View Full Version : HL2 weapon interaction.
There are certain things in first person shooters that are of very high importance to me. Gun interaction, artificial intelligence, physics, and lets face it.. graphics.
I was watching some of the Bink HL2 videos today (the barricade movie in particular), and didnt see any recoil on the sub machine gun. This is a big part of weapon interaction for me and I noticed it right away. Anyone else think of silly things like these as problems? :P
Things like recoil, weapons and/or viewport shaking as you fire, view bobbing as you walk, weapons that needs to reload after a number of shots are all things I would file under "annoyances".
I guess a good example of what Im talking about (though many may cringe) is in counter-strike. Not only does the gun interaction feel REALLY good (especially the mp5 for me).. but it effects gameplay. A player skilled with an ak47 is the most lethal in the game IMO. It adds a layer of depth missing in lots of games. I no longer just need to put my crosshair on an enemy and click my mouse. Depending on my weapon I need to limit my fire to bursts.. and think of where my first shot should go (ie, aiming high could cause your 2nd or 3rd bullet to fly above your target).
As far as bobbles, I dig any kind of immersion like that. The helmet in Metroid Prime.. the sound effects and speed/general feel of your character in Day of Defeat. All this stuff is cool to me.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Sep-2003, 00:14
I find stuff like that annoying because you are not holding a gun, you are holding a mouse. Recoil is a physical thing, to see it happening on the screen without the physical feedback is just wrong.
I consider it a feature like headbob or vision shake. Headbob is in games to make it feel more realistic, but when you move, your vision doesn't bob about. You legs, eyes, and brain all work together to cancel out the fact that your eyes are moving around - it is far more realistic NOT to have headbob.
There are loads of examples like this (such as the tilting screen when you play motorbike racing games in first person). These sort of thing are nice as a spot effect, and add a lot to the narrative of a SP game, but to have it moving your aim and shaking your vision as part of the game mechanics, that's just plain annoying.
OK.. but don't you think recoil should effect where the bullets go? I've fired several automatic weapons in real life and CS handles this very well IMO. Running vs Standing vs Crouching dealing with your ability to stabilize a weapon.. and that effecting where bullets go.
It's more than a feature to try and make things look realistic. It effects gameplay.. its how a real gun interacts.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Sep-2003, 00:40
OK.. but don't you think recoil should effect where the bullets go? I've fired several automatic weapons in real life and CS handles this very well IMO. Running vs Standing vs Crouching dealing with your ability to stabilize a weapon.. and that effecting where bullets go.
It's more than a feature to try and make things look realistic. It effects gameplay.. its how a real gun interacts.
But you're not firing a gun. You're moving a crosshair around on the screen with a mouse on a flat surface in front of you. You don't have any of the other physical feedback of holding and firing a real gun, so why this one? It's just a spot effect you happen to like, and I happen not to like, epecially if it is over done.
mohaa works very well for this . Give that a go
my major question is how does one account for the accuracy in affect of kickback on weapons being used by a man the size, weight etc of Gordon Freeman?
Most of the weapons in half life weren't completely accurate to begin with and kickback would be the explination for that. So right from the start the two go hand in hand.
I only like things like that if I have "Neuro-Reflex Dampening" as a Psi power :-D
And everyone better catch that reference!
banksie
15-Sep-2003, 03:21
Close, System Shock 2. The OSA path had a variety of PSI powers that made weapon combat much easier although you paid for it in hypo useage. The burn rate of psi hypos could be extreme.
Close, System Shock 2. The OSA path had a variety of PSI powers that made weapon combat much easier although you paid for it in hypo useage. The burn rate of psi hypos could be extreme.
Yes that was a great game. I'd love to see part 3 using the doom3 engine.
Yes that was a great game. I'd love to see part 3 using the doom3 engine.
god yes, the indoor atmosphere of that game was amazing, would be incredible on the D3 engine! I guess when it's released, some one could re-write it in D3 :)
I find the visual effects of the result of the gun more imp than recoil. Whether physics or visual diplays... tired of the blown up in chunks with varying degrees of blood stains look, been seeing that since quake... the old 2d\3d game Blood had funkier if only 2d displays of your weapons fire... I always liked the insta dried into dust (lightning gun effect) and charcoal crisp effect when target also turns into ash hhe...
