Cubanpenguin
Member
+35|7098|Kingston, Canada
One of the big problems I've had with not just BF2 but nearly all FPS is that they don't have realistic damage. I know it would be very hard to implement but maybe ind BF3.

I hate where I'm in a fire fight with someone and i shoot them in the leg a cople of times and he just keeps dancing around or when I shoot a missle at a tank in the treads he just drives on like he was hit by a thrown stone.

I would love to be able to basicly disable vehicles by shooting there treads out and make them spin around in circles, or shoot there main gun and take away there abilty to shoot, or shoot the tires out of scouts and APC's, or shoot a jets wing and make the flight chariclteristic wobily and out of control, Or if you shoot the tail rotor of a helicoptor and it will spin wildy causing it to either land and repeair or bail out.

But my biggest request is on soldier. I think it is stupid how you can get shot several time and show no ill effects minus a smaller heath bar. It's basicly full heath or dead the way most FPS are and it bugs the shit out of me. I think it would be really nice to be able to shoot a guys arm and make his accuracy fall to nothing, or make him try to fire his weapons, if small enough, with one arm. Also the same thing goes for the legs, if you get shot in the leg you arn't going anywhere fast if at all, you should lose your abilty to stand if shot in the right place or shot enough.

I also think that solders take way to much damage altough I understand the reasoning behind it. It isn't very fun to get killed every 20 seconds by one shot 100 yards away. But I do think they should raise the damage of bullet, espectialy at close range. I espectialy hate how pistols in almost every FPS does about as much damage as peeing on them would, I remeber playing recenty and shoting a guy about 5-6 times from about 10 feet away and got slaughterd. Why is this, if I'm not mistaken pistols have the same calibur bullets in most machine gun. I'm probably wrong about that but I still think they should do a respectible amout of damage. Back to the start of this paragragh, I think explosives and stationary macine guns do enough damage most personal weapons do a relitivly small amount of damage and should be increased.

Well I think I've made my point clear, I think you shouldn't be able to sprint away with 3 bullets in your leg or be able to fire a SAW with a couple of bullets in your arm. And tanks shouldn't be able to move with out treads or fire with a huge dent in your main cannon.

Thanks for lisning, I look forward to your responces.

Last edited by Cubanpenguin (2006-01-14 21:04:20)

specops10-4
Member
+108|7163|In the hills
That would be interesting but maybe a little too complicated and everybody would be calling eachother a whore at something...

Oh! your a fucking M16 whore cuz you shoot my leg and now I can't walk!
=|[Point_Blank]|=
Member
+0|7098
I totaly agree with one bar of health you should be on the ground gasping for air
NZDeathBoy
Member
+20|7120|Chch, New Zealand
Good idea, but it would be kinda hard to emplement (sp). But it would be cool. Also having buildings and shit being destoryed would be cool too. But it would make the game a lot harder to play, load and all that.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7186|Cambridge (UK)

NZDeathBoy wrote:

Good idea, but it would be kinda hard to emplement (sp). But it would be cool.
Actually, not all that hard to implement. The main reason they don't is most likely to be the amount of memory it would use.

Also having buildings and shit being destoryed would be cool too. But it would make the game a lot harder to play, load and all that.
Now that is much harder to implement. Maybe when hardware physics cards become a reality, then we might start to see games implementing this. Though again, it's really going to eat up memory...

Having said all that, give it 5-10years... Maybe BF4/5...
Russian_Warrior
Member
+0|7152
I've always thought about that. I mean, come on! If I was to shoot you 3 times in the ***TOES*** you'd be hopping around not even thinking about trying to fire a gun, but on how to get rid of the pain. So yeah, it'd be nice to see someone be very slow, very innacurate once they've been shot up a time or two. However, like you said, it would suck to be shot and killed every couple of seconds because of stray bullet fire constantly coming from that Vodnik or Humvee.
I would love to see a tank stop moving (basically) once you blow his treads. It's nice to see the treads scraping when the tank is really damaged, but it would be better to see it not move at all.  Also, no more than 2 shots from an Eryx/SRAW should take out a tank, and those TOW and RJ8's (or whatever) should be one shot kills, NO MATTER WHAT.

Has anyone ever played Fallout? It's an older game, but honestly, one of my favorite RPG's.  If you can "critically wound" someone in the arm, they can't use 2 handed weapons. If you should them in the leg with a critical, they can't move as far/fast. Should them in the head and they have their eyesight decreased severly, not allowing them to properly use basically ANYTHING.  Just thought I'd bring out a game that once had a lot figured out :-/
Cubanpenguin
Member
+35|7098|Kingston, Canada

NZDeathBoy wrote:

Also having buildings and shit being destoryed would be cool too. But it would make the game a lot harder to play, load and all that.
I read along time ago about that when they were making BF1942 and the devolopers said it was quite possible and they had used it in test versions of the game but it used WAY to many system resourses.

