There is of course a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. The game is a military squad based shooter. So to have jump boots, power ups, etc. would not fit the game. It wouldn't make sense.
BF 2142, GR Phantoms, COD Ghosts... all military shooters with unrealistic futuristic elements like Keebler suggests.
Meanwhile, ArmA, Squad, Insurgency... all military shooters with much more emphasis on realism.
What elements a game is allowed to have isn't just based on genre. You don't want realism as a basis for game elements because you don't like realism. That's completely different from saying they don't belong in the genre.
"Realism" is a valid answer to "What does a feature add?" That you don't like the answer doesn't change that.
Those games you listed are all futuristic/fantasy shooters. AAPG is based on modern day combat. As such the game needs to stick to modern aspect and what one would expect from such an environment. If AAPG took place 50 years from now, then maybe you can have some fun with crazy features.
Certain games want to go more towards being a simulator, others more towards arcade. However, to say "we're a modern military squad based shooter" it would make no sense to have jump boots and such. To say "We're Arma and we provide an experience of true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Authentic, diverse, open" is one thing. In a game like that, you expect more realistic features.
In AAPG or any America's Army game, there was never a goal to have the most realistic game possible. There was always the idea of being authentic, sure. However, purely realistic? Never. Even the Devs themselves have said this multiple times. We have a game where guys get shot in the face and then get revived back into to the fight. We have a game where people do a whole assortment of stuff that would never occur in real life. The game is not in any way a simulator. So when it comes down to, "hey let's add this feature because it's realistic" that's not a good reason. Otherwise we're going to start talking about flashbangs pretty much taking you out of rounds, grenades blowing up body parts, among other things.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
There is a difference between realism and authenticity.
This game is supposed to be authentic, i.e, has equipment, locations, abilities, etc. that are grounded in reality but that doesn't mean they have to behave exactly like they do in "real life". The rules are decided towards creating the best gameplay possible.
Realistic games are closer to simulations, where things work as close to real as possible regardless of how the gameplay turns out.
Unless we are talking about a simulation, the realism argument is pointless.
I think a lot of the features being complained about can be reworked to be made better. However, in their current state they have a negative impact on the gameplay.
THIS! THIS! THIS!
I like this.......just sayin'
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
I will say that something being realistic is enough to be CONSIDERED for the game. Sure, why not? If it's realistic then it could potentially fit in the game. However, that's not enough for it definitely to be put into the game.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Right. Realism is definitely the starting point. From that point, you have to make a decision if whether that realistic aspect would fit into the game that you are trying to create.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
I think a lot of the features being complained about can be reworked to be made better. However, in their current state they have a negative impact on the gameplay.
THIS! THIS! THIS!
I like this.......just sayin'
Really? Nobody's yet demonstrated a negative impact on gameplay.
There is of course a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. The game is a military squad based shooter. So to have jump boots, power ups, etc. would not fit the game. It wouldn't make sense.
BF 2142, GR Phantoms, COD Ghosts... all military shooters with unrealistic futuristic elements like Keebler suggests.
Meanwhile, ArmA, Squad, Insurgency... all military shooters with much more emphasis on realism.
What elements a game is allowed to have isn't just based on genre. You don't want realism as a basis for game elements because you don't like realism. That's completely different from saying they don't belong in the genre.
"Realism" is a valid answer to "What does a feature add?" That you don't like the answer doesn't change that.
Those games you listed are all futuristic/fantasy shooters.
"No True Scotsman" fallacy. They may be futuristic military shooters, but they're still military shooters.
The point is that the designers get to choose how much realism they want to add, how much fun physics-breaking stuff they want to add, how much XYZ they want to add.
A design choice isn't automatically good or bad because of the game's genre. The design choices decide the game's genre, not the other way around.
There is a difference between realism and authenticity.
This game is supposed to be authentic, i.e, has equipment, locations, abilities, etc. that are grounded in reality but that doesn't mean they have to behave exactly like they do in "real life". The rules are decided towards creating the best gameplay possible.
