@cyoce said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:
@gm29 said in Insurgency is missing a lot of necessary realism in the weapons handling and ballistics:
Saying "but it's just a game" or "but it's not a simulator (However you define that)" does not logically prove or disprove the merits of what I've said would make the game better and be fitting for it.
You need to be able to articulate specifically why or why not specific suggestions would or would not be appropriate for what Insurgency is aiming to be. You can't just throw out the catch-all phrase of "but it's just a game" and expect that to cover over justifying whatever your opinion is.
That's not my point. My point is that realism is not intrinsically valuable. "But it's like that in real life" is not a valid reason to include it in this game. You have to argue for how it would enhance gameplay, not realism.
Your statement is wrong for two reasons:
-
If your goal is to create a realistically detailed representation of modern weapon gunplay, then realism IS intrinsically valuable because that is your stated goal from the start. Realism in your gun modeling can only be said to not be intrinsically valuable if you have decided from the start that you are making an arcade game that follows whatever rules you fancy, with no attempt to concern yourself with how guns behave in reality.
-
I have already made the case, in specifics, why those things would enhance the gunplay of the game.
You haven't attempt to deal with any of those specific reasons.
Insurgency is not a simulator; it's not trying to be.
Merely repeating your previous claim doesn't make your claim true.
You haven't dealt with any of the points I made that disproved your claim:
I shall repost it for you:
Both incorrect statements and bad arguments from a logic standpoint.
Incorrect in the sense that Insurgency does attempt to accurately represent, and therefore simulate, how these weapons behave and perform in real life. Just because they don't put themselves on a giant map like ARMA and trumpet themselves with the title of "simulator" does not negate the fact that from a weapons handling and gunplay standpoint they DO strive to accurately simulate the use of these weapons in combat.
By the devs own statements this game is suppose to be a "hardcore tactical shooter with meticulous attention to detail with weapons and ballistics".
They are not living up to the standard they have set with many of the glaring oversights I've mentioned.
Furthermore, the original Insurgency put itself on the map by being the best representation of modern realistic gunplay we'd seen out of a game up to that point. Sandstorm should be trying to continue that legacy by bringing the realistic gunplay and detail to the next level and again set the standard by which other modern shooters are judged.
On to why those statements are bad from a logic standpoint:
Saying "but it's just a game" or "but it's not a simulator (However you define that)" does not logically prove or disprove the merits of what I've said would make the game better and be fitting for it.
If you said you wanted a moonraker laser put into Insurgency, saying "but it's only a game" or "it's not a simulator", doesn't automatically prove that it's a good or appropriate idea to put a moonraker laser into Insurgency.
You need to be able to articulate specifically why or why not specific suggestions would or would not be appropriate for what Insurgency is aiming to be. You can't just throw out the catch-all phrase of "but it's just a game" and expect that to cover over justifying whatever your opinion is.
It's a game with a realistic bent when doing so does not sacrifice gameplay.
Your statement is meaningless because you don't establish an objective standard for what the "gameplay" of Insurgency is suppose to be. You can't even begin to claim that a new feature would destroy the "gameplay" if you don't first define what you are trying to preserve about the game and what you are trying to achieve with the game.
Furthermore, you have given no specifics about how any of the things I've suggested would even negatively impact this supposed standard of gameplay you have in your mind. So your claim that what I've suggested would be bad for the game remains an unsupported and unproven claim.
One persons "bad gameplay" is another person's "perfect gameplay" depending on what your goals and expectations are.
If you can't back up your opinion with some logic or some facts then your claims have no merit.
The lack of weapon jamming is intentional.
You don't know that it's intentional, despite knowing how important it is to realism, anymore than these other oversights are intentional despite knowing how important it is to realism - So don't make claims you can't support.
I suspect all of these issues have more to do with a lack of full understanding on their part about how important these issues are to the realism.
It's the same reason we have respawning, hit points, and objectives: making those aspects realistic would detract from the gameplay experience, not enhance it.
Objectively they are not in the game for the same reasons. You're confusing completely different aspects of the game.
Respawning exists to keep action fast and constant.
Objectives exist to force confrontations, keeping action fast and constant.
Hit points exist because there's very few ways to simulate the human body effectively in a game context. Although head and chest shots doing more damage have been modeled in games for decades, so you can't claim it's a pure hit point model. Either way, it has nothing to do with your claim that they put hitpoints in the game because they wanted to change the alter the pace of the game.
None of those issues have anything to do with malfunctions and how they would change the game.
