:blink: So much to read....

Anyway, I'm sure SD will manage to balance it properly. And if it's not (Pretty Unlikely) it will probly be fixed pretty quickly in a patch once the complaints roll in.

That's besides the point. You said It doesn't make sense to use real world things and then completely change their properties, I I showed you examples where they did and it worked - well.


Having a weapon look and sound like a real word weapon, yet behave more like a video game weapon, sounds pretty "semi" realistic to me.


Brink has mounted machine guns. You can see one in the Dev Diary #1 from 0:26 - 0:28.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6phTyM65rM


This is ridiculous. Not only is it an extreme generalization, but it is also just plain wrong. If a person mind works like how you described above, they should not be playing video games, and instead, stick to light actives, like not thinking.


I don't think I speak for myself when I say, I am always reminded it's a game. No matter how real or immersive it is, my mind is always 100% aware that I am playing a video game. The same concept applies to movies.


Realistic believable state? Like everything else in Brink? Are we talking about the same game? The game were everyone has a perfectly sculpted body, with over-exaggerated features? The game where humans can single-handedly wield a minigun, which due its size, is usually mounted to a vehicle? Are you talking about the game where players can disguise as other players, stealing not only there appearance, but there physique as well, in a matter of seconds? Is this the same believable game where filling a player with bullets merely incapacitates them, and a single [censored] from a syringe gets them back in the fight, with full health?

The "realistic" or "believable" arguments never work, because they are always subjective. Players will always focus one certain aspects as not being "real" or "believable" to prove their point (like you) while totally disregarding other aspects of the game.

I apologize for the following. I fought the urge to get involved in this, being as I just wanted to do my usual spooking without registering today. However :comma: this thread was too much, especially this comment. I personally hate being a "sharpshooter" of things that people say, but this was just a completely terrible validation. I'll try to explain why without detracting too much from the discussion I want to make later.

The FN 57 pistol offers nothing innovative or new to firearms designs. It is merely a sidearm which is chambered in the 5.7mm NATO cartridge. The low recoil is due to the grainage of the bullet (typical military-style ball ammo being a mere 23 grains), not the design of the weapon. This can be compared to a 5.56mm bullet which typically has a grainage of 62 gr for ball ammo. The difference here is most notably important in the spectrum of energy transfer from bullet to object. For the 5.7 it is 540 Joules; whereas, for 5.56 is 1,767 J. While the 5.7 does--in theory--allow you to carry apporximately 3 times the number of bullets as the 5.56 does for the same weight, it also means that you would be required to fire 3 times as many bullets. Therefore, the advantage is nearly null and void. One should also note that the pistol itself entered production during the early 2000's. Meaning, we did have technology like this ten years ago. More specifically, the SMG (FN P90) from which the bullet is derived entered service sometime during the early 1990's and was being designed during the 1980's. That actually means we had this sort of technology nearly 30 years ago. As for high capacity magazines, nearly every sidearm on the market today has hi-cap mags available from more than one major aftermarket manufacturer.

As for Glock being state of the art in the early 2000's, again this is not entirely correct. Aside from the internal striker mechanism--as opposed to a traditional external hammer design--there is nothing notably state of the art about a Glock. Where Glock earns its money is in production quality and rugged reliability. The original Glock 17 hit the streets sometime in the early 1980's. Despite resistance over plastic guns and reliability concerns, it soon became quite popular. Since then virtually every prominent firearms manufacturer has scrambled to produce a similar firearm in design and quality. Quite a few of them have been successful. These companies include, but are not limited to H&K (USP); S&W (Sigma); Colt (Colt 2000); etc. All of these pistols entered the market a few years after the Glock; but none of the companies changed firearms theory with their new guns. The differences are a matter of personal preference, and while distinctly different from one another, they change only how the firearm operates but not the theory of firearms altogether. To say that an internal striker weapon is revolutionary, is much akin to saying that having an automatic transmission transforms your car into a fighter plane. It is newer technology, but at the end of the day all cars are cars regardless of the transmission.

I want to wrap this up because I feel as though I'm beginning to rant about this specific topic; when I really want to talk about the actual original topic. The last thing I have to say about your comment is this:

Barring some unforeseen, crazy mind-blowing advancement in firearms technology there is actually quite an abundance of evidence which leads me to conclude that no it is not probable that in 2045 weapons will have made leaps and bounds in design; however, it is possible. I have two main points for why this is the case. The first is that as an institution, the US Army has been using the same base weapon system since the early 1960's. Some modifications have been made, but the most significant of which were merely to make the weapon into a carbine (M4). The second is that the brass-cased, primer-fired cartridge has been in production and used at least since the American Civil War. Small advances have been made here and there to production methods, and bullet designs as far as aerodynamics and lethality, but we are still using today essentially the same theory of bullets and propellants that we employed back then. This does not go to discredit inventions such as the machine gun and like, just to point out flaws in your statement. It is imperative to remember that this particualr subject is a matter of actual science not science fiction.

