[Jusentantaka]

Traveller, on 02 April 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

I want a new game for the 360. Since I finished Dragon Age (and felt so indifferent about the whole experience by the end) I've been playing Napoleon Total War on the PC, which i think is just amazing.

Any recommendations? I want something a bit less RPG for a change, more action/fun, more guns than swords. I was thinking about a GTA or something - I've not played any version of GTA since Vice City on the PS2 - are the newer one/s for the 360 worth a look? I used to like Vice City, is GTA4 more linear? I could google it all but it's better to ask opinions here first!

Also I haven't got MW2 yet, which looks like fun - is it the best of that genre?

fun fun fun... maybe try Metro 2033 if you're willing to have a couple moments... if you can play napoleon (very smoothly) on higher settings, it'll maybe-probably run fine on your PC, but it is single player only... with lots of shooting and guns and combines the three greatest elements of shooters: killing communists, nazis and zombies (well sort of... they're like zombie werewolves, just more 'eat your face' and less 'Twitard') Or just get/rent for the 360.

But really, Bad Company 2 over MW2, no matter what platform. Its just better in every single way. MP is better, and unlike MW2, the SP isn't the regurgitated vomit of a cannibal who ate the gray bits of Tom Clancy's latest brain aneurysm. And you can blow holes in the walls.

also couldn't care less about GTA 4, it was just boring, but everyone else in the world seems to think its the greatest shit ever for some reason.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 02 April 2010 - 04:06 PM

[Traveller]

Cheers Jus, I'll have a look at Bad Company and Metro 2033. Napoleon runs fine on highest settings, I'll need something good to get me back to the 360. (It's Dragon Age, y'know, I can't believe how turgid that got, and i usually like games like that. Maybe I've played one too many now!)

I liked Fallout 3 too, but i can't be bothered with any more DLC, it's all too samey. I want something with some good missions, that you can plan and carry out in a number of ways, not just a linear crawl-through like...like.. that one with the chainsaws on the guns, and the mutants, you know the one. (Edit..oh yeah, Gears of War)

This post has been edited by Traveller: 03 April 2010 - 07:10 AM

[Mentalist]

DX3 is coming....

alpha protocol's supposed to be like that too, but i'm wary of that, b/c of the checkpoint save system

[Obdigore]

Quote

also couldn't care less about GTA 4, it was just boring, but everyone else in the world seems to think its the greatest shit ever for some reason.

I agree with that statement.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 02 April 2010 - 06:28 PM

[Gothos]

I liked it for a fair bit but when missions started getting really long (like the bank job) I just got pissed off for not having saves, or at LEAST fucking checkpoints.

But, Niko rules anyway.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Streets of Rage 2 on the megadrive!

YEEEEAAAHHHHH

Can't believe I never had it, always stuck to the original.

[Silencer]

I was, tbh, less than impressed with Bad Company 2. It's fine, and it is a fun game, but aside from the crappy destructible environment (from my perspective, things like that are best left until you can do them PROPERLY, not 1 bullet makes an entire SECTION of fence implode), the weapons felt kind of wimpy. It was a lot better than MW2 in some regards - your character would die awful quick on the higher difficulty setting, for example, which is good - and worse in others (like the inclusion of badly done destructible world, and the 'feel' of weapons).

It's a good enough game, I just wouldn't rate it that highly, as its main selling point left me underwhelmed, and the KEY aspect of any shooter, the guns, felt a bit weak after MW2.

[Jusentantaka]

Would I be wrong to assume that you, being from new zealand, have never actually fired any of the weapons in the game?

Cause there do be very many, very good reasons the guns feel 'wimpy' because, unlike consolegasm redux, they handle and do the sorts of damage the real guns would. A 5.56mm is a tiny little fuckbin piece of shit of a bullet. Really. Can't even use its civilian-equivalent to effectively hunt anything but small game reliably. And body armor that stops a significantly more forceful round (7.62mm x 39) will have no problem with that piddly little thing, a hundred some meters per second more velocity or no. Or even half a dozen of them from a distance. Add to that there's been accounts from soldiers stretching well back into the 80s that the round doesn't have enough stopping power against an unarmored enemy to stop someone with one or two hits.

When I've played I had no problems whatsoever killing someone, in single or MP, with a proper rifle, or any of the russian assault rifles, which fire bigger or deadlier rounds, respectively. Just pretend all the concrete dividers and whatever were made out of sandstone and the guns are quite realistic Unless they patched them into ubiquitous crap since I last fired it up.