Future of pcgaming graphics I think has to incorporate what weve seen in the new star wars movies like the engine disintegrating in the pod race... high level of detail and particles...
Millions of polys my ass: my gef4 4200 128 meg totally chokes in sw galaxies in cities with more than 10 people in front of me...
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
15-Sep-2003, 22:52
I find the visual effects of the result of the gun more imp than recoil. Whether physics or visual diplays... tired of the blown up in chunks with varying degrees of blood stains look, been seeing that since quake... the old 2d\3d game Blood had funkier if only 2d displays of your weapons fire... I always liked the insta dried into dust (lightning gun effect) and charcoal crisp effect when target also turns into ash hhe...
.
Yeah, actually now you mention it, I've found the most satisfying gun effects are when people get hit realistically (eg, shoulder hit knocks them over from their shoulder). Some of the most satisfying games allow you to "pin" your opponents with fire, like in Shogo:MAD when playing the on-foot levels. I find that a much more realistic and satisfying effect. IIRC, Shogo:MAD was quite theatrical about it, but Chaser was more realistic about it.
I find the visual effects of the result of the gun more imp than recoil. Whether physics or visual diplays... tired of the blown up in chunks with varying degrees of blood stains look, been seeing that since quake... the old 2d\3d game Blood had funkier if only 2d displays of your weapons fire... I always liked the insta dried into dust (lightning gun effect) and charcoal crisp effect when target also turns into ash hhe...
Future of pcgaming graphics I think has to incorporate what weve seen in the new star wars movies like the engine disintegrating in the pod race... high level of detail and particles...
Millions of polys my ass: my gef4 4200 128 meg totally chokes in sw galaxies in cities with more than 10 people in front of me... You do know the terain in swg is rendered by your cpu. That is most likely whats killing your framerates in citys. Oh the fun i had in that beta. Beta shuttle 1 before they ruined it .
Woha then again I get 20 fps or so outside of cities. Wonder if buildings are also run by cpu... Game needs ot be optimised for sure then. I would've thought my 1800+ to 2400+ wouldve been good enough.
Dang Ill have to look at the athlon 64 as an upgrade for this game then instead of a vidcard...
Woha then again I get 20 fps or so outside of cities. Wonder if buildings are also run by cpu... Game needs ot be optimised for sure then. I would've thought my 1800+ to 2400+ wouldve been good enough.
Dang Ill have to look at the athlon 64 as an upgrade for this game then instead of a vidcard... The buildings don't. But you still have to render all the terrain in the city. Then the gpu is getting hit hard by the buildings . The game is just horrible for its engine. I was using an athlon on a 250mhz bus and a 9800pro 256 meg and was having trouble in the citys. Anyway the game just got way to boring way to quickly and if you had seen what closed beta was like you'd never have bought the game .
Hmm Im giving the game a bit longer to flesh itself out... big mistake not to have gun fightin as realtime action instead of the odd turn based style action and I dont know if it means anything to move around when fighting... Except for brawlers who are realtime fps action.
Quite a few bugs yeah still... lots of broken missions and quests. But you can feel that it has potential and they are reaping so much $ they simply have to pour in some of it to make content worthy of the title.
Ill see how things go for next couple of months... It has a very EQ feel right now that I dont care for but the backdrop has to produce something at some point other than mere leveling of characters.
Do you think the game was merely released too soon or is a broken design to begin with?
Hmm Im giving the game a bit longer to flesh itself out... big mistake not to have gun fightin as realtime action instead of the odd turn based style action and I dont know if it means anything to move around when fighting... Except for brawlers who are realtime fps action.
Quite a few bugs yeah still... lots of broken missions and quests. But you can feel that it has potential and they are reaping so much $ they simply have to pour in some of it to make content worthy of the title.
Ill see how things go for next couple of months... It has a very EQ feel right now that I dont care for but the backdrop has to produce something at some point other than mere leveling of characters.