The cool thing about this is, of course, that the game deals with science fiction to a degree. That being said, I would like to discuss recoil.

Several people here have mentioned that only Heavies should be allowed to carry and hip-fire LMGs. Wrong, black bear. Sorry I just had to throw in an Office allusion to lighten the mood of my post. Anyhow, I don't see how the size of a person would affect this being as that all LMGs are meant to be fired--at a minimum--from the prone position with the weapon on bipod. The way that an LMG is supposed to be employed is as a suppression weapon. They aren't generally intended to hit anything smaller than vehicles, but if they do hit people then no one complains. The more the merrier, I suppose. In my opinion everyone should be allowed to carry any weapon they want. How well they can employ that weapon based on class and size is another thing. I think the best example I can give for this is the strength requirement in some Fallout games. You could still equip and use the weapon should you so choose; however, if you didn't meet the minimum strength requirement it wouldn't fire as accurately. I don't think that having more strength than the minimum made you any more accurate.

Another issue that has been mentioned is the way that hip-firing affects accuracy with all weapons. While personally I would refrain from this method, I would like to play the devil's advocate for a moment. There is a little activity that you can do if you so choose. Go to the biggest room in your house. For the average person of moderate means you probably don't have a room greater in length than 25m (roughly 75 feet US Standard). Correct? The largest span in my home is just over 10m. Now, with your elbow tucked tightly to your side, make an "Uncle Sam Wants You!" pose with your writing hand. Lastly, pick out any object in the room and point to it. Do you think you need a laser pointer to insure that you are actually pointing at the object you are looking at? That was rhetorical. You don't. The reason for this is that your eyes will instinctively look to the center of mass (horizontally and veritcally at least) of any object. When you extend your arms out to your front and point at that same object your hands will follow your eyes. That is, of course, unless you have extremely poor hand-eye co-ordination. If you've ever played baseball then you know exactly what I'm talking about. Because of this, at relatively short ranges it isn't necessary to stare down your ironsights as though at any moment they will reveal to you the secret of the universe. This particualr method is useable by practiced shooters out to ranges of 50m; any further than that and you would really want to aim slowly and surely. Methinks the most important fact to remember here is that the majority of all shooting that takes places isn't happening in a SWAT (the crappy movie) scenario where you shoot 1/4in too low and graze the hostage. This is especially true of video games. Hip-fire is viable to an extent (such as inside rooms) but nail-driver accuracy just isn't necessary.

To be quite frank, I'm getting sick of FPSers because I feel the genre is watered down with tons of the "same game different name" products. I just want a game that can bring me back to the surreal feeling I got from playing deathmatches on Goldeneye 007 with my N64. If Brink can bring me a fraction of that enjoyment I'll support it for as long as I can stomach it. Not sure if any of this made any sense or was even somewhat relevent, but I had to say something.

Heavy weapons should be absolutely devastating. And light characters should have to use cunning and skill to flank them. But if a heavy finds a really sweet spot to dig into I think it should take another heavy to take them on. I'd like to see a lot of rock paper scissors action. Like point blank the shotgun rules all. A little further and the SMG is terrifying. Then the AR type. Then short rifles. It'd be really cool if weapons had a MAX damage range. Unrealistic I know (besides the shotgun) but how fun.

I was actually going to comment a while ago on the technology of firearms in response to the post you quoted, but having not slept in quite some time I avoided it for now. You've put it better than I could ever could have, though, and done gone saved me the trouble.

I've never suggested that only heavies should use LMGs, so when it comes to what a person can carry and use, I agree with you.

As for hipfire accuracy, I agree that the average person, from the hip, could be relatively accurate up to about 50m with a fully automatic weapon. But then you start factoring in moving, being shot at, jumping, sliding. You'd be lucky to be accurate at half that range even if you're a damned fine soldier. I'm not advocating the use of ironsights at anything past melee range, that's just silly. Just that there should be a reason to use one's sights. A good reason. Sights are even prominently featured as an attachment (heck, I got a unique sight for preordering through Steam), and using those sights should make a huge difference. But that's also not truly the core of the issue, just a part of it.

The real core of the issue is that the guns feel like guns. Not really loud airsoft, as another bloke mentioned I believe.


The following is in response to Mr. Awesome Man in particular. I'll keep it short and sweet. 2D platforming and chiptunes worked really great for oldschool games, and I just finished playing VVVVVV which I purchased somewhere over the course of christmas, where it still works great. But that's because VVVVVV is trying to be oldschool. Brink is trying to be revolutionary.

