my opinion on gun design and physics in fps. wHAts yours?

REALISTIC SHOOTERS (ie projectile based weaponry.) i think that we should look at guns in bioshock, they have a nice heavy feel to them. the reason being there is a slight delay between firing the trigger and getting the gun to go off. and when the gun does go off, the rumble in your controller should be gigantic. like, the rumble should make your hands feel tickly after firing a machine gun. the delay after firing the gun should be minute, but noticable. flamethrowers should have more water hose physics and less fire physics. in real life a flamethrower is just a fire hose that shoots ignited gas. a good example would be rathet and clank future tools of destruction. and going back to bullets. i like gunpowder based weapons to have recoil, but shoot like a firehose only without the archyness of the water.

SCIFI shooters, lasers otherwise. when i shoot a laser in a videogame it should feel like a flash light. no recoil, but the laser should feel very light. sort of like the sentinel gun from halo, but preferably not that weak. in halo series there are "plasma rifles" that act like machine guns. i feel kinda in the middle. plasma rifle type weapons should shoot like a flash light, but when it hits its target it should act like magma.

how do you like your guns to feel?

I think that games should have destrutible environments first before thinking about the rest.... in how many games do you shoot a wall with an RPG to discover that it does nothing at all... so unrealistic. But after that, I agree that it's a next step.

I think that games should have destrutible environments first before thinking about the rest.... in how many games do you shoot a wall with an RPG to discover that it does nothing at all... so unrealistic. But after that, I agree that it's a next step.

Etherninty

Having destructible environments in all games would be terrible. Giving players the ability to go through everything with a rocket launcher or some other explosive would make the game poorly paced.

Imagine Half-Life 2, just before Ravenholm. If you were able to blast your way past the locked doors, you'd never have to go to Ravenholm, then you start kicking Combine *** before anything else bad happens. Something like that would prevent any new storyline events from developing.

A better example would be (Yes, I know, it's not an FPS.) The Legend of Zelda. You don't have to go through the fiery chamers of doom while fighting several stalfos with only a sword just to get the boss key. All you have to do is lay a bomb at the boss' door.

I definitely agree about the guns in Bioshock... Especially the shotgun! My favorite gun in any game is the shotgun and Bioshock's shotgun is second only to the shotguns in RE4.

I definitely agree about the guns in Bioshock... Especially the shotgun! My favorite gun in any game is the shotgun and Bioshock's shotgun is second only to the shotguns in RE4.

Ripcurl530

Except in Bioshock, you can shoot people in the face and their reaction is... oh wait, they don't react at all.

I think the rumble feature should be the least invasive as possible. I played games with a badly calibrated rumble usage and they are tiresome, to say the least.

[QUOTE="Etherninty"]

I think that games should have destrutible environments first before thinking about the rest.... in how many games do you shoot a wall with an RPG to discover that it does nothing at all... so unrealistic. But after that, I agree that it's a next step.

Technoweirdo

Having destructible environments in all games would be terrible. Giving players the ability to go through everything with a rocket launcher or some other explosive would make the game poorly paced.

Imagine Half-Life 2, just before Ravenholm. If you were able to blast your way past the locked doors, you'd never have to go to Ravenholm, then you start kicking Combine *** before anything else bad happens. Something like that would prevent any new storyline events from developing.

A better example would be (Yes, I know, it's not an FPS.) The Legend of Zelda. You don't have to go through the fiery chamers of doom while fighting several stalfos with only a sword just to get the boss key. All you have to do is lay a bomb at the boss' door.

OK then, how about games designers giving us BELIEVABLE reasons why environments are not destructible or otherwise interactive? I'm all for storytelling, but firing a rocket at a cupboard and seeing it remain unscathed kind of ruins the immersion. Just like seeing a 1 meter high wall impede your progress.

[QUOTE="Ripcurl530"]

I definitely agree about the guns in Bioshock... Especially the shotgun! My favorite gun in any game is the shotgun and Bioshock's shotgun is second only to the shotguns in RE4.

AtomicTangerine

Except in Bioshock, you can shoot people in the face and their reaction is... oh wait, they don't react at all.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"][QUOTE="Ripcurl530"]

I definitely agree about the guns in Bioshock... Especially the shotgun! My favorite gun in any game is the shotgun and Bioshock's shotgun is second only to the shotguns in RE4.

nickelarcade

Except in Bioshock, you can shoot people in the face and their reaction is... oh wait, they don't react at all.

