Print

Add to Reputation:  

What do you think of this post?

I agree I disagree  
Comment:

[Emilia]

A thing that really urks me is when people complain that the crosshair does not stay on the screen at all times...and then they complain about game realism.

There is no crosshair in real life. You slow down, you aim and you shoot. That is how it works.
To me, that is what GES is simulating when you bring up the crosshair. It is forcing you to slow down and aim, unlike just running around, spraying bullets everywhere with the crosshair there.

Or, with time, you learn how to shoot properly without using the crosshair at all. Mangley is correct in saying that using the crosshair increases your bullet accuracy, but overtime, you rely on your own accuracy. I for one rarely use the crosshair and I prefer it this way.

And no, there is not a dot on my screen to show where the crosshair would be (I know people that do that, and that is so sad).


My point is, I think people rely so much on the mechanics of one game that when they try something new, they just don't like it. GoldenEye 64 was the FPS that started it all. If anything, I think the mechanics of games these days make shooting way too easy. And I don't think GES is outdated. I think it is a game of skill.

PS: If you played GE 64 with auto-aim off, you are a legend. Puts COD players to shame

[Flash2011]

The game doesn't NEED a static crosshair, that's more of a tactile feature that most people appreciate, much like the bumps on your F key and J key. It's just a way to say "hey your bullets go down the center of the screen and crosshairs allow you to tell where the center is."

About it being realistic or not shouldn't even be debated, it's a video game...game. It's a game and unless stated that it's designed to be a simulator, realism shouldn't even be brought up.

As for crosshairs, aiming and making you move slower. You should be able to have a much much higher amount of accuracy compared to when you aren't aiming. As you even stated,

I for one rarely use the crosshair and I prefer it this way.

It shouldn't be a matter of whether your the type of player who prefers aiming to players who don't.

It should be a matter of mechanics and gameplay. If Run and Gun has an accuracy near comparable to aiming with crosshair then whats the point of aiming?

In more recent FPS series, having gun classes highly separates players and play styles. The SMG (D5k and ZMG) should fire fast but low accuracy and a high drop off in damage over distance while rifles (AR33 and KF7) should have a bit slower fire rate with more accuracy and more damage over distance. These "realistic" aspects are in my opinion a LOT of fun to tinker with and only get more interesting when you add in firing through walls and the damage with that.

All of that said begins to make people start to make decisions on what type of player they want to be by simply utilizing what the devs gave them, not by what they demand them to be. If i want to be the run and gun fast guy I can use a ZMG, but if I want to be the round about guy I might use an AR33 and lastly maybe I feel like being a sniper or a sneaky SOB and use a silenced PP7.

What'd yah think? Maybe I'm crazy.

[markpeterjameslegg]

I have noticed a drop in accuracy since 4.0 Beta, I did this test back then to see the difference in accuracy between aiming and not and it was much more significant back then than it is now:-

http://imgur.com/a/eGXDN

See if you can guess which one was using aim.

[VC]

I think that no damage falloff means you aren't fucked just because you spawned with a pistol at a distance.

I think that anyone who is running and gunning in GES better run fast and gun hard because their damage output is lower than mine.

I think that you have made a great example of reporting on perception instead of reality.  Nothing to be ashamed of, we had a lot of people here doing what they thought Goldeneye 007 was like, instead of going back and checking like I did.  Then they fought me on it.  Fun fun fun.

Take DD44 to an empty room, tap fire it without sighting, then with.  You will see the difference.  Sighting helps, but it is not supposed to be required if you know where the center of your screen is and can follow the tracers.

Take ZMG to an empty room.  Tap off one bullet at a time for 16 shots, then spam the other 16.  You will see the difference.  Recoil matters.  It's not huge, but it's often a lot compared to stable firing's accuracy.

Run-and-gun has a place in GES.  It's what you use when you are retreating to cover, or need to finish someone you've wounded when you are also one headshot from your own death.  Yes, you can mow down a room with a power weapon like RCP90 because it's meant to be a sweeper, but a guy with the starting pistol can knock his health down 50, 50, 50, dead (or just 50, dead if he didn't have armor) by doing it right.

