Do you think recoil will factor differently with different body types? that would be amazing? If a heavy used an SMG he had even LESS then a light or medium. Because obviously the heft and recoil of the larger weapons are why the light and medium don't even try the big guns.

Meh, I could easily be wrong, I'm just throwing out guesses. Even the half a clip description is vague, doesn't say distance, and i assume it means spraying. Point blank half a clip and mid-range half a clip are very different.

Even if I did have something to base a guess off of, it could easily get changed before release.

Well, I think it's difficult to say with the different types of weapons and range. But 8 torso shots is really much. I think you needed 6 in ET(against a medic with full hp) but you almost needed an entire clip to do that to a decent opponent.

You didnt have the variety of weapons in W;ET though. Could be 8 with an SMG, 6 with an AR, 5 with the strongest AR.

Heh, I was going to say 10 for a medium.

In the IGN E3 Live Stream, during the gameplay at ~1:42 it seems to take 6 hits to take down a heavy at 50-60% health.And at ~1:45 it takes about 6 hits against a ~75% medium.


Basicly, there are two systems.

Direct Hit Detection (most common: Counterstrike, Call of Duty) and Bullet Travelling (Bad Company 2).

BRINK is confirmed to ahve the first, because there are no such distances at whcih it would make a bigger difference than lag already does.

I remember now. You're right.

Interesting theory but makes perfect sense.



Bullet traveling is only really important in sniping which won't factor into the CQC of Brink but it does make sniping a lot more interesting.

Again, I reiterate. It's not about COD, I merely used it as an example. COD's a goddamned awful game and regardless, I'm going to play Brink. Hell, I've already pre-ordered it via Steam.

The issue is about making the guns feel like guns. Even if the recoil is toned down and the damage is lessened, they shouldn't feel like paintball guns firing pellets. They should feel like real guns, like there's actually an explosion going off in the barrel propelling that round you just popped into that guy's head. I am NOT saying the guns should be REALISTIC. I am saying the guns should feel like guns, just easier to use.

As an aside, I think the comment about "it's 2045 I'm sure they have methods of reducing recoil more by then" is meaningless. Because A) most primary weapons for modern armies currently have not changed a great deal in the last forty years. And, B) it has already been shown that at least the vast majority of weapons in the game are based on, if not replications of, current real world weapons.

A much better argument would be: "Have you seen these guys? They're ripped."

Explains why only the heavy can use a minigun.

Just for the sake of arguing - You never know, maybe they figured out a way to include something like the TDI Kriss anti-recoil system into all of the guns, reducing recoil by 90%. The vector still pushes back, but it doesn't kick up, so you can easily keep it on target.

In most games though, what makes guns feel like real guns is a combination of visual and correcting for recoil, doesnt matter what is actually happening in game, as long as you have to move your mouse down to stay on target. Brink has the visual part down, the guns look right when you fire them. Someone said earlier in this thread that the guns do have recoil, its just that the crosshair isn't moving. I personally prefer this, as it allows you to start lining up your next burst of shots the moment you stopped firing the last one.

Isn't toned down and realistic a bit contradictory?

Tbh, I don't see why a gun in a game should feel like a gun irl. But that's just my opinion. I only want guns ingame with distinctive model and sound.

Besides, it's a sci fi shooter, they can give guns any characteristic they want even tough most of the guns are modelled to real guns of the present.
You could also say that it's false to assume that guns wouldn't get better in the next 35 years, since human society always advances.

But they are using guns from now, since they have lost contact with the rest of the world for like 20 years.

True, but they might have adapted their guns to not damage the ark. Maybe they even made a weapon factory after the arrival of the refugees.

I think we're theorycrafting a bit too much right now. ^^

I think Captain's scenario is a bit more realistic, but they did move the ark out to international waters so they could rent out to companies who wanted to do research projects without bothering with laws, seems like weapons research might be one of those projects.

I actually prefer compensating for recoil by moving the camera myself. Because if the gun tracks up while the crosshairs stay on target, then it just means the under sustained fire I have to correct by aiming down while my gun fires high.

But my comments about hoping for the recoil was precisely about animations and everything else related to the feel of gun. Somehow people seem to have gotten the idea I just want the guns to be hard to use. :V

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but imho adding extra recoil automatically makes the gun harder to use.

Animation recoil doesn't make a gun harder to use, it just means the image of the gun moves around a lot.

As long as you learn to pay attention to where the bullets hit, spraying isn't that hard with a stationary crosshair.

Oh it's just about the animation. I thought he meant real recoil when he said "the feel of a gun". As long as the animation doesn't blur too much of my screen lol.

And spraying is never hard. You don't need a stationary x-hair for that.

but stationary crosshairs help for bursting or single shots, so I prefer it that way.