Do you think the game was merely released too soon or is a broken design to begin with?The problem with the open beta is all the players that didn't understand that the devs knew you could master any craft in a few hours. It was done so we could quickly test things higher up. What happened was instead of running a factory and gaining crafting xp you don't now. So it went back to grinding which this game was not supposed to have. So basicly you have warriors mastering things in half the time it will take to master bcrafting . Horrible game. I'm waiting for ultima x now
AAlcHemY
16-Sep-2003, 13:48
I voted for yes, but only if the recoil will be semi-real ( like cs ). If they would use a true recoil, gameplay woud be suffering from that imo. In real life, you cant run with a AK while extreme aiming. The para ( 5/1) gun is just to mutch 'arcade'.
Chris123234
16-Sep-2003, 16:26
Ugh.. you should put yes on top where it normally is. I picked no without thinking about it when i meant to pick yes.
Recoil is very important. Quake style games should be phased out. Im guessing those of you who dont like reloaded and recoil are people who dont like the shooting style in Americas Army and those types of games.
Sure HL2 doesnt need perfectly realistic recoil but it needs some. Ground combat isnt much fun when you can use fully automatic at somebody a 100yards away. You cant have realistic physics with at least semi realistic recoil...it just doesnt go well together, not to mention it doesnt even make sense.
Chris123234
16-Sep-2003, 16:29
I find stuff like that annoying because you are not holding a gun, you are holding a mouse. Recoil is a physical thing, to see it happening on the screen without the physical feedback is just wrong.
I consider it a feature like headbob or vision shake. Headbob is in games to make it feel more realistic, but when you move, your vision doesn't bob about. You legs, eyes, and brain all work together to cancel out the fact that your eyes are moving around - it is far more realistic NOT to have headbob.
There are loads of examples like this (such as the tilting screen when you play motorbike racing games in first person). These sort of thing are nice as a spot effect, and add a lot to the narrative of a SP game, but to have it moving your aim and shaking your vision as part of the game mechanics, that's just plain annoying.
head bob is realistic. When you run , from your point of view, the gound is moving up and down.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
16-Sep-2003, 21:48
head bob is realistic. When you run , from your point of view, the gound is moving up and down.
There's a lot more going on than just what a person sees. If you were walking or running around at the sort of speed you get in a game, you would not perceive head-bob. Your body keeps your head mostly steady. Your brain does a lot of processing to cancel out any kind of bobbing movements your eyes make.
If you want a game to be realistic, why don't we have slightly different views from the left and right side of the screen? After all, that is what we actually see through our eyes - but it's not realistic because what we perceive is not the same as what we see.
Likewise a head bob that is not naturally perceived, and which doesn't have the associated feedback from your inner ear telling you that you are moving is also not "realistic".
head bob is realistic. When you run , from your point of view, the gound is moving up and down.
There's a lot more going on than just what a person sees. If you were walking or running around at the sort of speed you get in a game, you would not perceive head-bob. Your body keeps your head mostly steady. Your brain does a lot of processing to cancel out any kind of bobbing movements your eyes make.
If you want a game to be realistic, why don't we have slightly different views from the left and right side of the screen? After all, that is what we actually see through our eyes - but it's not realistic because what we perceive is not the same as what we see.
Likewise a head bob that is not naturally perceived, and which doesn't have the associated feedback from your inner ear telling you that you are moving is also not "realistic".I dunno about u but when i take off in a full spring my body moves up and down and thus the ground apears to be kinda moving up and down. But thats only if i look down.
GraphixViolence
16-Sep-2003, 23:12
Why do I have the feeling that all the people reading this thread are getting up and sprinting down the nearest hallway to try this out?
Chris123234
17-Sep-2003, 00:19
head bob is realistic. When you run , from your point of view, the gound is moving up and down.
There's a lot more going on than just what a person sees. If you were walking or running around at the sort of speed you get in a game, you would not perceive head-bob. Your body keeps your head mostly steady. Your brain does a lot of processing to cancel out any kind of bobbing movements your eyes make.
The bobbing is not canceled out. It may be reduced somewhat but it is not canceled out unless you are consciously doing to prove yourself right...