Realistic games are closer to simulations, where things work as close to real as possible regardless of how the gameplay turns out.
Unless we are talking about a simulation, the realism argument is pointless.
Okay. I read your post AGAIN.
Your post is semantics. We are talking about how close to what can be accomplished in real life we will model the game.
I said that realism is the baseline we hold up our requirements to, and modify away from for the sake of gameplay. In what way am I not being open-minded about this?
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
There is of course a set of parameters that the game needs to follow. The game is a military squad based shooter. So to have jump boots, power ups, etc. would not fit the game. It wouldn't make sense.
BF 2142, GR Phantoms, COD Ghosts... all military shooters with unrealistic futuristic elements like Keebler suggests.
Meanwhile, ArmA, Squad, Insurgency... all military shooters with much more emphasis on realism.
What elements a game is allowed to have isn't just based on genre. You don't want realism as a basis for game elements because you don't like realism. That's completely different from saying they don't belong in the genre.
"Realism" is a valid answer to "What does a feature add?" That you don't like the answer doesn't change that.
Those games you listed are all futuristic/fantasy shooters.
"No True Scotsman" fallacy. They may be futuristic military shooters, but they're still military shooters.
The point is that the designers get to choose how much realism they want to add, how much fun physics-breaking stuff they want to add, how much XYZ they want to add.
A design choice isn't automatically good or bad because of the game's genre. The design choices decide the game's genre, not the other way around.
I'm starting to think that you like to argue for the sake of arguing.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
I'm starting to think that you like to argue for the sake of arguing.
You came in here calling for aimpunch to be changed based on CSGO's implementation in spite of not understanding how the mechanic works in *either* of the games.
I gave explanations and discussed advantages of the mechanic. You ignored them and later commented on how you wished somebody could offer some pros.
You're now complaining about me defending Keebler's idea that "realism" is a valid concept to work from as arguing for the sake of arguing. That's just ridiculous.
Aim punch negative impacts to gameplay:
- Makes spray&pray highly effective in every single situation
- Creates a one dimensional game where every one plays the same, every one wants to shoot first regardless of where. Fights at the same level are always decided by who shot first, technically turning the game into a pseudo hardcore mode.
- Makes pre-fires too good, pre-fire has its uses, but its a braindead move that has zero risk when the opposing player doesn't get a chance to fight back. Pre-fires were fine in the beta.
- Rifles easily beat scopes at range. Should they?
- Makes newbs completely helpless against better players, they don't even get a chance to land a lucky headshot once in a while. They're always sprayed into oblivion.
I can go on, but I'll wait for some positive impacts...
Good list Dictator. Not saying I totally agree, but that is a useful list.
Possible pro...(This is NOT me standing up for the feature!)... makes people more cautious to engage without a battle buddy covering him, understanding that gunfire can actually be dangerous to ones health....reduces the "one man team" concept.
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Aim punch negative impacts to gameplay:
- Makes spray&pray highly effective in every single situation
- Creates a one dimensional game where every one plays the same, every one wants to shoot first regardless of where. Fights at the same level are always decided by who shot first, technically turning the game into a pseudo hardcore mode.
- Makes pre-fires too good, pre-fire has its uses, but its a braindead move that has zero risk when the opposing player doesn't get a chance to fight back. Pre-fires were fine in the beta.
- Rifles easily beat scopes at range. Should they?
- Makes newbs completely helpless against better players, they don't even get a chance to land a lucky headshot once in a while. They're always sprayed into oblivion.
I can go on, but I'll wait for some positive impacts...
Before they cried about getting random hs by newbs, now the other way arround. I'm very confused. You will never be happy in this world.
Aim punch negative impacts to gameplay:
- Makes spray&pray highly effective in every single situation
- Creates a one dimensional game where every one plays the same, every one wants to shoot first regardless of where. Fights at the same level are always decided by who shot first, technically turning the game into a pseudo hardcore mode.
