The best way to simulate aiming/shooting ?

[NoseKi||s]

I'm not telling you . I'm asking: What do you think is the best way to simulate the different properties of firearms in an FPS game (recoil, initial accuracy ... etc.)?

There area a few ways to do this in FPS games and they all have their upsides and downsides.

How well do you think this works in 2142 (cone of fire / deviation ,etc.) and what would you like to change in it?

For example, i know there are some people that think all kind of "artificial randomness" in accuracy/bullet spread should be removed. Sometimes they argue that in real life the bullets fly where the barrel is pointing and so it should be in the game too - where you aim is where you hit.

Wouldn't this make the gunfights a bit too "whack-a-moleish" ? Since there is currently no other way to simulate for example the effect that the weight of the gun has on aiming/holding it steady/moving with it and tracking the target, and there is no way to simulate the process of lining up the sights, we do need some way to make shooting a little more than just point'n'click. Or do we?

[venny]

well, i dont think too much. its jus a game, and if its fun, im fine with it. after all this method, point n click has been pretty much the same for the fps games.

[Drewsly]

ya i adgree with venny it,s just a game the way you shoot in FPS it,s just to make it fun it's not a milatary simulator it,s just a game and not all guns shoot were the barrel is aimed think about a Uzi its just a spray weapon

[NoseKi||s]

I too think that a more complicated "aiming routine" would just degrade the gameplay and probably just wouldn't work in a game.

Also, i like the random deviation etc. because it prevent's anybody from becoming this "one trick pony" that simply has impecable aim and reflexes and thus dominates the battlefield regardless of the total lack of tactical insight and teamplay skills. (yes, i exaggerated there a bit on purpose :))

So far everyone seems to think along the same lines here.

[AllFoamNoBeer]

I would think about leaning on walls, looking around corners, and other tactics to improve the "aiming" element of the game.

As for shooting, weapon jamming?

There are many elements of shooting, from real life that can be listed, lots.

What would you do if you were given a gun, and was in a war. Fire the gun blind around corners, plant c4 around corners, etc.

damn, i love corners.

[danutz1183]

i would think you would need a more accurate physics engine before even trying to attempt this. and sad to say all if not majority of the games now adays are not simulators.

the only game to come somewhat close was a game some time ago. operation flashpoint. and it wasnt very popular and extremely difficult to play.

[NoseKi||s]

What would you do if you were given a gun, and was in a war. Fire the gun blind around corners, plant c4 around corners, etc.

damn, i love corners.

FOX documentary: "Corners - Natures perfect killing machines"

[Vreki]

What would you do if you were given a gun, and was in a war. Fire the gun blind around corners, .

Great idea, that will replace my previous idea of placing big signs with "rounding this corner soon, please shoot me!"

Seriously, I like the way is is done in BF2142. If the bullets were to hit exactly where you put the cursor regardless of movement, crouching etc. then this would be a completely different game, much more like UT with people bouncing all over the place while headsshotting each other.

[Digital-Boy]

I think PR cut down a lot of deviation/shot. Even in full-auto, the weapons seemed really accurate, like they would fire straight no matter what. I think they just really jacked up the recoil (shake, muzzle climb) to compensate.

Personally, I prefer BF2/2142's method.

[MrChris_CJ]

Play Stalker, thats how it should be, i havent a clue what system it uses but i just seems to be the best dam game for shooting atm, in that game i actually treasure my G36

[Punished1]

The HL2 mod, Insurgency, proves that having where-you-fire-is-where-you-hit hit detection does not slow down a game. It's an actual challenge of skill rather than luck.

Aiming at the guy's eye? You're going to hit him in the eye!

[FPS[SONIC]]

I think BF excels as an arcade game. It has great playability and the 'randomness' you speak of is an important part of that playability. DICE managed to create a game with unlocks (rewards) which do not really put the veteran at an advantage over a novice. The stock rifles often are better choices in more situations than the unlocks.

The aiming and shooting in the game is fun. It's close to accurate with enough arcade quality to require an inkling of skill with loads of enjoyment to follow.

Sometimes, unreality makes for a better game than buffed training simulator trying to impart some semblance of reality.

[imported_Demize99]

The goal of the weapons in 2142 was to allow the player to figure out a weapon, and use a tactic to gain advantage. Sure there's a random factor in all the guns, but there are significant factors in stance, movement and range so one player can use superior knowledge and skill to take on another player and win.

[hatebreed]

The goal of the weapons in 2142 was to allow the player to figure out a weapon, and use a tactic to gain advantage. Sure there's a random factor in all the guns, but there are significant factors in stance, movement and range so one player can use superior knowledge and skill to take on another player and win.

yeah 2142 works in this respect whereas other games often fail

[NoseKi||s]

The goal of the weapons in 2142 was to allow the player to figure out a weapon, and use a tactic to gain advantage.

The HL2 mod, Insurgency, proves that having where-you-fire-is-where-you-hit hit detection does not slow down a game. It's an actual challenge of skill rather than luck.

See this is exactly what i was going for in my opening post. Sure lightning fast reflexes and accurate mouse hand is skill too, but IMO there's a danger that it might make the gameplay a bit one dimensional: no matter what gun either of you have, and no matter how well you take cover, you will always be toast if the enemy player has great aim - no other variables. (yes, i'm exaggerating again to make my point clear :))

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, but i just find the BF way very satisfying... the way you can build your winning strategy piece by piece, by finding out what the enemys weakness is and countering that.