Tilting of the head causeing the vision to tilt is canceled out by the brain percieving it to be up and down
If you want a game to be realistic, why don't we have slightly different views from the left and right side of the screen? After all, that is what we actually see through our eyes - but it's not realistic because what we perceive is not the same as what we see.
........ :roll:
Likewise a head bob that is not naturally perceived, and which doesn't have the associated feedback from your inner ear telling you that you are moving is also not "realistic".
And when I get shot, ingame, I shouldnt be injured because I dont get the feed back from my brain saying blah blah... come on...:roll:
Theres only so much reality a game could have. It wont be "lifelike" but it will be realistic.
Chris123234
17-Sep-2003, 00:20
Why do I have the feeling that all the people reading this thread are getting up and sprinting down the nearest hallway to try this out?
i did to make sure of my point, :lol:
3dilettante
17-Sep-2003, 01:23
I agree with some of what was said about "realism" conflicting with gameplay.
Head bob is something I can see if there were a greater differentiation between slow, walk, jog, and headlong flight.
In cases where the player isn't running (or bunny hopping), then I don't think head bob would be anything but a detriment to realism. The big thing is that the brain corrects for a lot of movement using cues from the inner ear and muscle tension, without this information, it becomes jarring for a player behind a monitor.
Granted, in extreme situations, head bob is still noticeable, and for various impacts that cause fast movement (like getting knocked over or shot) showing some form of screen movement to that effect would make sense to me.
On a side note, did anyone notice in the HL2 screenshot with the trooper shooting a bug at close range (in Alcatraz?) that the gun in his hand doesn't cast a shadow? You can see the shadow of his arms holding what appears to be an invisible gun.
deviantchild
17-Sep-2003, 11:54
The bobbing is not canceled out. It may be reduced somewhat but it is not canceled out unless you are consciously doing to prove yourself right...
your viewpoint remains fixed to the horizon as part of the countermechanism to keep spacial awareness, but you still physically bob
on recoil:
i think it's challenging - when playing Quake2 (machinegun) or Vietcong, my mouse may not be force-feedback but somehow i perceive the situation on screen - it's part of the tradeoff between power and accuracy with weapons upgrades; same as weight or inventory space usage, clipsize etc. - it forces a more strategic and tactical approach upon the player and imo can only add to the complete gaming experience
i think fps's should split between immersive and arcade types
Serious Sam's success already proved there is still a separate market for pure Doom blasting fun - let's face it, it's only Galaga in a 3D world setting
Chris123234
17-Sep-2003, 23:06
The bobbing is not canceled out. It may be reduced somewhat but it is not canceled out unless you are consciously doing to prove yourself right...
your viewpoint remains fixed to the horizon as part of the countermechanism to keep spacial awareness, but you still physically bob
Your eyes may remain fixed on an object but your POV moves up and down and a little side to side. In other words, your POV in reference to the ground in degrees is changing while you run.
deviantchild
17-Sep-2003, 23:50
The bobbing is not canceled out. It may be reduced somewhat but it is not canceled out unless you are consciously doing to prove yourself right...
your viewpoint remains fixed to the horizon as part of the countermechanism to keep spacial awareness, but you still physically bob
Your eyes may remain fixed on an object but your POV moves up and down and a little side to side. In other words, your POV in reference to the ground in degrees is changing while you run.
er? that's what i was trying to say
so, i'm not that good with words but i feel we're on the same side of this debate
let me put it another way:
if i were to implement this in a fps (if i could program) i would do it with the centre of the screen as focus or VP; when bobbing up you are looking down at a slightly different angle towards the centre of the screen, when bobbing down you are looking up at a slight angle - my point was that a strict shift about X or Y would be less convincing than the above method
of course, if you're carrying a tommygun or whatever then the crosshair (if relating to the weaponry) could still jiggle around on screen in relation to that, regardless
Chris123234
17-Sep-2003, 23:53
The bobbing is not canceled out. It may be reduced somewhat but it is not canceled out unless you are consciously doing to prove yourself right...