Edit: Due to the fact that I have been repeating myself a lot more today than a normally do, I don't think I'm making much sense, probobally cuz I didn't sleep last night, I'll try the forums again tomorrow after I've had a bit of rest

Let me use one small example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven

The Five-seven. Low recoil. Huge magazine. High Accuracy. Armor piercing rounds. Highly tactical weapon.

Has a lot of features that are far more advanced then your average sidearm.

Ten years ago we didn't have anything like the Five seveN. The GLOCK was state of the art.

Go back even further and yeah from 1911 until the 90s the 1911 was state of the art. And before that it was the revolver and don't get me started on rifles machine guns or subs.

But we have multiple varieties of automatic shotguns and so forth. Some that even fire mini artillery shells. Why in 30 to 40 years would we not have more advanced weaponry?

There needs to be recoil in the weapons..... there just does. It acts as a safeguard against people just praying and spraying and forces the player to use burst fire and be more careful about where they place their shots.

"safeguards" against spray and pray are implemented through reduced accuracy. Even if their was no recoil at all, a player choosing to ADS will have greater accuracy than a player who chooses to hipfire. Also, comparing recoil an gun mechanics to other popular games (namely COD, and Bad Company) doesn't really apply here, since SD comes from a twitch shooting, PC background. W:ET was all about fast paced gameplay, and their weapons had no ADS sights - "hipfiring" was the only way to shoot, so sprinting, jumping, strafing, while shooting was commonplace. That is the background SD comes from, and that is the gun mechanics they and their fans, enjoy. Of course, designing Brink to work on console, compromises had to be made. But even with the inclusion of ADS, hip firing will still be a very viable option.

Well recoil directly correlates to reduced accuracy which is why I said that.... and it is evident that there will be recoil in the guns and for that I am pleased. As far as ADS vs. hip fire, as long as a happy balance between the hardcoe PC community's no ADS mentality and the console ADS happy group then I could live with that. Both have their advantages and disadvantages depending on how far away your target is.

But another point I want to touch on is that I heard the aim assist will be adjustable via a sliding scale. I like that they don't force AA on us like other games do but I don't like the idea of weaker players taking advantage of maxed out AA to get easy kills online.

No matter how you do it... someone's not gonna be happy. What can you do?

To the comment about advanced weaponry being present even today, advanced weaponry was present thirty years ago. Militaries just don't use them, typically, believing instead that they often already have something that "works fine". For instance, the FN FAL was developed alongside (and before) the M14. And remains in use to this day. (1953/53 - Present)

The XM8 is another great example. An excellent gun which has been around for a few years (and the development of which is still ongoing) already greatly outperforms the M4 carbine in general, particularly in terms of reliability, as well as having modular capacities (the gun can be disassembled and reassembled with different components to fulfill roles ranging from LMG, marksman rifle, carbine, and SMG variants). Yet the gun has not replaced the M4. The army's official reason for declining it is "soldiers are generally pleased with the M4 as is" despite there being an obvious better option.

Some of this can be disregarded, because the security forces in Brink are more of a PMC (that's "Private Military Company" for those that don't know) and thus is more likely to have better equipment. Perhaps the resistance has taken all of their guns from security weapons caches. That's plausible enough.

As for ADS being a concession, it's frankly a necessary feature these days when a game is using real-world weaponry or is trying to have any sense of realism (which Brink is). I rather think the PC crowd is the crowd more inclined to embrace ADS than the console crowd, as opposed to the other way around. I've played my share of shooters on consoles, and unless I've got aim-bot like aim-assist, the last thing I want to do is tighten my bullet spread. The more spamtastic the fire, the easier it is to hit (conversely, the harder it is to keep hitting) in most situations. When I talk about recoil, again, I think I've been misunderstood. I'm not talking purely about animations either. The guns should jump. Guns have kick, that's just physics. Any gun that DOESN'T have kick in a game just doesn't feel like a gun. Unless it's firing lasers or some such (ironically, most laser weapons in games seem to have kick as well, figure that one out..). I am NOT saying that every gun should have to be fired in bursts all the time because "NOBODY AKIMBOS WEAPONS IN WAR, SOLDIERS BURST FIRE, YOU CAN'T KEEP A GUN STEADY FULL AUTO," blah blah blah, this isn't Arma 2. This is Brink, it should stay playable for the casual types. But it still needs to feel like the rounds I'm firing are imparting some sort of effect on me, aside from my gun just bouncing around and my crosshairs getting larger, while my screen stays completely still. It's a matter of immersion.

Breaking immersion left and right is fine for games like TF2. But it's not something you want to do constantly (every time you shoot, which is presumably often given the name of the genre) in a game that does actually approach realism.

One last note. It's true that W:ET didn't have ADS. But guess what, ET:QW did. :V