- Makes pre-fires too good, pre-fire has its uses, but its a braindead move that has zero risk when the opposing player doesn't get a chance to fight back. Pre-fires were fine in the beta.
- Rifles easily beat scopes at range. Should they?
- Makes newbs completely helpless against better players, they don't even get a chance to land a lucky headshot once in a while. They're always sprayed into oblivion.
I can go on, but I'll wait for some positive impacts...
I disagree with your premise on most of these.
- S&P highly effective -- No, it depends on exposure. S&P against a guy with 2 pixels showing at a corner isn't going to work because aimpunch is never going to play a role. S&P depends on seeing enough of the target to actually land hits and now it's a different dynamic.
- 1-D game -- everybody **always** wanted to shoot first. Nobody was going around saying they wanted to shoot second. The non-aimpunch dynamic was still first to hit, you're just saying that now it's less about "first to hit the head". Nobody took away your ability to fall back, either. You don't have to fully commit to a fight. If the argument is that players are now going for easy bodyshots instead of aimed 1-taps (and that is what your S&P point and first-hit points are saying), it'd now be easier than it previously was to disengage.
- Prefire doesn't mean no chance to fight back any more than in the past. Aimpunch isn't a crippling blow that prevents any return fire. Same rebuttal as before -- why are you that exposed that a hipfire spray is hitting you? And if they're placing careful aimed shots that are landing without eyes on a target, why exactly shouldn't that be rewarded?
- Rifles don't easily beat scopes at range even with aimpunch present. The mechanic keeps scopes from being more dominant at long range than they already are.
- On newbs being hit with greater disadvantage -- yeah, probably, but to some extent this works against your idea that first hit matters so greatly. Reaction time isn't a learned skill.
Positive impacts --
- nerf on scope effectiveness
- immersion / flinch reflex / player feedback
The funny thing about aim punch is how it makes the good players even better and noone of the usual "everyone should be able to kill everyone" guys seems to care.
One serious negative to aim punch is corner geometry. If a player is too close to the corner, thinking he is behind cover (I see this ALL the time!) then catching his shoulder with a bullet or two further neutralizes his response as you come around the corner and finish him off. So...there's a balance to consider there...
______
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
One serious negative to aim punch is corner geometry. If a player is too close to the corner, thinking he is behind cover (I see this ALL the time!) then catching his shoulder with a bullet or two further neutralizes his response as you come around the corner and finish him off. So...there's a balance to consider there...
Disagree. If you are stupid enough to expose your shoulder like that you take the damage and as long as it's in the game the aim punch as well. Taking and holding corners properly is a game mechanic and by design.
Comments
Those games you listed are all futuristic/fantasy shooters. AAPG is based on modern day combat. As such the game needs to stick to modern aspect and what one would expect from such an environment. If AAPG took place 50 years from now, then maybe you can have some fun with crazy features.
Certain games want to go more towards being a simulator, others more towards arcade. However, to say "we're a modern military squad based shooter" it would make no sense to have jump boots and such. To say "We're Arma and we provide an experience of true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Authentic, diverse, open" is one thing. In a game like that, you expect more realistic features.
In AAPG or any America's Army game, there was never a goal to have the most realistic game possible. There was always the idea of being authentic, sure. However, purely realistic? Never. Even the Devs themselves have said this multiple times. We have a game where guys get shot in the face and then get revived back into to the fight. We have a game where people do a whole assortment of stuff that would never occur in real life. The game is not in any way a simulator. So when it comes down to, "hey let's add this feature because it's realistic" that's not a good reason. Otherwise we're going to start talking about flashbangs pretty much taking you out of rounds, grenades blowing up body parts, among other things.
This game is supposed to be authentic, i.e, has equipment, locations, abilities, etc. that are grounded in reality but that doesn't mean they have to behave exactly like they do in "real life". The rules are decided towards creating the best gameplay possible.