your viewpoint remains fixed to the horizon as part of the countermechanism to keep spacial awareness, but you still physically bob
Your eyes may remain fixed on an object but your POV moves up and down and a little side to side. In other words, your POV in reference to the ground in degrees is changing while you run.
er? that's what i was trying to say
so, i'm not that good with words but i feel we're on the same side of this debate
let me put it another way:
if i were to implement this in a fps (if i could program) i would do it with the centre of the screen as POV; when bobbing up you are looking down at a slightly different angle towards the centre of the screen, when bobbing down you are looking up at a slight angle - my point was that a strict shift about X or Y would be less convincing than the above method
of course, if you're carrying a tommygun or whatever then the crosshair (if relating to the weaponry) could still jiggle around on screen in relation to that, regardless
Gotcha :wink:
Just took it as going against me without thinking twice :oops: Oh well. 8)
Another thing thats really important to me is FEELING like I've been hit. MP does a good job of this.. moving your view to the side.. swiping your gun out of the way and giving you a small delay before you can shoot again. Nothing will feel lifelike.. but little details like this go a loooong way with me.
On the topic of MMORPG's (how did we get there? :P) anyone else interested in World of Warcraft? Im really excited for it.. so much so that Im really trying to get into the beta (oct, nov, dec start date) so I dont have to wait till 2k4. Reporting bugs is a small price to pay.
IMHO, there's 2 good ways to implement realistic recoil.
The first is the virtual method. The crosshair symbolises not where the gun will shoot, but where the player would like the bullets to land. Where the bullets actually do land is determined by the movement, stance and weapon of the player; the bullets land in an area centered around the crosshairs, the size of which is determined by the factors just mentioned. Here we're assuming that the 'virtual player' is compensating for the systematic recoil of the weapon (that quake 2 machine gun was terrible, half a second on the trigger and you'd be shooting at the ceiling!) but the random inaccuracies introduced by the virtual player's attempted recoil control and movement is what causes the spread.
The second is the physical method. Here the crosshair is exactly the point at where the bullet will land, but the random & systematic recoil inaccuracy would be provided by specialist hardware in the form of some sort of force feedback; the shooting of the gun exerts a force on the mouse which moves the mouse - hence the user has to compensate to hold the crosshairs on target. For enhanced realism, the bullet's path could not only rely on the position of the crosshairs at the point of shot, but also the movement during a short time after the shot is taken after ff kicks in; if you held a gun limply in your hand and pulled the trigger, god knows where the bullet would go.
The latter has been used to great effect in flight sims so far, and is arguably the most realistic, but ff support in mice is sadly limited. The 1st implementation has been used well in more recent shooters - particularly good was op flashpoint, where when running, the sight would flail around all over the screen, symbolizing the pointlessness of firing like this. I'm hoping HL2 uses a very good implementation of the former.
(Edit : made some things a bit clearer.)
bzb is more right than youguys let on head bobbing is very minimal if you sprint.
Entropy
25-Sep-2003, 22:18
Anything which interferes with my rail percentage is evil and is disabled.
IMHO, a competitive game should reward precision (on as long a curve as possible). Ergo, features that reduce precision are bad design decisions for a competitive game.
I had a horrifying experience this last weekend, when a warezing friend of a friend sent a high profile beta my way. I accidentally set the graphics quite high, and the beta then promptly crashed XP hard if I dared touch the settings again. So I played the game head-bob and all at a disgusting frame rate. I was waddling around like a drunken duck caught in a stroboscopic light. Sure was pretty as long as I stood still though. I thought "- this is how all those reviewers saying 30 fps average is playable must feel all the time". :)
Head-bob, recoil,... - it's all fine and good in a single player game (though I disable it there as well). In a competitive game however it is like forcing football players to play with their shoelaces tied together. Sure, it's still possible, but adding a useless bother does nothing to enhance the game play, even if you could argue that it "adds another factor".