P.S.

Silencer, on 12 January 2010 - 05:01 AM, said:

I'm undoubtedly a fan of realism

*edit* the destructablitivity does get old though, you do win there. Sort of. I just pretend they're some sort of hard steel core bullets that can actually maybe sort of blast concrete to bits with a couple hits.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 06 April 2010 - 04:16 AM

[Silencer]

Jusentantaka, on 06 April 2010 - 04:02 AM, said:

Would I be wrong to assume that you, being from new zealand, have never actually fired any of the weapons in the game?

Cause there do be very many, very good reasons the guns feel 'wimpy' because, unlike consolegasm redux, they handle and do the sorts of damage the real guns would. A 5.56mm is a tiny little fuckbin piece of shit of a bullet. Really. Can't even use its civilian-equivalent to effectively hunt anything but small game reliably. And body armor that stops a significantly more forceful round (7.62mm x 39) will have no problem with that piddly little thing, a hundred some meters per second more velocity or no. Or even half a dozen of them from a distance. Add to that there's been accounts from soldiers stretching well back into the 80s that the round doesn't have enough stopping power against an unarmored enemy to stop someone with one or two hits.

When I've played I had no problems whatsoever killing someone, in single or MP, with a proper rifle, or any of the russian assault rifles, which fire bigger or deadlier rounds, respectively. Just pretend all the concrete dividers and whatever were made out of sandstone and the guns are quite realistic Unless they patched them into ubiquitous crap since I last fired it up.

P.S.

Silencer, on 12 January 2010 - 05:01 AM, said:

I'm undoubtedly a fan of realism

Actually, you'd be wrong in assuming that.
Aside from various pistols in calibres up to .50, I've also fired an Uzi 9mm, a sawn-off .308 rifle (seriously, who the fuck does that to a .308??!?!?!), and the AR-15 civilian-safe-version-of-an-M4. XD
All done in the safe confines of an Australian shooting range on a resort island, ofc. Thank god for Australia!

Given, I was about 12 at the time, so the recoil was probably substantially more effective then that it would be now, but that wasn't the point I was making. Allow me:

Quote

and the KEY aspect of any shooter, the guns, felt a bit weak after MW2.

So nyahhh. I put a caveat in.

And as for their ability to kill, that wasn't in question either. It drops the enemy soldiers well enough, and their guns do the same to you. As for body armour that stops a 7.62....jesus, unless you're getting shot with an anti-material rifle, what the fuck IS going to cause it trouble? XD
And the issues with the 5.56mm round are VERY well-documented. Then again, you could go up in size, but that increases recoil. Most soldiers should be able to compensate, but that's being fairly optimistic, imo. What I don't get is why there isn't a fire selection option in most games. If I'm *ever* in a war, I ain't ever putting my rifle on fucking full auto, EVER. XD

But iunno, maybe I just didn't have the sound turned far enough up to really enjoy it.

[Jusentantaka]

Yeah, well, I suppose I misunderestimaterpritated your caveat then. But!

The modern ceramic plates in the body armor the US and UK use is 'designed' to stop up to a 9.5 gram 7.62x51mm round, (.308) and thats got a good bit more behind it than the 7.62x39mm AK 47 round.

As to better bullets, the new model AK designs, of which there are a fuckton, use a 5.45x39mm round. It, unlike the 'bigger' 5.56 will kill or incapacitate in one shot to the torso, because it tumbles, making big, ugly wounds, whereas the 5.56 more often would go right through. So bigger isn't always better, its all in how it moves once its inside.

Yes, I just made a sex joke while talking about how to effectively kill people. *sigh*

[Silencer]

Lol, we need a gun thread, Jusen. 'Cuz otherwise this is gonna spin out of all on-topicness.

So the new 5.45 is basically similar to the 5.7mm round FN developed for their P-90/Five-seveN? That tumbles too, though it's an even lighter round than 9mm Parabellum. :S The thing about tublming is that it's allowed in military application. Expansion isn't, otherwise there probably wouldn't be a problem! XD

The 5.56 is meant to fragment, but that's based on muzzle velocity, and it fails more often than not. It's getting to the point where they'll have to change it, I agree. It's just such a standard round that they're gonna spend millions and years trying to choose a new one. The top dogs don't like having to change that sort of thing if they can avoid it, after all.

