New X-Wing/Tie Fighter **RUMORS**

[VF5SS]

Actually has anyone ever noticed how nerds hate feeling like they have bad aim? Most video games make shooting as easy as possible, so everyone runs around with accuracy ratings averaging 25%-50%.

To be fair, it is a normal reaction for people to think "100% is like an A+!" Also it didn't help that many games included accuracy not only as a category, but made it relevant to a player's overall score. Its all kind of perpetual with gamers wanting to do better and designers making a scoring system that both encourages and requires good accuracy for success.

Gotta get an S rank on every mission somehow.

[Vendetta]

Actually has anyone ever noticed how nerds hate feeling like they have bad aim? Most video games make shooting as easy as possible, so everyone runs around with accuracy ratings averaging 25%-50%.

This is because video games are entertainment media, and running around managing to actually achieve fuck all because you can only hit one in fifty shots is less than entertaining.

Realistic and Good are different.

[Steel]

Actually has anyone ever noticed how nerds hate feeling like they have bad aim? Most video games make shooting as easy as possible, so everyone runs around with accuracy ratings averaging 25%-50%.

This is because video games are entertainment media, and running around managing to actually achieve fuck all because you can only hit one in fifty shots is less than entertaining.

Realistic and Good are different.

Add in the fact that the vast majority of games combat takes place at ranges much less than 100m. Bullets have to go in straight lines and cannot evaporate so unless you introduce horrific conefire such that bullets fly out of the barrel randomly at 45 degrees to make sure that people miss as much as you deem necessary you arent going to get such poor accuracy.

The reason actual wars have such crap accuracy overall is that theres lots of suppressing fire and when you have 20 men who have been told "theres someone in those trees there" and they just have to fire on the indicated area without actually havng individually identified where the enemy are and then add to that you dont get a convenient message when they've all been hit or left, accuracy is going to drop a lot. In games you dont ever really fire unless you personally see a target, and then they're almost never in cover either so under those conditions within 50m if you actually put your sights on the target you should hit. (Stupid stuff like firing while sprinting/jumping notwithstanding)

Have you ever seen in RPGs when your character rolls under his arbitrary "to hit score" or whatever the absurd angle the game has to make the bullet fly off at in order to actually miss?

[CaptHawkeye]

This is because video games are entertainment media, and running around managing to actually achieve fuck all because you can only hit one in fifty shots is less than entertaining.

Realistic and Good are different.

By this logic, Operation Flashpoint and a thousand other tacticool shooters should not exist. But amazingly, their *is* a market for detailed games.

This may surprise you, but it turns out aiming at and killing targets does not have to be PISS EASY for a game to be fun. Or should we just side track this discussion into yet another "realism or gamey-ness DUDES" debate who's entire foundation is built on a massive black/white fallacy?

[Bounty]

But amazingly, their *is* a market for detailed games.

And we'd all like games which cripple playability for the sake of realism to *stay there*.

Realistic accuracy is fine if you want a detailed simulation of war without the nasty parts. Hell, it's even cool as a toggle-able option (see, for instance, IL-2 that lets you slide all the way from "you will not hit everything ever" to "are these bullets magnetic?"). But if I'm playing Butch Deathwalker, über-trained killing machine, I expect to see the sort of accuracy that makes me not feel like I'm a myopic Parkinson's patient on a caffeine rush. Because Butch Deathwalker doesn't pepper the scenery with bullets unless they got through fifteen Red Army Nazi cyborgs first.

[CaptHawkeye]

Just why do people think i'm some kind of simhard nerd? You should see some of the shit i've started on places like Subsim against people who think "game lacks banana decal on T80 = is unrealistic shit don't buy".

I guess i'm alone on this, but I don't view realism as some kind of obsessive goal games must strive to obtain over one another's bloody, beaten corpses. I view it as a different type of challenge or difficulty level. A point where the game stops holding your hand, and starts to up the challenge by turning itself into an opponent. Note that this does not mean I think the game should become unintuitive.

but if I'm playing Butch Deathwalker, über-trained killing machine,

Actually it's a complaint of mine that games like that usually fail in every way to make Butch Deathwalker seem at all dangerous. Just look at Halo and what a good fucking job it does at making Wankster Cheif seem like a pussy.

No, i'm talking more about games where the player is "just another soldier". Basically tactical FPS games which are frequently anything but. Call of Dooty likes to brag you "never fight alone"...but your AI allies never push on objectives, they never kill more enemies than you do. So basically, you are the only one fighting, winning wars, killing hundreds of guys easily etc etc.

[Vendetta]

No, i'm talking more about games where the player is "just another soldier". Basically tactical FPS games which are frequently anything but. Call of Dooty likes to brag you "never fight alone"...but your AI allies never push on objectives, they never kill more enemies than you do. So basically, you are the only one fighting, winning wars, killing hundreds of guys easily etc etc.

If you did create a game in which the player was really just a no account grunt whose individual actions mattered not a fucking jot, no-one would want to play it. Even in competitive team based multiplayer, or heavily team based games like MMO raids, a game where each player didn't feel like they were contributing to the team in a significant fashion would lose players like a leaky bucket.

[Bounty]

No, i'm talking more about games where the player is "just another soldier". Basically tactical FPS games which are frequently anything but. Call of Dooty likes to brag you "never fight alone"...but your AI allies never push on objectives, they never kill more enemies than you do. So basically, you are the only one fighting, winning wars, killing hundreds of guys easily etc etc.

That's a whole other kettle of fish, isn't it? Just nerfing accuracy won't make ailed AI or immersion any better, it'll just end up being frustrating and dull. As part of the cold nuts treatment in a tacticool shooter yawner it'll work but in any game more than five people want to play it'll just look like the beta testers complained about game length and the devs said "move a comma, make it harder".