Entropy
Chris123234
25-Sep-2003, 23:11
so football player play better with their shoe laces untied? j/k :D
If you want quake style gameplay which has nothing but mouse twitchiness to separate the men from the boys then by all means go play quake 3. As far as im concerned half life two is trying to be more realistic and it only makes sense it should have some form of penalty on accuracy when your running full speed shooting. Or even just walking and shooting. Have you (not you specifically) ever shot a rifle? Its hard enough to do while standing. U really need a rest to fire off of. Pistol is even harder. Im just tired of games that dont need any real skill or thought when firing. :?
Entropy
25-Sep-2003, 23:34
If you want quake style gameplay which has nothing but mouse twitchiness to separate the men from the boys then by all means go play quake 3. As far as im concerned half life two is trying to be more realistic and it only makes sense it should have some form of penalty on accuracy when your running full speed shooting. Or even just walking and shooting. Have you (not you specifically) ever shot a rifle? Its hard enough to do while standing. U really need a rest to fire off of. Pistol is even harder. Im just tired of games that dont need any real skill or thought when firing. :?
There is a difference between entertainment, and a sport.
Competitive games on the computer have no real business trying to emulate reality other than possibly to help intuitiveness (in order to get the technicalities out of the way).
Yes I've shot rifles. And automatic weapons. And bows. Even thrown a couple of hand grenades. (The joys of compulsory military service.) And I've done martial arts for 20+ years. No chasing of coloured pixels with a mouse on a screen will ever even remotely resemble "real life".
Like any other competitive pursuits, competitive computer games should get rid of extraneous distractions. They just get in the way and dilute the experience. Complexity is avoided. Real life games strive for simplicity and a minimum of rules, in order to emphasize skill building and tactical and strategic freedom.
Computer games played in a non-competitive manner is something else though. Complexity and discovery may well be positive aspects there. Hell, if you feel that bobbing your head from side to side as you walk around in your virtual world enhances your experience, by all means go ahead. But if your having it on screen forces me to share that experience as I play the same game, I'd really prefer it if you sat and bobbed your own head around in front of your screen, and left my experience alone.
Entropy
Chris123234
25-Sep-2003, 23:45
If you want quake style gameplay which has nothing but mouse twitchiness to separate the men from the boys then by all means go play quake 3. As far as im concerned half life two is trying to be more realistic and it only makes sense it should have some form of penalty on accuracy when your running full speed shooting. Or even just walking and shooting. Have you (not you specifically) ever shot a rifle? Its hard enough to do while standing. U really need a rest to fire off of. Pistol is even harder. Im just tired of games that dont need any real skill or thought when firing. :?
There is a difference between entertainment, and a sport.
Competitive games on the computer have no real reason trying to emulate reality other than possibly in intuitiveness (in order to get the technicalities out of the way).
Yes I've shot rifles. And automatic weapons. And bows. Even thrown a couple of hand grenades. (The joys of compulsory military service.) And I've done martial arts for 20+ years. No chasing of coloured pixels with a mouse on a screen will ever even remotely resemble "real life".
Like any other competitive pursuits, competitive computer games should get rid of extraneous distractions. They just get in the way and dilute the experience. Complexity is avoided. Real life games strive for simplicity and a minimum of rules, in order to emphasize skill building and tactical and strategic freedom.
Computer games played in a non-competitive manner is something else though. Complexity and discovery may well be positive aspects there. Hell, if you feel that bobbing your head from side to side as you walk around in your virtual world enhances your experience, by all means go ahead. But if your having it on screen forces me to share that experience as I play the same game, I'd really prefer it if you sat and bobbed your own head around in front of your screen, and left my experience alone.
Entropy
Did you not see the j/k :roll:
Computer games are competitive for a reason. Thats the whole point of multiplayer. Quake doesnt need much tactical or skill building. Just good twitchiness. If you want to run and gun without loss of accuracy then go play quake3 or better yet go watch a hollywood movie (they never freakin miss :roll:). The idea of uber aim needs to bo phased out where not applicable.
And I was referring to accuracy when moving. Not head bob.
Entropy
25-Sep-2003, 23:48
Quake doesnt need much tactical or skill building.
I think you've just stated how qualified you are to speak on the subject of competitive gaming.
Entropy
Chris123234
25-Sep-2003, 23:50
Quake doesnt need much tactical or skill building.
