On the issue of QuickScoping : Othor Games

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:07 pm

Wanna play a realistic shooter? Go out and play paintball or find a war -

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:54 pm

Wanna play a realistic shooter? Go out and play paintball or find a war -

What's the point? It's unrealistic and unbalanced.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:01 pm

WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERES A BETA TESTING 4 XBOX AND HOW CAN I GET IT. THX ANYONE

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:35 pm

WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERES A BETA TESTING 4 XBOX AND HOW CAN I GET IT. THX ANYONE

Off topic and no.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:05 pm

Wanna play a realistic shooter? Go out and play paintball or find a war -

Paintball is sooooo spray'n'pray!

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:43 pm

Paintball is sooooo spray'n'pray!

And everyone has guns that are so OP. :hubbahubba:

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:33 am

I heard being able to [censored] at close range with a long range weapon was fair.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:48 pm

WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERES A BETA TESTING 4 XBOX AND HOW CAN I GET IT. THX ANYONE

The private beta is for technical testing purposes only and not for gameplay evaluation. Meaning, if they were to have it open to xbox, you would need to be an actual beta tester, and not just get a chance to play the game for free. Also, the beta out for PS3 right now is a private beta under strict NDA and will not be made available to the public or press.

In other words, if you are not an actual beta tester and are just looking for a way to try the game out for free, you're SOL.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:33 pm

If i remember correctly when the issue of quick-scoping was first discovered lots of people said it was a game breaking bug, until they found out you can get lots of fast easy kills with it (hunting for the forum posts on it)

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:19 pm

Firstly, I would mind if quickscoping was something like this in Brink: ~~http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8_blm0VbiM~~

I know the debate has been on for ages, but I really ~~just cannot~~ understand the frustration. Quickscoping is ~~fun~~ annoying, it's ~~a skill to grasp~~ way too easy, ~~skill to learn~~, something to ~~keep you entertained~~ alienate other players.
In Brink, I think it would ~~suite quite well~~ not fit at all. I know most of you have had bad experiences with ~~overpowered~~ quickscoping, but in my own opinion, it's ~~not overpowered at all~~ not a legit strategy.
It is much ~~more difficult~~ easier than running up to someone and shooting them in the face with a sub machine gun.

So again, I stress, it should not be in Brink ~~perhaps give it another chance?~~.
Cheers,

Krytt

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:15 pm

Thank you for that fix Krytt I knew there was something wrong with the OP. :thumbsup:

A cookie for you. :cookie:

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:49 am

Krytt likes turtles (see my sig)

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:30 pm

Krytt likes turtles (see my sig)

but cookies taste better

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:06 pm

but cookies taste better

Turtle is meant to taste quite nice thats why most species are nearly extinct, in the 1800's they ate loads.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:50 pm

i never liked the inaccuracy guns have in realistic shooters. inaccuracy in guns means that every time you fire you are rolling the dice, and its stupid, if i have my crosshair on a target, while using a gun that shoots bullets, i should hit him in the game. If someone shoots me in the back, and i jump and turn around quickly and i get a shot off on his head, it should be a headshot., it shouldn't miss because you can't realistically aim while in the air. should it be a OHK? god no, but it should be a headshot. Shooters aren't supposed to be realistic, and none of the games we play are realistic, realistic isn't fun, they should be competitions of shooting skill, and not dice rolling competitions. quickscoping is just getting rid of the stupid inaccuracy that developers build into bad shooters that turn them from shooters into dice rolling competitions, so i have a hard time dismissing it.

"shooters aren't supposed to be realistic"
starting to get annoyed by this. it's so easy to say realism=/=fun
i wonder how fun a shooter would be where bullets nor explosives nor drops kill?
hey! imagine a shooter where you shoot yourself whenever you aim for someones head?
or how about a game where every bullet that hits an enemy deals double damage to you?

realism is needed for a game to be fun. just like you need non-realism for games to be truly fun. there's a balance, the problem is finding the right balance for you.

jumping in the air, turning 180° and having a lucky headshot, cool.
jumping in the air, turning 180° and hitting the head your aiming for again and again, no matter how often you try? yea.. right...

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:43 pm

"shooters aren't supposed to be realistic"
starting to get annoyed by this. it's so easy to say realism=/=fun
i wonder how fun a shooter would be where bullets nor explosives nor drops kill?
hey! imagine a shooter where you shoot yourself whenever you aim for someones head?
or how about a game where every bullet that hits an enemy deals double damage to you?

realism is needed for a game to be fun. just like you need non-realism for games to be truly fun. there's a balance, the problem is finding the right balance for you.

jumping in the air, turning 180° and having a lucky headshot, cool.
jumping in the air, turning 180° and hitting the head your aiming for again and again, no matter how often you try? yea.. right...

Way to take things to an extreme. Realism works bad in games and the very reason why I already like Brink is the massive amount of unrealistic things they got ingame.
There is a balance? No, not really. It might be the case for games that do want to be realistic but clearly not for games with no limits.
What you describe is clearly unrealistic things that is not fun, why people make games out of that? Instead they find other unrealistic mechanics they can but in that actually makes their game fun.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:01 pm

It really is quite ridiculous. Snipers encourage two things: camping and quick scoping. It's mainly one or the other. Brink DOES NOT HAVE SNIPER RILFES.

I'm sorry if you find that a bit obnoxious, but to get the point across, there will not and cannot be quick scoping.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 am

And everyone has guns that are so OP. :hubbahubba:

There are OHKs in Paintball for sure.

jumping in the air, turning 180° and having a lucky headshot, cool.
jumping in the air, turning 180° and hitting the head your aiming for again and again, no matter how often you try? yea.. right...