You're mixing up visuals and gameplay. Looks like a real gun but doesn't fire like a real gun in any way is not semi-realistic. It's plain surreal. Semi-realistic in this context is approaching realism. More or less looks like a real gun, more or less fires like a real gun, the concessions are to gameplay, not the feel of the weapon.

I already know Brink has mounted weapons. But we are talking about CARRIED machine guns. This point is irrelevant.

I just finished playing VVVVVV. I have no problem adapting to surreal physics or mechanics. The original statement was about the feel of that which is supposed to be realistic in general. It's a gun. Does it fire puppies? If so, my brains probably going to go "wait a minute," right after it stops going "PUPPIES!". Sadly, nonchalant no-kick projectile spewing is not even half as entertaining as puppies, and will result in myself, and a lot of other people, going straight to "wait a minute..".

Everyone knows what they're playing is a game. Immersion in terms of a game is it's capacity to draw you into it's world and help you suspend disbelief for a moment to simply enjoy the game for it's story, art, or any number of things. This is hampered by numerous things. Fourth-wall breakers are actually specifically designed to break immersion, usually with comedic intent. Guns that aren't fun to fire because it doesn't feel like you're doing anything but holding a different shaped bullet-hose from the next break immersion like a bad aftertaste ruins an otherwise good meal.

Is it realistic in Red Orchestra how tanks just pop into existence in your base? Well, no. Does that change the fact that one of the biggest criticisms the game commonly received was that it was TOO realistic? Check a few reviews and find out for yourself. Again, stealing someone's body is something that would break immersion for a second, at least until your brain focuses on the next thing you're doing. A gun that doesn't feel like a gun is something you're going to notice every time you press the left mouse button. Tell me, how often do you press the left mouse button in a first person shooter? Because I do it quite a lot. :V

Double post, I know. Sorry, but this post was entered while I was typing another reply, and I want to keep the responses separate. Ish.

The problem with that, is while it's good in theory, and even practice, if everyone takes a different weapons.. The truth is that players will just gravitate towards all using heavy weapons. Because it takes a heavy to take a heavy, so why flank when you can just go head on and stand a fair chance of winning anyway?

That's why there needs to be a large con to all of heavy weapons' pros. And limiting each team to just one minigun is as much fun as waiting for a helicopter or some such in Bad Company 2 or any other FPS. It's not. By making heavy weapons devastating in specific roles, and moderate in others, you give the rest of the loadouts a fighting chance, and thus a reason for players to actually opt for them. LMGs could be akin to a souped up, slower AR, thanks to generally firing similar rounds, being heavier, but still having ADS functionality. Can't put a minigun to your shoulder, so it's a specialized heavy weapon more like a hyper SMG bathed in steroids, giving you capacities just shy of God's own wrath up close, but with the major drawbacks of no ADS for ranged fire, and the slowest movement. Without these checks and balances, it's not God's wrath with drawbacks. It's just God's wrath. :X

Adding "rock paper scissors" to an FPS is a very bad idea. If I'm a light, and if I'm better than you, than I should be able to shoot you down in a clean 1v1 even if you're a heavy. My "skill" of using my pros (extra movement speed) should be enough to make up for my cons.

Ofcourse, you should better use strategies and tactics and you should never go head on with any heavy when you're playing light.

Since you were talking about the weapons, I do have to agree, but with the remark that you still should be able to kill on any range with everything except melee and shotguns. To balance this out SMG's will lose more damage over range than AR, AR more than Short Rifle and so on.

This.
From the videos, the recoil seems to be similar to cod in terms of ads there is a slight ammount of bounce.
For the pace of the game, this should be fine. This isn't a cs where your ability to outgun people is really necessary; it's been stressed as a team/movement based skill game.

Also one at 0:52-0:56 on this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcwGIJr12pk :biggrin:

It doesn't seem you understand what auto-aim does. Auto-aim lowers your sensitivity when you are aiming near an enemy, and does some minor tracking. Definitely does not remove recoil. That's something for the player to manage.

It tracks the enemy, both horizontally as vertically, which basically reduces recoil.

It does not disable the recoil per se, but as Dysfunkshion puts it very well, the tracking mechanics counter the recoil (and if you read my post again, you'll see I used the exact same word in there).

Just for the record : iron sights were first introduced couple years earlier than 2006

True that, mo.O. Technically, Wolfenstein 3d could be said to be the first game to use ironsights. But it was actually hipfire with aim-assist. The first game to use ADS as we know it today, or 3D ironsights, is Red Orchestra. To my knowledge in any case. Feel free to point game titles that included the feature and came sooner. A wiki link would be nice too.

They should make the aim assist like in BFBC2 where it doesn't really affect your shooting at all and isn't noticeable like in COD games..

? that just sounds like what I do... I turn Aim assist off for every game I play.