[Kinky]

As an avid Battelfield supporter since 1942 i feel i have to chime in with...

If youre in a tank youre pretty much dead

[Entropy-Soldier]

As VC said, it's about knowing how effective each weapon is depending on circumstance and using it properly in that circumstance.  It takes me only a 3-5 seconds to kill an unarmored player with weapons like the PP7 because i make sure to hit the head rather than just dumping a bucket of bullets all over them.  With stronger weapons like the AR33 and P90, you can just spam head level and win every time; with most you need to be on target.

Our weapon selection is varied enough without it being intrusive.  Perfect dark, for instance, had a lot of weapons no-one(or often just one person) wanted to use because of how gimmicky they managed to be.  Sure, it's interesting to have a game with mostly farsights...but the weapon is pretty much avoided because of how annoying it is to be killed by someone sitting on the facility toilet when you're in the lab hallway.  Sure, some weapons are essentially upgraded versions of other weapons, but it allows for variety and set balance.  GE:S does not allow players to choose their loadout or even start with a powerful weapon in most cases; if all of the weapons were equal in power there wouldn't be much incentive to seek a better out after spawning.

[Flash2011]

I just played another couple of games and I can't get over how I feel about the aiming.

The aiming bothers me because I feel that it's fairly inaccurate when zoomed in. I also hate that since you can quick reload that at most times it's just easier to unload your gun on someone and just keep reloading.

An example of this was that I was about 2 feet from someone with a Klobb aimed on their head and it took me like 5 seconds to kill him.

P.S. Moonraker is bull, 1 shot headshots. People were using that gun and it was just wrecking everyone. Shotguns feel really weak, the auto-shotgun doesn't seem all that auto when compared to the regular shotgun.
Have you guys toyed with the idea of a radar that doesn't always show where players are?

[Proxie]

The Klobb is known for its horrible accuracy so it will miss the target in close combat, better off switching to the Hunting Knife honestly.  The shotguns will shred you up close.

[killermonkey]

I want to play with you. Killermonkey1313

[coolDisguise]

P.S. Moonraker is bull, 1 shot headshots. People were using that gun and it was just wrecking everyone. Shotguns feel really weak, the auto-shotgun doesn't seem all that auto when compared to the regular shotgun.
Have you guys toyed with the idea of a radar that doesn't always show where players are?

Well, I think youd say that about Quake III's railgun as well, but it is balanced. Unfortunately it isn't as powerful as before.
Concerning shotguns: they both can deal some  good damage, but it's rather for close quarters, but that's just how shotguns are by definition.
The radar thing is a server setting. You can set it to: disable radar, show only team, show all. Yet it's a strategic element when it's enabled. You see from where people move to you and you can nade-shot them coming around a corner if you time it right.

[Flash2011]

Hey I added you on steam, Killer.

Moonraker isn't really a rail gun because the rail gun was more of a sniper rifle type weapon and raker isn't (not from what i noticed).

Shotguns shouldn't be awful from mid-far range. I do agree up close it's really powerful. Shotguns though have a decent amount of range (not to get realistic cause i hate that term). I just don't want them to seem gimmicky.

COD4 shotguns were bad, MW2 ranged between balanced to overpowered (Spas, AA12, 1887).

[Jeron [SharpSh00tah]]

I want to play with you. Killermonkey1313

Literally!?, now that is what I am talking about!

[Flash2011]

Just waiting on invite acception.

[killermonkey]

I was doing the same things you are doing now, but 4 years ago before beta 3. I insisted ges should use "realistic" damage, spread, and rate of fire. Then VC came along and implemented actual values from ge64 and it made a HUGE positive difference to the gameplay.

Trust me, after my little lesson with you, you will understand.

I am at work atm, I will be home in a few hours.

[Flash2011]

Ok, cool. I'll be home for most of the day, i'm going to friends house, but i have a laptop and i'll be sure to get some games in with you.