Even a possible lucky headshot is a bad thing, because it will tempt people to do it and the more people do it, the more likely it is to be killed by such a shot.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:54 am

Way to take things to an extreme. Realism works bad in games and the very reason why I already like Brink is the massive amount of unrealistic things they got ingame.
There is a balance? No, not really. It might be the case for games that do want to be realistic but clearly not for games with no limits.
What you describe is clearly unrealistic things that is not fun, why people make games out of that? Instead they find other unrealistic mechanics they can but in that actually makes their game fun.

"way to take things to an extreme."
way to take things the wrong way.

i was showing you why there is a need for some realism...

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:48 pm

"shooters aren't supposed to be realistic"
starting to get annoyed by this. it's so easy to say realism=/=fun
i wonder how fun a shooter would be where bullets nor explosives nor drops kill?
hey! imagine a shooter where you shoot yourself whenever you aim for someones head?
or how about a game where every bullet that hits an enemy deals double damage to you?

realism is needed for a game to be fun. just like you need non-realism for games to be truly fun. there's a balance, the problem is finding the right balance for you.

jumping in the air, turning 180° and having a lucky headshot, cool.
jumping in the air, turning 180° and hitting the head your aiming for again and again, no matter how often you try? yea.. right...

double post probably, but it seems like i need to explain this.

you take the "realism=/=fun", if you take this apart you notice that this means there should be zero realism to make the game 100% fun.
bullets kill, so let's take that out
falling hurts, so let's take that out too
moving around erraticaly decreases accuracy, let's take that out aswell then

what i'm saying is, if you don't have any realism, you have a game that can't be played.
thus you need either full realism, for those who want to feel like they're in a war
or you need a delicate balance, wich can be tilted in wichever direction to give it room for it's own way of gaming.

it seems to me like people really like to misunderstand me, can anyone explain why?

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:59 pm

You're anolyzing it too much, and taking it too literal.

bullets kill, so let's take that out

Of course bullets kill - it's a shooter. It's pretty hard to not have this mechanic in an FPS, but even still, you can make this totally unrealistic by replacing the bullet with something else, like a clown head or a heart. Now they still kill you, but it's totally unrealistic.

falling hurts, so let's take that out too

Falling damage is a mechanic that isn't present in all shooters, so you could in fact remove this from a game and have it still remain playable and fun.

moving around erraticaly decreases accuracy, let's take that out aswell then

This can also be removed, as is proven in twitch shooters like Quake 3 and UT, where there are no ironsights, no recoil, and your shots land wherever you are aiming, regardless of how erratic your movement is.

The point is, games can be totally ridiculous and still be fun, or totally realistic and still be fun - it's different strokes for different folks.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:36 pm

"shooters aren't supposed to be realistic"
starting to get annoyed by this. it's so easy to say realism=/=fun
i wonder how fun a shooter would be where bullets nor explosives nor drops kill?
hey! imagine a shooter where you shoot yourself whenever you aim for someones head?
or how about a game where every bullet that hits an enemy deals double damage to you?

realism is needed for a game to be fun. just like you need non-realism for games to be truly fun. there's a balance, the problem is finding the right balance for you.

jumping in the air, turning 180° and having a lucky headshot, cool.
jumping in the air, turning 180° and hitting the head your aiming for again and again, no matter how often you try? yea.. right...

i am not suggesting that developers should go out of their way in a shooter to make it unrealistic. i am saying, make a good shooter and don't give a damn how realistic it is. the developers don't need to strike a balance between realism and non-realism. they simply need to design a game to be a good shooter.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:07 pm

double post probably, but it seems like i need to explain this.

you take the "realism=/=fun", if you take this apart you notice that this means there should be zero realism to make the game 100% fun.
bullets kill, so let's take that out
falling hurts, so let's take that out too
moving around erraticaly decreases accuracy, let's take that out aswell then

what i'm saying is, if you don't have any realism, you have a game that can't be played.
thus you need either full realism, for those who want to feel like they're in a war
or you need a delicate balance, wich can be tilted in wichever direction to give it room for it's own way of gaming.

it seems to me like people really like to misunderstand me, can anyone explain why?

adjectives don't work like that... i'll take another example. smart. i'm not sure what the highest IQ possible is, for these purposes lets say its 300. that does not mean that everyone above 150 IQ is smart and everyone below 150 IQ is dumb. There is a general standard for smart and dumb and average. average is around 100-110 smart is above 110, dumb is below 100. There is a general standard for what is realistic in shooters. realistic shooters like the COD series of counter strike, unrealistic shooters like UT, Quake3, and TF2. so when i said shooters aren't supposed to be realistic, i was comparing what the COD series has become and not saying bullets can't deal damage.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:39 pm

Ok, so ignore the whole realism v fun argument. The devs have stated that one of their goals for Brink is that they wanted to make a game where the players would play in a way that makes it fun for others, mostly through encouraging team play. Some people find quickscoping fun, but being killed in one shot in a split second is not fun, no matter how much skill it took to make that shot, being dead before you know whats happening is boring. So to me it seems like quickscoping goes directly against one of their goals for the game.

» Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:22 am

Ok, so ignore the whole realism v fun argument. The devs have stated that one of their goals for Brink is that they wanted to make a game where the players would play in a way that makes it fun for others, mostly through encouraging team play. Some people find quickscoping fun, but being killed in one shot in a split second is not fun, no matter how much skill it took to make that shot, being dead before you know whats happening is boring. So to me it seems like quickscoping goes directly against one of their goals for the game.

isn't there a difference between quickscoping and OHK? developers sometimes increase the accuracy of a gun by making you look through its scope, quickscoping is just getting the accuracy bonus while avoiding an extremely narrow field of view. if there is quickscoping, it doesn't mean that shots that are 100% accurate are OHK, does it?