Ye Olde First Person shooters

[Topweasel]

Pretty sure they're really called Bunny Hop Shooters!

Or strategic crouch shooters.

 

[Midwayman]

That is rather rich. I have fired quite a few firearms. They do not fire in any sort of "cone" the way it does in a video game. They fire in a path from where they are aimed, with little variance. Now, your aim might change slightly, resulting in where you're hitting to be different, but that isn't' a cone of fire.

A good rifle firing good consistent ammunition clamped to a table produces about 1 MOA cone. A military rifle with unmatched ammo might expect 2-3 MOA cone. It is absolutely a cone. It has nothing to do with aim point shifting. It has to do with all sorts of things like the weight of the bullet being slightly different, the amount of powder in the shell being different, how tight the chamber on the rifle is so it chambers the same way every time, etc, etc. That's before the bullet leaves the gun and you deal with environmental variables. Its far from as simple as the bullet hits where the rifle is pointing. Granted games magnify these effects, but firearms aren't hitscan lasers.

Clearly if you have fired 'quite a few' firearms, you learned nothing of shooting at long range.

 

[futurefields]

I like both equally fwiw

 

[shortylickens]

Yeah even if you put your gun in a vise those bullets are still not gonna fly exactly the same each and every time. Its pretty much impossible.



Thats why Lethal Weapon is bullshit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtDy7lX6iJw

 

[werepossum]

Not really. The "cone of fire" represents a random spear where a bullet my hit, which is very unrealistic. What would be realistic is, after sprinting, my aim was jerky and moving. Thus, achieving what the cone of fire is trying to achieve, only in a way not so dishonest and bull crap. The bullets are going to travel in a very predictable path from the barrel of the gun. There is very little variation. The problem with that is it gives an unfair advantage to people who have really good aim, thus making the masses of players, upset that one guy can kill him every time no matter what.

With my shooting, a cone of fire is a very reasonable simulation. lol

Hell, if I was dodging back and forth I'd have a sphere of fire.

Both. It's not really an either-or answer. Deus Ex, Doom & Operation Flashpoint were all great fun all with different styles of play. As for new vs old, new games are certainly more realistic, but that's not always the same thing as being more fun (which is the primary reason for playing games). Regenerating health (infinite health per level) is no more "realistic" than stimpacks (finite health per level). Weapon limits work well for ARMA style games, but can make pseudo-arcade shooters boring & rigid. Some of the hardest "conserving ammo" games I've played have been community Doom WAD's which deliberately starved the player on high level settings, so even the same game can fit into both poll categories depending on map design. Cutscenes & QTE's can be annoying as hell in any game. For pure "stress relief", Doom (via Doomsday engine) & Serious Sam still work way better for me than any modern game.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say many such games work really well when they don't take themselves too seriously and let the gamer game instead of trying to "entertain" them. At the end of the day, you basically just pick whatever game whose style suits your mood at the time you want to play (which can change day by day for each person). I regularly switched from Quake 3 to Thief to Age of Empires, and back again. It all depends on your mood as very few gamers limit themselves to just one sub-genre / style of gaming.

I too like both. In general I like the more realistic games, but I'm currently having a blast with Counterstrike: Global Offensive even though it has things that absolutely infuriate me. No one can hit crap when dodging back and forth or leaping off a platform. One's particular cone of fire does a hell of a lot more than double while running. These things should not change in a game. Leaning too I consider highly important, especially in a pure shooter. Nonetheless, I'm having a blast with CS:GO.

A good rifle firing good consistent ammunition clamped to a table produces about 1 MOA cone. A military rifle with unmatched ammo might expect 2-3 MOA cone. It is absolutely a cone. It has nothing to do with aim point shifting. It has to do with all sorts of things like the weight of the bullet being slightly different, the amount of powder in the shell being different, how tight the chamber on the rifle is so it chambers the same way every time, etc, etc. That's before the bullet leaves the gun and you deal with environmental variables. Its far from as simple as the bullet hits where the rifle is pointing. Granted games magnify these effects, but firearms aren't hitscan lasers.

Clearly if you have fired 'quite a few' firearms, you learned nothing of shooting at long range.

To some degree some games magnify those effects, but it also goes considerably in the other direction, where in the game I am much less accurate than in real life.

