF2, I just couldn't get into it. It seemed much cruder than BF2, and while the menu systems and all that worked better, the game itself wasn't any fun to me, tbh.

I find the CoD games much more fun, but for sheer MP havoc, Battlefield games on PC take the cake.


I heard OFP2 is good, it got a 90% in the new PC Gamer UK edition.

 

[pontifex]

One problem is that I like games with real world weapons and stuff, but a lot of them tend to be too realistic and end up being on the sim side, which imo, ruins the gameplay.

 

[TehMac]

yea, I like a nice balance, but obviously, it's a game first, sim 2nd (or 3rd).


Speaking of military fps, a new trailer for Modern Warfare 2 will debut on NFL between Chargers and Steelers tomorrow. oooooooooooh

 

[Zenoth]

Also, it might seem unfitting, but I almost forgot about it, I would mention Crysis Wars. I know it will sound like it's arcade'ish, maybe I just suck, that's certainly possible, I don't play it often, but when I do play it I find that whoever shoots then the kills come in easy, as long as you're lucky enough to be the first to shoot. What I mean is that Crysis Wars is tougher than most on-line FPS games I've played, you die easily, basically.

That doesn't make Crysis Wars "tactical" all of a sudden, and it's far from being a simulation, but if you want a challenge I recommend it, my only complaint about it is that the maps are generally too big and you often need vehicles to get to the front lines, but some of the maps are restrained, fortunately, for less populated matches. Also I thought about it since I recently re-installed BF2 due to the last patch, but I ended up un-installing it (bored, I hadn't played it for a year, and I suddenly remembered why, it just ain't cutting it anymore), and installed Crysis Wars instead, played it more than the last time I did, and I got used to it, and started to like it.

Anyway... just wanted to point at it.

 

[pontifex]

trying to stick with SP FPS games. I used to be big into the MP stuff but not so much any more. I guess I'm just not into games that much any more and my time is limited so I don't have time to spend to get good. So I'm playing against people who play 12 hours a day and just rape me, and its not fun any more.

 

[TehMac]

Then it sounds like Operation Flashpoint 2 is your best bet.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: TehMac
Then it sounds like Operation Flashpoint 2 is your best bet.

so i'm watching a video on OFP2 and in one, the dev is saying infantry is hard to see. you need to watch for movement. Now is this going to be a game where it's impossible to see your enemies because of vegetation and stuff but they can see you from a mile away, through a think forest? Once you start firing, are they all going to immediately know where you are and come get you?

I'm all for making it realistic, but lets make the enemy have the same limitations that I do.




OH NO!! at the end of the video, one of the devs is showing his favorite weapons. 1 is an M4 with the carrying handle above the barrel...wtf???? He then pulls a 45 from behind and it looks like airsoft. They said they got actual guns, so I hope this end bit isn't any indication of the game.

 

[TehMac]

yea I saw that video, I'm not sure what to make of it. They're trying to strike a line between arcadey run n gun and hour long shootouts where you only nab one person. The vids I saw looked encouraging, and Codemasters do try to make it realistic, so I wouldn't be too down.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: TehMac
Then it sounds like Operation Flashpoint 2 is your best bet.

so i'm watching a video on OFP2 and in one, the dev is saying infantry is hard to see. you need to watch for movement. Now is this going to be a game where it's impossible to see your enemies because of vegetation and stuff but they can see you from a mile away, through a think forest? Once you start firing, are they all going to immediately know where you are and come get you?

I'm all for making it realistic, but lets make the enemy have the same limitations that I do.




OH NO!! at the end of the video, one of the devs is showing his favorite weapons. 1 is an M4 with the carrying handle above the barrel...wtf???? He then pulls a 45 from behind and it looks like airsoft. They said they got actual guns, so I hope this end bit isn't any indication of the game.

Did you mean above the receiver? I'm can't actually imagine what a carry handle above the handle would even look like, much less whether that ha ever existed in American firearms design over the last 200 years.

The M4 is not a flat-top only design. The current M4 defaults to a carrying handle deign, though the flat-tops are becoming more common as the Army & Marines move towards the ACOG or M68 on most rifles.

On top of that, I can't understand why people think M4=M16. The M16 is also in mass production and the M16A4 is also a carry handle default deign (like the M4, they can have the carry handle pitcanny rail mounted). I can't give definitive numbers but there are a lot of M16A4 an M4 with iron sights out there.

