How on earth did I miss the original Grezzo?

Paul the sparky wrote:

There must come a time where a developer wants to stand out from the crowd and deliver a slow paced, tactical game though surely? The pendulum has to swing back at some point doesn't it? I'd love to play a game where you need to consider your tactics, communicate and work together as a team to complete an objective. Someone needs to bring out a hardcore (hate that term but I'm struggling for an alternative) FPS that does for online shooters what Demon's Souls did for RPGs.

I think we need to be careful what we wish for, and/or be clear what we're asking for.

Are we talking purely about player movement and kill times?

Or are you talking about more involved objectives? Or a combo of both?

I think I'm in agreement with you, but I'm not sure what ideas will have what results.

A game with near instant kill times can make for slower gameplay if there's an objective involved. A game with bullet sponges can lead to charging in like strafing headless chickens. What do you reckon is a happy medium?

Do we think BFBC2's Rush mode is complex enough as far as an objective goes?

Are you after larger maps? Larger maps obviously require more players, but still leave the pace a bit more considered, for the most part. Apart from Splinter Cell's Spies v Mercs, I struggle to think of smaller map MP that doesn't decend into frantic action pretty quickly.

My hopes are basically pinned on Bungie's Destiny, BFBC3 and a pipe dream that there'll be a Halo spin-off change in tack that sees a Rush mode equiv in the Halo universe.

I'd like to see some proper ballistics and weapon usage in whatever the next scenario of FPS's brings.

Bunny-hopping no-scoping sniper rifles should react accordingly, ie they should offer the same accuracy and recoil. Likewise pistols shouldn't be more likely to score a critical hit than a crouched, scoped assault rifle, a shotgun shouldn't be killing people from across the map and so on. Also I'd like to see more 'hardcore' games in so much as friendly fire is always there, there is nothing to promote teamwork to the current batch of LIVE gamers.

TBH though I can't see them changing anything, the publishers are so terrified of losing players though this is exactly what has been happening on my FL...

We can hope for COD to struggle in the transition to a new generation. That would open the market up a bit. The lack of mod tools for BF3 is starting to look pretty disappointing now, we'd maybe have been on our way to a hardcore sim and a BC2 clone from modders by now if it had.

For the Pokemon crowd. Got to collect them all.

S'all about the boomsticks.

The biggest variable when talking about wounds from firearms is what calibre of round is being fired. Size of the bullet matters most. Not what gun it is.

Bollockoff wrote:

S'all about the boomsticks.

Handcannons for me. A Magnum/Desert Eagle/whatever stupidly overpowered pistol you have is usually my go to gun.

Moto70 wrote:

Bollockoff wrote:

The biggest variable when talking about wounds from firearms is what calibre of round is being fired. Size of the bullet matters most. Not what gun it is.

I thought velocity was more important?

To an extent, you want to penetrate the body, then have the bullet dump all its energy quickly inside the body, for max damage. Too much velocity and it just pops out the back leaving a nice neat hole that can be easily patched up.

Moto70 wrote:

Bollockoff wrote:

The biggest variable when talking about wounds from firearms is what calibre of round is being fired. Size of the bullet matters most. Not what gun it is.

I thought velocity was more important? I think that ballistics is a really interesting subject and especially terminal ballistics.

Generally, bigger calibre = more propellant = higher velocity. Having a longer gun barrel is important as well and if you fire the same calibre from a rifle rather than a handgun you'l get much faster muzzle velocities. But what size of wad you're firing is the primary concern.

EDIT: @Bollockoff:

I know how ballistics work, I was just pointing out that your comment was a bit too vague.

Also disregarding the velocity side of things the size of bullet is still not the most important thing because you have to take into account the bullet's mass along with the type (flat, hollow-point, etc) when determining its wound inflicting prowess.

it also depends on whether you're a key character in the action or some random goon....

Mod74 wrote:

Anyone see that 'expanding foam' system for treating wounds? http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/12/14/3654524.htm ergh.

It makes sense I suppose, most people don't realise that US soldiers used to use a super-glue spray to seal wounds before they could get the injured to hospitals.

I had my knuckle glued in '89/90, it had split and you could see the tendons moving about but rather than stitch it they glued it, it healed lovely and you can't see the mark it left unless you look really closely.

Moto70 wrote:

EDIT: @Bollockoff: I know how ballistics work, I was just pointing out that your comment was a bit too vague. Also disregarding the velocity side of things the size of bullet is still not the most important thing because you have to take into account the bullet's mass along with the type (flat, hollow-point, etc) when determining its wound inflicting prowess.

Bullets of the same calibre will pretty much always have the same mass. Use this for a helpful example.



Two of the most common rounds in the states for civilian use is the 9mm and .45 round. You can tell which is going to hurt more. Whether you're using snub-nosed and FMJ ammunition is important too, but still, the size of the bullet you're being shot with is the most important factor.

Jacuzzi_Jackson wrote:

Facewon wrote:

Apart from Splinter Cell's Spies v Mercs, I struggle to think of smaller map MP that doesn't decend into frantic action pretty quickly. .

The now extinct Halo 2v2 games were on tiny maps and weren't frantic at all when played well. They were very considered, tactical and stand off ish. The weapon balance made it almost like chess and the tactical cohesion was essential to winning.

I don't know if I'd describe it as being played well. I'll grant you it was a slower pace, and I'll grant you it could be very "considered," but "stand offish" is a dangerous feel to aim for. In both H2 all the way to Reach, I always found 2v2 had a bit of a fun plateau. It'd be fine early as you rinse through muppets, it'd be at it's best ranks 20-30 where it didn't just decend into a camp fest, and then once you cracked 30+ just wake me when it's done.

Part of the problem being that if bungie hadn't tweaked the map specifically for 2v2, there was too much reliance on powerweapons. Could definitely be awesome, no doubt, but needed TLC that it didn't always get.

FYI: H4 doubles will be in rotation in one of the upcoming weekly updates.