I would love it but I also dont want to have to send a shit load more money on my computer.
{HMS}_Sir_Del_Boy
Member
+69|7129|th3 unkn0wn
Good points made m8 BUT remember that most of us play BF2 for the arcade-like approach that blends in a fair amount of realism to make it more believable. If it became more and more realistic I think more people would turn their attention to other games cos then BF2 wouldn't be that easy to pick up and play.

Instead it would be even more challenging - which isn't a problem for me - but to loads of people it would be. You just have to look at the amount of bitching and moaning about BF2 as it is. Imagine adding more "twists/improvements" to the game and there's bound to be a whole new set of complaints.

Plus, as already mentioned by someone here, the more realistic you make a game the more demanding it will be on your hardware. That is why games like Red Faction on the PS2 had it's limits when it came to the amount of destructible scenery. Hardware limitations play a role in curbing realism. The same applies to the recent PC game F.E.A.R. where you don't see the best the game has to offer if you don't have a top end PC on your desk.

Add to that the fact that EA wouldn't be so dumb as to make a game that requires people to have high spec PCs cos then they'd be alienating all those who can't afford (or be bothered) to upgrade and this fact, perhaps, accounts for more than half of the people on BF2 at the moment.

Remember that the minimum RAM requirement is 512MB for BF2. Had it been more than that then you'd see far less people playing the game. I know this cos in all the servers I've visited over 70% of the gamers I'm with load up into the map later than me AND I only have 1 gig of RAM.

Besides EA are clever in setting the minimum requirement at 512 cos to be honest with you 512MB of ram isn't enough. Loading is slow and you suffer major lag on 64 player servers with just half a gig of RAM in your PC. And let's not forget the need for broadband/adsl, a decent graphics card, etc, etc, etc....

Last edited by {HMS}_Sir_Del_Boy (2006-01-14 23:37:11)

{HMS}_Sir_Del_Boy
Member
+69|7129|th3 unkn0wn
Oh, and the more complex ANY game is, the higher the chance of bugs and glitches - which is a thing nobody wants UNLESS you earn a living as a games tester

Last edited by {HMS}_Sir_Del_Boy (2006-01-14 23:32:37)

RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7134|US
(Not flamming here.)  Try the console game "America's Army: Rise of a Soldier"  It has decent responses to being shot.  Horrid accuracy, slow movement...and , oh yes, if you don't heal yourself, you will bleed out.
I haven't played it much, but it is a sweet game.
Your Ideas are cool, but Battlefield is more "run and gun" than real military.
Cubanpenguin
Member
+35|7098|Kingston, Canada
I understand that BF2 is more of an arcade game but I'm saying it would be nice to see SOME effects of getting shot other then a couple of notches on the health bar, I was also talking about FPS games in general not just BF2.

As to America's Army, I haven't played the console vertion but I have played it for the computer and agree that it does have, for the most part, realistic damage. Thats why I said "most" FPS' don't have realistic damage. One other game that has realistic damage is Deus Ex, Although not overly complicated it has diffrent damage for body parts and you can also lose them.
Scarymother
Member
+1|7163
Hit Points ain't necessarily Hit Points.

This is something we come across in most roleplaying games as well where the health characteristic is a number of hitpoints.

The other way to look at it is that it's kinda like a "luck" bar, you take a few hits, but your "luck" holds out and none are fatal nor incapacitating.  It's not until the end that you cop that fatal hit through the eye/heart/artery/etc.
Kamikaze17
Over the line!
+70|7169|Mark it zero.
sometimes i think it would be fun, but other times it would really really suck. like if a tanks cannon blew in one anti tank hit, then the tank would be completely useless and wouldnt ever be used in the game again. although i do think that it would be cool if they made a chopper spin out of control if you shot it in the tail blade.
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7240

Cubanpenguin wrote:

But my biggest request is on soldier. I think it is stupid how you can get shot several time and show no ill effects minus a smaller heath bar. It's basicly full heath or dead the way most FPS are and it bugs the shit out of me. I think it would be really nice to be able to shoot a guys arm and make his accuracy fall to nothing, or make him try to fire his weapons, if small enough, with one arm. Also the same thing goes for the legs, if you get shot in the leg you arn't going anywhere fast if at all, you should lose your abilty to stand if shot in the right place or shot enough.
there's no point to shooting someone and disabling them. in real life, getting shot anywhere severely hampers your ability to do ANYTHING. so basically what you want in the game is the same thing, shooting anyone anywhere pretty much guarantees you a kill. how can someone fight back if being shot in the arm makes him unable to aim, or a leg wound prevents him from escaping?

this is pointless because it'd be simpler and less annoying to just make it one shot kill all the time. because that's essentially what you want - once you shoot a person, you are virtually guaranteed the kill. ironic isn't it, you wanted realism but ended up advocating the most unrealistic system of all - dying from a shot in the toe.
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|7190|AUS, Canberra
one thing we all must remembeer is that a hell of a lot of thought goes into these games.
and i promise you that they would have spent many hrs talking and go through the pros and cons of the damage being more realistic. and im sure that they came up with the physics engine and the damage code they have becuase it was the best for this game.

i have thousands of ways id like to change the game too, but the best solution is to just buy a game that suits you better.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard