Medal of Honor

[chitoryu12]

Most of my shooting is medium range, and since the accuracy increase isn't really noticeable I just choose whichever gun has the best damage per shot. The SCAR-L is the only gun that's gotten me close to a dozen kills in a row on hardcore without taking a bit of damage because with the ACOG it has great accuracy at medium range and it does enough damage that I can spray and pray if I get surprised coming around the corner and kill the other guy first, rate of fire be damned.

On an unrelated note, I find it amusing that the F2000 has a fire rate of, from what I calculated, 1800 rounds per minute. That's at the low end for a minigun

[Stark]

Its the same in BC2, the F2000 is the super-rof AR of uselessness for some reason. But hey, the last AR unlocked is the fucking M16A2, so...

[CaptHawkeye]

Really? I tend to do great with the F2000 since it has good sights and I fire it in really tight, controlled bursts.

BC2 has some of the best balance i've ever seen in a game. You really can't find a gun in that game that people unequivocally pin as "the best".

[Artemas]

stark, i think hes talking about BC2.

Anyway, while most of the guns are balanced against each other there are some bizarre exceptions, where some of the guns are worse than others. The xm8 lmg is identical to the mg36, but without a built in red dot, so its pretty superfluos.

[CaptHawkeye]

That's because the XM8 and G36 basically are the same gun by design.

[Artemas]

And? Turns out most videogames don't buy into that whole 'realistic specifications' thing? If they include the mg36, there is no reason to include the xm8 lmg as they did. Replace it with another gun (with different stats) or just change the stats. There is no 'best gun', but there are redundant guns.

[CaptHawkeye]

You don't have to tell me that. I'd actually rather most developers just stop featuring the XM8 entirely since it's been shit-canned and including it in a game makes about as much sense as bringing a blow up doll to a strip club. (Gameplay design means that you could basically substitute it with any generic 5.56 rifle.) The only reason it's popular right now is so developers can score points with the military trivia crowd.

It would be cool if the XM8 was considered a "mod" or category of the G36 though. That kind of thing probably wouldn't go over well with Armchair Generals.

[Stark]

If they drop the guns the US never accepted, then the weapon list wil be a bunch of modern foreign guns and US guns from the 60s. That might make people sad.

[CaptHawkeye]

Americans want fancy new future guns but then when offered them, they go "Nah we prefer the M4".

[Artemas]

Yeah, I sorta hate the xm8 anyway. BC2 gets props for not including the ak47 though. I just wish they had made their guns stats more transparent. According to their stat bars, the 9a-91 does less damage than the scar-l, but actually it does more at long range. According to the stats, the PKM is totally redundant once you get the t88, as it does more damage, is more accurate and has twice the magazine. But really the pkm does more damage.

The mod idea is sorta interesting. Choose one weapon, and then choose one of three variants, each with different strengths and weaknesses?

[JointStrikeFighter]

Man theres even reason in BC2 to use differing guns because of the FUCKING SIGHTS. Like the AKSU is sweet close up, but has fucking horrid sights, and the MARK FOURTEEN MODIFICATION ZERO ENHANCED BATTLE RIFLE has the worst sights ever; peep sights, but at the same time those sights are great for ranged shooting.

[Stark]

I love the PK sights, but Zak hates them. They obscure a lot of the picture, but I got used to it in OFP.

[Edward Yee]

To my knowledge, Operation 7 is the only shooter to let the player change the iron sights on one's long gun... would be nice to see that. Personally I was amused to see that SO many of Black Ops' ARs, thanks to the fictional "Picatinny rail of then!" are toting the same damned rear sight... too bad I don't even LIKE said rear sight because of the big-ass "ears." (In contrast, how apparently a lot of MW2 players liked the SCAR-H iron sights the best... even though that rear sight's IRL counterpart is actually a peep sight.)

Re: weapon mods -- if they're gonna do the weapon variants system, why not just go for barrel length as the main difference, with corresponding accuracy and mobility/handling differences? Bullet drop would work for this, maybe sight-in ("ADS") speed, but damage adjustments might be unbalanced for gameplay purposes.

[CaptHawkeye]

There's sooo many different ways you could take weapon mods to the next level. No one really wants to take that step though because the challenge of balancing all that stuff will probably outweigh what regular consumers care about. I played Operation 7 too and looooooved its weapon mod system. It's just too bad that Op7's MP is like Quake and you need to pay a subscription to unlock more than 2 useless guns.

The game had upkeep and ammo costs though and that was cool as shit.