 

[cmdrdredd]

A good rifle firing good consistent ammunition clamped to a table produces about 1 MOA cone. A military rifle with unmatched ammo might expect 2-3 MOA cone. It is absolutely a cone. It has nothing to do with aim point shifting. It has to do with all sorts of things like the weight of the bullet being slightly different, the amount of powder in the shell being different, how tight the chamber on the rifle is so it chambers the same way every time, etc, etc. That's before the bullet leaves the gun and you deal with environmental variables. Its far from as simple as the bullet hits where the rifle is pointing. Granted games magnify these effects, but firearms aren't hitscan lasers.

Clearly if you have fired 'quite a few' firearms, you learned nothing of shooting at long range.

You're talking about a tighter grouping. There's lots of variables. The chamber tolerances, barrel material and lining, rate of twist, the bullet weight, the powder used, the air temperature, the humidity, the wind direction and speed. Then you have shooter variables. Breathing, trigger pull weight and discipline, proper sight picture.

The problem in games is that they make the crosshair increase in size to simulate bullet spread when moving. In reality that crosshair wouldn't expand, rather the weapon itself and the shooter would be moving left and right and/or up and down when moving. Usually you would be firing in a general direction when moving from cover to cover if you are not given the opportunity to setup and aim properly. In a firefight the shooter would be shaky and wouldn't be able to look down the sight after running 20 yards to cover and headshot the guy peeking out from behind the wall. You'd be breathing heavy and pretty shaky so that shot wouldn't happen except by chance. Almost no game goes for that kind of realism because it wouldn't be a very fun game to most people.

If a seasoned shooter is firing from a rest with an accurized rifle, they would be able to consistently hit very small groupings with the right ammo. Many games embellish the bullet spread and you get flyers more often than you may in real life. Shoot 5 shots at a spot on the wall in most games, bullets impacting what would be a foot apart is not realistic. Though again, realism isn't really what most games aim for. There is a difference between combat accuracy and match grade or competition accuracy. Most service rifles are combat accurate. They can hit a man sized target at most reasonable distances for the caliber. They aren't going to produce 2" groups at 100 yards but they also won't have a foot spread either. There is a trade off between realism and making a game fun to play.

 

[Charlie98]

There is a trade off between realism and making a game fun to play.

Thank you. I was clawing my eyes out reading down this thread.

In reality, the only weapon that produces a true cone of fire is a machine gun. ...a mounted machine gun, not Rambo.

 

[JamesV]

Your poll options are entirely stupid.

It should be :

everyone using the same equipment; learn the map

vs

ranks, unlocks, DLC, stupid admin Nazis, kill streaks, drama

.

I prefer the good old days when the only edge you could have if we squared off one versus one, would be your internet connection, and not a better gun or a perk.

 

[motsm]

I can't choose, but I know I don't like where shooters have ended up.

 

[Midwayman]

You're talking about a tighter grouping. There's lots of variables. The chamber tolerances, barrel material and lining, rate of twist, the bullet weight, the powder used, the air temperature, the humidity, the wind direction and speed. Then you have shooter variables. Breathing, trigger pull weight and discipline, proper sight picture.

The problem in games is that they make the crosshair increase in size to simulate bullet spread when moving. In reality that crosshair wouldn't expand, rather the weapon itself and the shooter would be moving left and right and/or up and down when moving. Usually you would be firing in a general direction when moving from cover to cover if you are not given the opportunity to setup and aim properly. In a firefight the shooter would be shaky and wouldn't be able to look down the sight after running 20 yards to cover and headshot the guy peeking out from behind the wall. You'd be breathing heavy and pretty shaky so that shot wouldn't happen except by chance. Almost no game goes for that kind of realism because it wouldn't be a very fun game to most people.

If a seasoned shooter is firing from a rest with an accurized rifle, they would be able to consistently hit very small groupings with the right ammo. Many games embellish the bullet spread and you get flyers more often than you may in real life. Shoot 5 shots at a spot on the wall in most games, bullets impacting what would be a foot apart is not realistic. Though again, realism isn't really what most games aim for. There is a difference between combat accuracy and match grade or competition accuracy. Most service rifles are combat accurate. They can hit a man sized target at most reasonable distances for the caliber. They aren't going to produce 2" groups at 100 yards but they also won't have a foot spread either. There is a trade off between realism and making a game fun to play.