Realistic games are closer to simulations, where things work as close to real as possible regardless of how the gameplay turns out.
Unless we are talking about a simulation, the realism argument is pointless.
THIS! THIS! THIS!
I like this.......just sayin'
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Otherwise, my prior tongue-in-cheek points about jump boots stand.....
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Really? Nobody's yet demonstrated a negative impact on gameplay.
Yep....Supported position - player not looking at you when shooting. Example of improvement needed for gameplay.
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
The point is that the designers get to choose how much realism they want to add, how much fun physics-breaking stuff they want to add, how much XYZ they want to add.
A design choice isn't automatically good or bad because of the game's genre. The design choices decide the game's genre, not the other way around.
Okay. I read your post AGAIN.
Your post is semantics. We are talking about how close to what can be accomplished in real life we will model the game.
I said that realism is the baseline we hold up our requirements to, and modify away from for the sake of gameplay. In what way am I not being open-minded about this?
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
I'm starting to think that you like to argue for the sake of arguing.
I gave explanations and discussed advantages of the mechanic. You ignored them and later commented on how you wished somebody could offer some pros.
You're now complaining about me defending Keebler's idea that "realism" is a valid concept to work from as arguing for the sake of arguing. That's just ridiculous.
- Makes spray&pray highly effective in every single situation
- Creates a one dimensional game where every one plays the same, every one wants to shoot first regardless of where. Fights at the same level are always decided by who shot first, technically turning the game into a pseudo hardcore mode.
- Makes pre-fires too good, pre-fire has its uses, but its a braindead move that has zero risk when the opposing player doesn't get a chance to fight back. Pre-fires were fine in the beta.
- Rifles easily beat scopes at range. Should they?
- Makes newbs completely helpless against better players, they don't even get a chance to land a lucky headshot once in a while. They're always sprayed into oblivion.
I can go on, but I'll wait for some positive impacts...
Possible pro...(This is NOT me standing up for the feature!)... makes people more cautious to engage without a battle buddy covering him, understanding that gunfire can actually be dangerous to ones health....reduces the "one man team" concept.
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Before they cried about getting random hs by newbs, now the other way arround. I'm very confused. You will never be happy in this world.
Over 2k Golden Hawkeyes.
- S&P highly effective -- No, it depends on exposure. S&P against a guy with 2 pixels showing at a corner isn't going to work because aimpunch is never going to play a role. S&P depends on seeing enough of the target to actually land hits and now it's a different dynamic.
- 1-D game -- everybody **always** wanted to shoot first. Nobody was going around saying they wanted to shoot second. The non-aimpunch dynamic was still first to hit, you're just saying that now it's less about "first to hit the head". Nobody took away your ability to fall back, either. You don't have to fully commit to a fight. If the argument is that players are now going for easy bodyshots instead of aimed 1-taps (and that is what your S&P point and first-hit points are saying), it'd now be easier than it previously was to disengage.
- Prefire doesn't mean no chance to fight back any more than in the past. Aimpunch isn't a crippling blow that prevents any return fire. Same rebuttal as before -- why are you that exposed that a hipfire spray is hitting you? And if they're placing careful aimed shots that are landing without eyes on a target, why exactly shouldn't that be rewarded?
- Rifles don't easily beat scopes at range even with aimpunch present. The mechanic keeps scopes from being more dominant at long range than they already are.
- On newbs being hit with greater disadvantage -- yeah, probably, but to some extent this works against your idea that first hit matters so greatly. Reaction time isn't a learned skill.
Positive impacts --
- nerf on scope effectiveness
- immersion / flinch reflex / player feedback
I love this community!
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Disagree. If you are stupid enough to expose your shoulder like that you take the damage and as long as it's in the game the aim punch as well. Taking and holding corners properly is a game mechanic and by design.
I love this community!