[Stark]

Mods are probably out of place in a multiplayer game anyway. Just let each gun statline have several appearances, so players can just choose what appearance (or milwank name) they want for each statline. In terms of most multiplayer games the differences between (say) an AUG and a TAR-21 are pretty irrelevant, so just say 'they're the same bullpup type 1 choose your skin'. There's no need to go Jagged Alliance and have literally 70 different stat-identical AKs.

[Edward Yee]

Subscription, I thought they were still on microtransactions? Although I admit to plunking down money on a "M14 DMR" with red dot so that I didn't have to grind to level 25. I once went 26-2 with that by shameless camping. Not surprised that almost everyone settles on an AR-15/HK416 at one point due to how modular that setup is; I've both full-length and 11.5 inch barrel options, unsuppressed and suppressed. (A shame that the VFG and suppressor are both considered separate "handguards" and "barrels" respectively... but is it me, or does Control > Accuracy for stat importance?)

The game had upkeep and ammo costs though and that was cool as shit.

Did the upkeep cost have anything to do with caliber or how often you fired the weapon? For some reason I thought that the 7.62x51 rifles had a higher upkeep cost (per unit of durability) than the 5.56x45 rifles did... Another nice thing was the base damage stat being ammo-based, not weapon-based. Hopefully the game's less hack-prone than it was back when I played it though.

Re: having generic weapons -- hopefully this'd let us be able to use same-weapon-category magazines, unlike how I (using a M4A1) can swap that out for a M16A4 from some guy's corpse but can't add his magazines to my ammo count.

[Bottlestein]

What is the best WW2 shooter out now?

Also, which ones play like Battlefield 1942, especially the "Forgotten Hope" mod?

[CaptHawkeye]

Basically...Forgotten Hope? Their are no mainstream WW2 shooters out right now because the days of Apple Pie eating American super men beating the Nazi hordes all by their lonesome are gone. For good reason. Too bad very few people are interested in play a game that might explore other fassets of the war. Even fewer people want to try to learn how to play a game that isn't Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

It doesn't matter if the game doesn't even really feature the Americans. The problem is the WW2 genre was filled by tons of bog standard corridor strollers. The market got flooded and people chose to blame the setting for what was basically publishers being too scared to not cash in on Call of Duty.

Their is the next Red Orchestra game on the way. Then again it's not like Tripwire is exactly known for delivering quality products.

[Stark]

I'm not sure why people get attached to settings like that anyway. I play BC2 and I don't care what the setting is. I wouldn't play an older, more primitive game just to get OMG TEH FG42!!!

That said BC2 Vietnam looks cool, but Vietcong was so cool.

[CaptHawkeye]

It's preference really. I prefer WW2 because it's large, epic, and can give a game a backstory that makes sense. It doesn't mean I *won't* play a game without the setting though. I think it's hilarious lots of consumers would reject or play a game exclusively because of its setting or narrative.

But hey, even if I got what I wanted and their were more WW2 games, the developers would still probably do annoying things like set the whole game in 1945 (when the war was basically over), obsess over Nazi Wanktech and super weapons (that didn't work), and use retard AI with no sense of behavior beyond "stand here, get shot" (game was designed for multiplayer TDM anyway).

[Bottlestein]

@ Stark: Vietcong was cool because you could play the missions with only a muzzleloader - that or the fireworks mode

@ Capt Hawkeye - Isn't this mainly a feature of US designed WW2 games though - I've played a few that are Eastern Front Stuff, or Battle of France stuff. Unfortunately - I think most of the ones I've played are corridor strollers, regardless of the actual nature of the battles.

[Stark]

No, Vietcong was cool because it had dynamic cover, mood, a variety of old-enough-to-be-interesting weapons and AI that teabagged you while gibbering insanely. The tunnel missions are some of the best shit in a shooter.

That no other FPS ever used dynamic cover is just appalling. Modern FPS cover shooters generally ape third-person styles, which doesn't really work.

[CaptHawkeye]

Vietcong is the only game i've ever seen the Mosin Nagant, Thompson, and M-16 in at the same time. Varied weapon choices? Impossible.

[Stark]

Only game I've ever played with the early M16 mags too. Uh oh, the M16 came out but it sucks compared to the older weapons!

[Edward Yee]

Metal Gear Solid 3 used the 20-round magazines, although its XM16E1 also had 3-round burst.

Then again, I was the type who'd play World at War (single-player) with the Arisaka Bayonet, Mosin Nagant, or Kar98k...