Sure there's always the balance of realism and convience, but I'm not talking about simulating logistics; I'm just expecting the mechanics of the combat to be more realistic. Mainstream FPS games just refuse to simulate the deadliness of war.
In all my time of playing COD and BF franchises I've never experienced what I had in RO2. In RO2 you might have to push up against a pillbox atop a hill as the enemy MG mows down your friends. After being held back for a good few minutes, skirmishing with the enemies at range, you find a weak point on a flank. As you close in on the concrete monolith from the side, armed with a captured grenade, you pull the cord, count to three, then toss it through the loophole. A second later, the dreaded machinegunner is turned into a fine mist, your comrades surge forward, take control of the position and brace for an enemy counter attack.
This sort of stuff you would expect to see in a historical game rarely happens where everyone runs around like Rambo. After getting into the Red Orchestra / Rising Storm brand of 'soft' mil-sim games I can no longer bring myself to play a historical-themed game where machine guns take a billion shots to kill you, enemies have labels on them, and artillery either has the power of firecrackers or just isn't in the game at all.
I’m just expecting the mechanics of the combat to be more realistic. Mainstream FPS games just refuse to simulate the deadliness of war.
No, no. I understand. That rant was mostly for comic effect.
But it does still boil down to fun, particularly for younger and newer players. The HP model gives players more play time once the guns start blasting. You see this in Team Fortress, Overwatch, and Fortnite games in particular, where fleeing from a salvo is still viable and pursing objectives other than just murdering people outright is only really possible if you can survive getting winged by a guy blasting away with a mini-gun.
This sort of stuff you would expect to see in a historical game rarely happens where everyone runs around like Rambo
No. But historical accuracy hinges a lot more on teamwork. And random-drop-in games rarely have that. So you get HP to prevent one side from getting immediately blown away and keeping people in it longer.
Yeah the requiring teamwork part is why I've only been playing buggy old games. You play the Squad clones which have flooded the market and you basically have to use a mic ingame. Games that try to go between BF and Arma and pull it off are pretty few. Dealing with g*mers can ruin the immersion as much as Rambo so I'm always glad when a game comes out where you can blow away nazis in MP that isn't so tactical it forces you to turn on voice chat and deal with toxic scrubs.
Sure there's always the balance of realism and convience, but I'm not talking about simulating logistics; I'm just expecting the mechanics of the combat to be more realistic. Mainstream FPS games just refuse to simulate the deadliness of war.
In all my time of playing COD and BF franchises I've never experienced what I had in RO2. In RO2 you might have to push up against a pillbox atop a hill as the enemy MG mows down your friends. After being held back for a good few minutes, skirmishing with the enemies at range, you find a weak point on a flank. As you close in on the concrete monolith from the side, armed with a captured grenade, you pull the cord, count to three, then toss it through the loophole. A second later, the dreaded machinegunner is turned into a fine mist, your comrades surge forward, take control of the position and brace for an enemy counter attack.
This sort of stuff you would expect to see in a historical game rarely happens where everyone runs around like Rambo. After getting into the Red Orchestra / Rising Storm brand of 'soft' mil-sim games I can no longer bring myself to play a historical-themed game where machine guns take a billion shots to kill you, enemies have labels on them, and artillery either has the power of firecrackers or just isn't in the game at all.
No, no. I understand. That rant was mostly for comic effect.
But it does still boil down to fun, particularly for younger and newer players. The HP model gives players more play time once the guns start blasting. You see this in Team Fortress, Overwatch, and Fortnite games in particular, where fleeing from a salvo is still viable and pursing objectives other than just murdering people outright is only really possible if you can survive getting winged by a guy blasting away with a mini-gun.
No. But historical accuracy hinges a lot more on teamwork. And random-drop-in games rarely have that. So you get HP to prevent one side from getting immediately blown away and keeping people in it longer.
Yeah the requiring teamwork part is why I've only been playing buggy old games. You play the Squad clones which have flooded the market and you basically have to use a mic ingame. Games that try to go between BF and Arma and pull it off are pretty few. Dealing with g*mers can ruin the immersion as much as Rambo so I'm always glad when a game comes out where you can blow away nazis in MP that isn't so tactical it forces you to turn on voice chat and deal with toxic scrubs.