The overall actions and pace remains the same because it is dictated by factors like respawning and objectives that have nothing to do with the chance your gun could jam anymore than having to reload changes the pace of the game.
Bullets remain the same in their effect and this dynamic is not altered by malfunctions being in the game.
You could just as easily make a bad argument using the same logic that existing realism features, like reloading or aimsway, should be removed from the game because you think it slows down the pace of combat.
The fact you don't seem to recognize is that their goal with this game is to be both a realistic model of gunplay as well as being fast paced action. One doesn't contradict the other. Having to stop to reload or having to take more time to aim because of aimsway and ironsighting does not make the game stop being fast paced - for the same reason having to stop to clear a jam wouldn't stop the game from being fast paced. Jamming could happen 1000 times less often than the amount of times you had to stop what you were doing to reload a magazine yet you're not whining about how the realism of magazine reloads are slowing down the pace of the game.
You're confusing two completely separate game design issues and conflating them together. If what you claimed were true then it would be impossible for Insurgency to even be considered a fast paced game with the amount of realism it already has in it's weapon and movement behavior.
Fun fact: the only Insurgency title with the word "realistic" or "realism" on its Steam store page description is the mod, and none of them say "simulator."
You fail to define what the difference is between realistic and simulation. The truth is, from a dictionary standpoint, the words are synonyms.
From a gameplay standpoint I can tell you why Insurgency doesn't have the sim label - because of the way their maps and objectives are designed. They aren't trying to simulate the entire experience the way ARMA is.
However, you fail to recognize the differentiation I already gave you; Which is that Insurgency, for the purposes of it's weapon handling, does attempt to simulate real world performance. Insurgency strives to be a game that pays meticulous attention to the handling and performance of it's weapons (according to their own words), based on modeling them after reality.
That's why I always liked it. You get all the benefits of simulation quality gunplay but without all the bullshit of ARMA's bad/slow gameplay design.
Insurgency is failing to do that to the extent they should, given the game's nature and goals, and the game would be better off because of that if they amped up the fidelity of their realism along the lines of what they've already strove to do.
According to this metric, they are striving to be intense, tactical CQB games.
Nothing supports your claim that "realism" only means "intense CQB".
When the devs explicitly say the game is "hardcore tactical" the meaning of that phrase also has consequences. That implies a pacing that is based on reality because when you model realistic aspects into the gunplay you both increase the tactical decision making required to do well and make the game less forgiving to mistakes.
You cannot take away realism from the game and still have it remain a hardcore tactical game. By definition you need the realism to result in the gameplay being hardcore and tactical.
In addition, all of my suggestions are in line with enhancing the hardcore tactical nature of the game. Leaving my suggestions out of the game only decreases the hardcore tactical nature of it.
yet RNG mechanics like weapon jamming are anti-skill,
I've already addressed and disproven your claim that RNG is unacceptable in a game like this. I refer you back to what I already posted in response to it.
Merely repeating yourself, without addressing the points I raised, doesn't make your untrue statement anymore true than the first time you said it.
disrupt the flow (and thus, intensity) of the game, and encourage fighting from a distance rather than close quarters.
There are three problems with your claim:
-
You have given no specific reasoning why anything I've suggested would alter the flow of the game. Just claiming it would doesn't make it true.
-
No where in their description of the game do they suggest realism is sacrificed to arbitrarily make close quarters combat more intense or common.
Your claim is disproven by the fact that they have also said their game is a "hardcore tactical shooter with meticulous attention to detail in weapons and ballistics".
If your only concern was fostering rapid close quarters combat you don't need to concern yourself with realistic weapons handling and ballistics - plenty of other games don't, like CoD.
The fact is, realism in weapons handling IS important to the game. It is a foundational pillar of the game's design by the dev's own words and by it's roots in Insurgency.
You are erroneous in your belief that realistic gun handling doesn't lend itself to intense close quarters combat. If that were true then they wouldn't have bothered making the gunplay as realistic as they already have. In actuality, realism in the gun handling increases the intensity of combat by raising the stakes and enhancing the skill expression and importance of smart tactical decision making.
- They have actually increased the size and openness of the maps compared with the original insurgency, and incorporate things like bullet drop into long range shooting. So it's unsupportable to claim they don't actually want players engaging at long distance. The truth is, you can't actually be a successful as a realistic tactical shooter without giving players the opportunity to express the differences between different weapons platforms by having both CQB and long range situations. Unless you are only trying to be a CQB simulator, in which case you probably wouldn't even put sniper rifles or squad machine guns into the game. But we know from their map design, ballistics design, and weapon design, that they aren't trying to force only CQB.