Right. The expanding cone effect is at best a simulation of what happens when you handle a real rifle. Most people would find a realistic depiction of cross hair swing annoying at best and unusable. You'd still have some cone of fire. Hip fire would have no sights and you'd have random movement involved on top. Aiming down sight accuracy would be easier to deal with, but if you were completely accurate you'd probably have to simulate having trouble maintaining a sight picture when moving and automatic fire. You'd get all sorts of whining about not being able to see where the gun is pointing.

Accuracy is a mixed bag vs reality. Maximum is generally reduced as a game that was really that accurate would end up being a sniper fest. Gun accuracy has to be reduced to encourage shorter engagement ranges. OTOH I think they're pretty generous with moving fire and especially hip fire.

People who say they don't want cone of fire generally don't have a clue what they're really asking for if they want the experience to be realistic. 99% of the time they mean they want hit scan weapons with a stable cross hair.

 

[Midwayman]

In reality, the only weapon that produces a true cone of fire is a machine gun. ...a mounted machine gun, not Rambo.

Try hitting a man sized target at 500 yards and tell me you think that is still true. You miss a lot through no fault of your own. Most shooters have super short engagement ranges. Try playing ARMA for a little more realistic idea. That's a game of spot the pixel before he shoots you a lot of the time.

 

[v-600]

Jeez, they're just games. If I wanted full-on-realistic I'd join the army. In real life you don't get recovering health if you crouch and hide.

In response to an earlier post, I did indeed mean the arena shooter and I realise there is as wide a range of FPS genres as any other category. For a 20 minute multiplayer blast I still think its more instantly accessible and fun. Though I did see mention of lots of more modern games I haven't played yet (but have bought on steam in various sales).

 

[werepossum]

You're talking about a tighter grouping. There's lots of variables. The chamber tolerances, barrel material and lining, rate of twist, the bullet weight, the powder used, the air temperature, the humidity, the wind direction and speed. Then you have shooter variables. Breathing, trigger pull weight and discipline, proper sight picture.

The problem in games is that they make the crosshair increase in size to simulate bullet spread when moving. In reality that crosshair wouldn't expand, rather the weapon itself and the shooter would be moving left and right and/or up and down when moving. Usually you would be firing in a general direction when moving from cover to cover if you are not given the opportunity to setup and aim properly. In a firefight the shooter would be shaky and wouldn't be able to look down the sight after running 20 yards to cover and headshot the guy peeking out from behind the wall. You'd be breathing heavy and pretty shaky so that shot wouldn't happen except by chance. Almost no game goes for that kind of realism because it wouldn't be a very fun game to most people.

If a seasoned shooter is firing from a rest with an accurized rifle, they would be able to consistently hit very small groupings with the right ammo. Many games embellish the bullet spread and you get flyers more often than you may in real life. Shoot 5 shots at a spot on the wall in most games, bullets impacting what would be a foot apart is not realistic. Though again, realism isn't really what most games aim for. There is a difference between combat accuracy and match grade or competition accuracy. Most service rifles are combat accurate. They can hit a man sized target at most reasonable distances for the caliber. They aren't going to produce 2" groups at 100 yards but they also won't have a foot spread either. There is a trade off between realism and making a game fun to play.

While I've love it if games were that realism-based, the dynamic cone of fire seems to me to be a reasonable approximation.

Try hitting a man sized target at 500 yards and tell me you think that is still true. You miss a lot through no fault of your own. Most shooters have super short engagement ranges. Try playing ARMA for a little more realistic idea. That's a game of spot the pixel before he shoots you a lot of the time.

lol True. ARMA probably is more realistic for modern warfare in its shooting mechanics. It also demonstrates the problem with realism taken too far - how can I shoot things I can't identify?

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Jeez, they're just games. If I wanted full-on-realistic I'd join the army. In real life you don't get recovering health if you crouch and hide.

In response to an earlier post, I did indeed mean the arena shooter and I realise there is as wide a range of FPS genres as any other category. For a 20 minute multiplayer blast I still think its more instantly accessible and fun. Though I did see mention of lots of more modern games I haven't played yet (but have bought on steam in various sales).

It's not just about realism though, in your Quake/Serious Sam type game, it's nonstop shooting and strafing and basically only suited to Deathmatch play.