Well, I don't think they had positional damage, like shoot in the leg to bring to the ground or in the head to insta kill (although it's been a while so I could be wrong), but I also think it was rare to get an enemy to react to damage, except fire and bees. Now, I'm not sure if that was planned, because they're mostly just crazy, or if they convienently left that out. As for the rest of it, I like this statement:

Victom effects > gun feel > effects on environment.

_AbBaNdOn

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"][QUOTE="Etherninty"]

I think that games should have destrutible environments first before thinking about the rest.... in how many games do you shoot a wall with an RPG to discover that it does nothing at all... so unrealistic. But after that, I agree that it's a next step.

nopalversion

Having destructible environments in all games would be terrible. Giving players the ability to go through everything with a rocket launcher or some other explosive would make the game poorly paced.

Imagine Half-Life 2, just before Ravenholm. If you were able to blast your way past the locked doors, you'd never have to go to Ravenholm, then you start kicking Combine *** before anything else bad happens. Something like that would prevent any new storyline events from developing.

A better example would be (Yes, I know, it's not an FPS.) The Legend of Zelda. You don't have to go through the fiery chamers of doom while fighting several stalfos with only a sword just to get the boss key. All you have to do is lay a bomb at the boss' door.

OK then, how about games designers giving us BELIEVABLE reasons why environments are not destructible or otherwise interactive? I'm all for storytelling, but firing a rocket at a cupboard and seeing it remain unscathed kind of ruins the immersion. Just like seeing a 1 meter high wall impede your progress.

Cod 4's ghillies in the mist had radiation pockets and stuff to keep you in, that's a good way to block, not wood fences and hedges

never played bioshock but if you want your guns to be realistic there should be no delay between the time you pull the trigger and the time the gun fires. My biggest complain with guns is most games is the warped view they have on shotguns (halo, GoW, etc) they have an effective range of about 10 yards if that. In reality with the right choke they can have a lethal range of over 40 yards (not even counting slugs). Also the shot spreads about 1in in diameter for every three feet, some developers seem to have that ratio backwards. I would also like games to acctually just use the name of the gun if they are obviously a model of an actualy gun. Instead of just labeling it "sniper rifle", or "pistol". rob1101

Shotguns have always been a challenge for developers,I don't know why. Halo's shotgun feels like it was developed in a toy factory.

Shotguns have always been a challenge for developers,I don't know why. Halo's shotgun feels like it was developed in a toy factory.

stephant_6

Weird I've always felt Halo's guns were spot on.:|

[QUOTE="stephant_6"]

Shotguns have always been a challenge for developers,I don't know why. Halo's shotgun feels like it was developed in a toy factory.

MentatAssassin

Weird I've always felt Halo's guns were spot on.:|

Yeah, for shooting guys with tons of armor and shields, I thougt the shotgun worked out pretty good. You aren't shooting a target that actually exists in reality, so I guess it is more up to your imagination if it makes sense.

[QUOTE="MentatAssassin"][QUOTE="stephant_6"]

Shotguns have always been a challenge for developers,I don't know why. Halo's shotgun feels like it was developed in a toy factory.

AtomicTangerine

Weird I've always felt Halo's guns were spot on.:|

Yeah, for shooting guys with tons of armor and shields, I thougt the shotgun worked out pretty good. You aren't shooting a target that actually exists in reality, so I guess it is more up to your imagination if it makes sense.

I love the Halo shotgun but I can see why people would dislike it. It's pretty darn satisfying in close quarters IMO.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"][QUOTE="MentatAssassin"][QUOTE="stephant_6"]

Shotguns have always been a challenge for developers,I don't know why. Halo's shotgun feels like it was developed in a toy factory.

inoperativeRS

Weird I've always felt Halo's guns were spot on.:|

Yeah, for shooting guys with tons of armor and shields, I thougt the shotgun worked out pretty good. You aren't shooting a target that actually exists in reality, so I guess it is more up to your imagination if it makes sense.

I love the Halo shotgun but I can see why people would dislike it. It's pretty darn satisfying in close quarters IMO.