CCO and ACOG look awesome when having e-penis contests about which gun looks cooler, but iron sights work perfectly fine in 95% of combat situations if you have someone that knows how to shoot and use some real sights. There's nothing unrealistic about carry handle M4/M16.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: TehMac
Then it sounds like Operation Flashpoint 2 is your best bet.

so i'm watching a video on OFP2 and in one, the dev is saying infantry is hard to see. you need to watch for movement. Now is this going to be a game where it's impossible to see your enemies because of vegetation and stuff but they can see you from a mile away, through a think forest? Once you start firing, are they all going to immediately know where you are and come get you?

I'm all for making it realistic, but lets make the enemy have the same limitations that I do.




OH NO!! at the end of the video, one of the devs is showing his favorite weapons. 1 is an M4 with the carrying handle above the barrel...wtf???? He then pulls a 45 from behind and it looks like airsoft. They said they got actual guns, so I hope this end bit isn't any indication of the game.

Did you mean above the receiver? I'm can't actually imagine what a carry handle above the handle would even look like, much less whether that ha ever existed in American firearms design over the last 200 years.

above the barrel, not the receiver, like right behind the front sight.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: TehMac
Then it sounds like Operation Flashpoint 2 is your best bet.

so i'm watching a video on OFP2 and in one, the dev is saying infantry is hard to see. you need to watch for movement. Now is this going to be a game where it's impossible to see your enemies because of vegetation and stuff but they can see you from a mile away, through a think forest? Once you start firing, are they all going to immediately know where you are and come get you?

I'm all for making it realistic, but lets make the enemy have the same limitations that I do.




OH NO!! at the end of the video, one of the devs is showing his favorite weapons. 1 is an M4 with the carrying handle above the barrel...wtf???? He then pulls a 45 from behind and it looks like airsoft. They said they got actual guns, so I hope this end bit isn't any indication of the game.

Did you mean above the receiver? I'm can't actually imagine what a carry handle above the handle would even look like, much less whether that ha ever existed in American firearms design over the last 200 years.

above the barrel, not the receiver, like right behind the front sight.

Link to video? I can't imagine what a M4 would look like with a front mount carry handle, not sure how it would be possible without the soldiers being special forces and thus, not being bound by having to use federally issued gear since the sights would be almost unusable in that configuration.

As fr the AI thing, that is what annoys me most nowadays about enemy AI. You can hide 300 yards away in tall grass and the enemy knows exactly where you are on the first shot every time. Frankly, I cant see shit in tall grass on a level plane at 300 yards.

 

[TehMac]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60711

That's the video ponti was talking about I think.


edit: that m4 the Developer was holding was modified. The barrel was heavily reinforced and the aiming sight was moved forward I think. Not sure what to make of that, but all the models ingame looked accurate.

I just was at the airshow, and they had their small firearms on display, so I got to hold the M4, M16A2, and SAW. The ones they had were modified with ACOG sighting, so that was very cool.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: TehMac
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60711

That's the video ponti was talking about I think.


edit: that m4 the Developer was holding was modified. The barrel was heavily reinforced and the aiming sight was moved forward I think. Not sure what to make of that, but all the models ingame looked accurate.

I just was at the airshow, and they had their small firearms on display, so I got to hold the M4, M16A2, and SAW. The ones they had were modified with ACOG sighting, so that was very cool.

This is starting to derail the thread so sorry, but that AR-15 looked very odd. The barrel was reinforced, which is normal on military guns since the M16A2 (you can see the narrower points in the barrel as mount points for a M203).

I can see how the carry handle works now but it's definitely odd. You could theoretically target and shoot an M4 that way but accuracy would be fairly low since sight distance would be so low acquiring targets would be slower and actual accuracy would fall quite a bit below the 2-4(depending on ammo and barrel length, I believe all full sized M16 were 2MOA spec)moa standard set by the government. If I had to blind guess, you're probably looking at something like 6-8MOA or more with those sights with an average shooter which would be quite a hit on any sort of battlefield capability.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
This is starting to derail the thread so sorry, but that AR-15 looked very odd. The barrel was reinforced, which is normal on military guns since the M16A2 (you can see the narrower points in the barrel as mount points for a M203).

I can see how the carry handle works now but it's definitely odd. You could theoretically target and shoot an M4 that way but accuracy would be fairly low since sight distance would be so low acquiring targets would be slower and actual accuracy would fall quite a bit below the 2-4(depending on ammo and barrel length, I believe all full sized M16 were 2MOA spec)moa standard set by the government. If I had to blind guess, you're probably looking at something like 6-8MOA or more with those sights with an average shooter which would be quite a hit on any sort of battlefield capability.

This isn't derailing the thread at all, we're examining guns, a chief component to Operation Flashpoint 2.

I agree, there's something off about that AR-15, but I think it's probably not a real one, unfortunately.