It's bad enough that even team modes in Battlefield and Planetside 2 are played as deathmatch even though there are objectives people should be playing for. When you see people continuing to spawn as snipers in PS2, even when there are 20 tanks parked outside your spawn room, you know that confirms people just want to deathmatch.

 

[desura]

tactics, sneaking, conserving ammo is annoying. Never was a fan of counterstrike. Tactics really require turn-based gameplay or RTS. Not FPS. FPS should be like an orgy of violence.

 

[McWatt]

Ha, I voted for stealth, tactics, and conserving ammo thinking I was picking my favorite aspects of long lost shooters, not voting against them. Maybe stealth wasn't a big part of it, but tactics and conserving ammo played a much bigger role in Doom 2 and Quake than they do in Call of Duty.

 

[fixbsod]

Metro 2033 dares to be different -- sneaking, conserving ammo, tactics, and one of the best FPSs in quite a while. (Sequel not so much).

I think its wayyyy too overgeneralizing to try and categorize FPSs into one of the two provided options. A good game requires a mix of a lot of things, tho it may not necessarily even need good game mechanics to work well.

Bioshock Infinite had some of the worst FPS mechanics ever in terms of shite weapon selection (max of 2???), minimal ammo capacity that was merely a cheap way of making the game hard, crap boring enemies that would come in waves and a shield of all things?? Even the plasmids / tonics got dumbed down and went from a large selection to 8. Yet despite all those negatives it was one of the more enjoyable FPSs in the past few years due to the atmosphere, immersion and other tidbits (skyrails were one of the few nice gameplay elements).

Obviously the best games will hit many of the high notes, but a game doesnt need to load me up like Rambo or conversely only give me a peashooter with 2 rounds to make or break the game.

Borderlands 1/2 -- regen health/shield, loads of ammo and guns, tons of run and gun -- pretty fun to play, cool online options

Battlefield Bad Company 1 -- no health regen tho high health, only a few guns, fair amount of ammo, strategy and hiding -- was crazy fun to play

BC2 -- health regen, fairly large selection of guns, still a large amount of strategy and hiding, somewhat twitchy -- also crazy fun to play, even more so than BC 1 due to more squad / team based play.

The only thing I find that breaks the game is those crazy super twitch shooters -- I am not a 12 year old anymore and so no longer have those ridiculous reflexes. I desire something with a little more depth than just who can click the fastest without any strategy. (CoD and those style generally fall in here) It's fine to have low health / die easily but that combined with twitch style play is just god awful.

tactics, sneaking, conserving ammo is annoying. Never was a fan of counterstrike. Tactics really require turn-based gameplay or RTS. Not FPS. FPS should be like an orgy of violence.

 

[werepossum]

tactics, sneaking, conserving ammo is annoying. Never was a fan of counterstrike. Tactics really require turn-based gameplay or RTS. Not FPS. FPS should be like an orgy of violence.

Why on Earth would you need to conserve ammo in Counterstroke? Even the Desert Eagle is very difficult to run dry.

Personally I like some tactical depth in FPS games. Last really mindless shooter I really enjoyed was Serious Sam.

 

[Charlie98]

Try hitting a man sized target at 500 yards and tell me you think that is still true. You miss a lot through no fault of your own. Most shooters have super short engagement ranges. Try playing ARMA for a little more realistic idea. That's a game of spot the pixel before he shoots you a lot of the time.

Well, I have... with both an M-60 and an M-2. A machine gun that is properly mounted (with T&E) will produce a cone of fire. I sure as shit wasn't playing ARMA.

 

[desura]

Why on Earth would you need to conserve ammo in Counterstroke? Even the Desert Eagle is very difficult to run dry.

Personally I like some tactical depth in FPS games. Last really mindless shooter I really enjoyed was Serious Sam.

I mean, you do have to reload every so often. More than UT2004.

 

[shortylickens]

I mean, you do have to reload every so often. More than UT2004.

You never reload in UT2004, so I guess thats true.

 

[norseamd]

they are all worth playing

 

[Stringjam]

they are all worth playing

I agree. I don't get when folks say "FPS should be X."

Who really wants every game to be designed with the same mechanics? Variety is fun.

 

[werepossum]

I mean, you do have to reload every so often. More than UT2004.

Oh. I like having to reload.