I think you've just stated how qualified you are to speak on competitive gaming.
Entropy
Sure it needs team work and what not but thats not real tactics. I talking about tactics like in Desert Combat (for BF1942) where when good teamwork goes on people support each other and work together.
Althornin
26-Sep-2003, 00:07
I guess a good example of what Im talking about (though many may cringe) is in counter-strike. Not only does the gun interaction feel REALLY good (especially the mp5 for me).. but it effects gameplay. A player skilled with an ak47 is the most lethal in the game IMO. It adds a layer of depth missing in lots of games. I no longer just need to put my crosshair on an enemy and click my mouse.
It is TERRIBLE in CS.
Your crosshair never moves (as it would in real life) so you have times when you are pointing directly at an enemy yet your shots are going off at a 30 degree angle - which is assinine.
If you want recoil, then move the crosshairs with it so i can correct, as you can do in real life.
But if your having it on screen forces me to share that experience as I play the same game, I'd really prefer it if you sat and bobbed your own head around in front of your screen, and left my experience alone.
Entropy
DUDE that was one of the funnniest things I have read here.
I am serious I busted out laughing so hard...
btw I do like head bob, recoil and so forth, but I also agree not in multiplayer just SP. Games should let you choose/..
edit.. have you actually played much q3? teamwork is not really involved since most play DM. I cannot even compete in quake3 I get my ass handed to me, however I do like urban terror which is team oriented mod on q3.
I Like recoil but detest head bob. It's just way overdone on games. My head may bob when I walk but I sure don't notice it. I definitely can't help but notice it on a game. Medal of Honor had horrible head bob. The head bob was so bad I only played the multiplayer for one day. The head bob drove me crazy. I felt like a bobble head doll with a gun.
Entropy
26-Sep-2003, 08:01
edit.. have you actually played much q3? teamwork is not really involved since most play DM. I cannot even compete in quake3 I get my ass handed to me, however I do like urban terror which is team oriented mod on q3.
European Div1 and Div2 (out of 8 at the time), CTF.
At the top level, there is considerable overlap between the top TeamDM and CTF players.
I was fed up with my martial art after a long stretch of injuries and meager prospects going ahead, and the research engineer at the department introduced me to the then new q3. I had talent. It sort of grew. :)
I quit competitive play some time ago. I couldn't find the time for practise, arranging practise games, tactics discussions in the channel (team had players from several different European countries) and matches. Work came first, so sleep had to suffer. My ping worsened from 50ish to 70ish which is a HUGE handicap at Div1 level where you meet the best players around, typically with sub 40 pings. Still had duties at the dojo.
Plus my wife hated it.
I'm back in the dojo now.
Still enjoy some slack-play, but avoid the pick-up scene. (Most top players rarely, if ever, play on public servers.)
It gave me some great experiences from a field I never thought I'd get into, but it was a colossal waste of time. The demographic was very different from what you might think. I'll never play a competitive computer game at that level again, it simply takes too much time.
The degree of specialization is also something people who are not deep enough into it can see. I didn't play Q3, I played Q3-CTF. And I played only defence, or possibly on pick-ups flag-runner support. My moves weren't sharp enough for top level flag-running, whereas my prediction, aim and general fighting ability was for defending. Team coordination is everything since ýou cannot see your team mates on the map. Voice comms and honed, map specific tactics is the order of the day.
I still love the game. I've never encountered any game physical or no, that keeps rewarding skill development to that degree, and the number of levels of skill (where someone is clearly better than another player, but in turn not as strong as a third), seems nigh on infinite, and multidimensional, giving ambitious players the ability to keep extending their abilities with tangible results. The speed of the game coupled with the required precision is critical in that respect.
Erm. Hmm.
So yes, I guess you could say I've played some Q3.
Ent
Ent, I was actually asking chris if he had played since he said it required no skill, when it requires more than most games...
But you cetainly have more experience than I thought as well, and I did not really think much about the competitive circuit kind of play just pubs, and pubs on dm are pretty competitive as it is.
It is TERRIBLE in CS.
Your crosshair never moves (as it would in real life) so you have times when you are pointing directly at an enemy yet your shots are going off at a 30 degree angle - which is assinine.
If you want recoil, then move the crosshairs with it so i can correct, as you can do in real life.
Absolutely.
This is (one of the reasons) why I play TacticalOps instead of CS.
Having recoil is fine as soon as the crosshair shows exacly where the weapon points to. That way you can compensate for recoil.
AAlcHemY
29-Sep-2003, 22:47
Ent, you forgot the timing of the powerups imho. :wink:
Entropy
30-Sep-2003, 10:45
Ent, you forgot the timing of the powerups imho. :wink:
LOL!
For you guys reading this who aren't familiar with CTF, read this manual. It describes CTF gaming on public servers. (I've been dying for an excuse to post this link.)
http://www.lamerkatz.com/comics/ctfguide1.shtml
Frankly, I feel the power-ups eventually came to dominate the game too much.
It got to the point where much of the focus of the game was to dominate and at a higher level, synchronize, the powerups, rather than actually hauling flags. To some extent it's a map problem - if you make the map so that the flagrunner is easy to block going in or out, powerups will be necessary to shift the balance sufficiently to ensure that there will be some captures scored.
But the concept really doesn't belong. CTF shouldn't primarily be about resource control, it should be about the dynamics of attack and defense, shifting the team to where the effort is needed in that particular instant, and so on. Controlling powerups is as if in hockey, if you managed to do some very cute team synchronized pirouettes, at exactly the right time, you gained two extra players for the next minute, and then hockey gameplay gradually started to shift in the direction of setting up and timing these elaborate pirouettes and protecting them from interruption, rather than, well, simply playing a good game and scoring goals.
I'd prefer it if the powerups just went away. It would emphasize the basic idea of what CTF is about, and generally shift the balance towards rewarding movement skills and ability to read the game. In my book, this would be good. I always liked the old CTF2 map (even though it eventually got overplayed in the competitive circuit,) for its gameplay, and it took me some time to realize that a large part of why it I liked it was because it removed the influence of the powerups. Note - none of the original CTF maps from id used powerups. The threewave folks like 'em though. TeamDM influence. ;)
Entropy
Edit: Even though the link above neatly illustrates why many experienced players avoid playing on public servers, I feel that the migration away from the pubbies has been disastrous for the health and growth of Q3.
AAlcHemY
30-Sep-2003, 23:04
I fully understand your opinion, and agree with it. I've been playing ut insta CTF for a while. Just run & fire. ( and a lot of tactics ) Its just, i have a good friend, who playes Q3 DM at a very good level. ( best of my country, Force is his nick ). Its all about the timing of powerups when i hear him. :) Thats why i replied, most peaple, including myself think its just way to mutch.
Ah, and why did your reply start with "LOL" ? :?
Games that offer no challenge beyond point and click are boring anyway. I prefer games with depth. There is skill in CS, learning each individual weapon and playing accordingly. Rail percentages?.. groan.
..besides, HL as a single player experience has nothing to do with 'frags'.
It is TERRIBLE in CS.
Your crosshair never moves (as it would in real life) so you have times when you are pointing directly at an enemy yet your shots are going off at a 30 degree angle - which is assinine.
If you want recoil, then move the crosshairs with it so i can correct, as you can do in real life.
It's PERFECT in CS :). It has reasonable complexity without it getting in the way of skill. Sure it could be less randomness (eg. pre CS 1.4), but what I'm getting at is that contrary to what Entropy wrote, complexity can also be something that rewards skill, because there are more parameters to master.
Not only do you have reaction time, aim flick time, and accuracy as parameters (as I guess would common to most shooting games), but you can choose what engine accuracy penalty is acceptable for your situation (movement/stance/burst length penalties), and compensate for a major part of the accuracy penalties (vertical recoil penalty). These two factors adds an awful lot of "micro-tactics" which take at the very least months to master. It seems Althorin hasn't yet :lol:. Seriously, if you want straight bullets in CS, don't move and fire at the same time, don't shoot longer bursts than you can control, and don't play on high latency/low bandwidth servers.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.