And as for ceramic armours, well...sure, but why are we designing munitions for use against the latest upper-end (though, ofc, there are body armours out there which are FAR more effective...they're just impractical) protection? It's such a stupid race: produce stuff to protect your own people, decide to make profit off it/accidentally circulate out the design, be forced to develop rounds which can penetrate your own protection, 'cuz now everyone has it...XD

[Jusentantaka]

its similar I guess, but it weighs more, moves faster and has a sharper /\ tip than the 5.7 round. And hits with close to 3x the energy. So its like it, but with some super-charged Crazy Ivan engineering on top.

I've always seen the body armor thing as a race to catch up with a lot older bullets than the other way around though. Beating even the best of the best Type 4 armor (designed to stop anything but a .50 rifle round, basically) is cake and has been for quite a while, it just costs a bit. Make a bullet tip which conducts on deformation + electrically detonated explosive in the center and presto: no more ribcage. Or Tungsten sabot rounds. Or bring back the gyrojet guns from the 70s and go all Speesss Marine!!!!!!!111

[Silencer]

Haha! I can see it now. Then you get pasted with the various rules and regulations of engagement, alas.

Mind you, Steyr's IWS2000 is a man-portable rifle (by man-portable, ofc, they mean two or three people) that fires a fucking discarding sabot round. Good luck stopping that with mundane body armour...it goes through 40mm of RHA tank armour, ffs!

And yeah, that's pretty much what I meant with the 5.7mm comparison. XD

I suppose you're right about the body armour playing catchup...but as you say, it costs to outperform it, and the problem is equipping EVERYONE with stuff that can defeat it. Whereas making a newer, cheaper round that can do it is better.

[Jusentantaka]

I wonder what the ATF would say if I put in a request to be able to buy one of those guns to use for hunting?

[Aptorian]

Wait, they've made body armor viable for the soldier that can stop something around 7.62 now?

I always thought that it would become way too heavy and unflexible if you wanted to protect yourself from anything more than a few direct hits with standard assualt riffle fire like the 5.7mm.

[Silencer]

5.56mm NATO can have trouble getting through thick clothing if the barrel length isn't long enough. An M4 carbine, for example, really starts to struggle upwards of 100m, and even a full-size M16 at ranges of 150/200m isn't as effective as you'd think.

Hell, it's why my friends and I have always laughed at police using Glock pistols. Those things struggle with a woolen jumper at times...or so I heard.

As for armour, Type III personal armours will protect from standard rifle rounds up to and including 7.62x51mm at 900m/s or thereabouts. Type IV armour protects against armour piercing rifle rounds. XD Though not usually from multiple hits. And it *does* start to limit movement sometimes. That sort of thing is always being worked on, though.

[Aptorian]

I think it is only around 10 years ago that the police here in Denmark stopped using Walter PPKs as their side arm and moved up to Glocks

[Silencer]

LOL.

Well, Glock's at least are light and fairly low recoil. NZ cops use.....TASERS.

[Gothos]

did you get a chance to face off an AK-74 (yes, seventy four) and M16 for firepower, range, accuracy and enviromental conditions like sand or water?
Desert Eagles?
Please note I'm mostly clueless when it comes to guns (last time I fired one I was like 6 or 7)

Silencer: some airport guards in Canada killed the hell out of one confused polish guy with tazers. Fucking assholes.

This post has been edited by Gothos: 06 April 2010 - 06:56 AM

[Silencer]

Gothos, on 06 April 2010 - 06:55 AM, said:

did you get a chance to face off an AK-74 (yes, seventy four) and M16 for firepower, range, accuracy and enviromental conditions like sand or water?
Desert Eagles?
Please note I'm mostly clueless when it comes to guns (last time I fired one I was like 6 or 7)

Silencer: some airport guards in Canada killed the hell out of one confused polish guy with tazers. Fucking assholes.

For the first bit: who're you asking? XD

As for killing people with the shock devices, well, it's possible, but tests show that it should only happen to people with pre-existing heart/other medical conditions, or in 'unsafe use' - i.e. the cops turn the voltage right up and apply repeated/extended shocks to the victim. Or the victim is using drugs. In which case, it's a good reason to not do drugs, right?
Personally, I dislike the idea of tasers because they are essentially a gun with a single shot in the mag. You miss, you're fucked. And they have a limited range based on their wires...I think it's like 40ft* or something max. Compare that to a guy with a pistol, who can be accurate up to 50 METRES....well, the cops are fucked.
They're great for incapacitating without as much risk of harm or civilian casualties, though.

*that being said, there are experimental WIRELESS TASERS that are capable of hitting people 100m away. They do it by causing a charge in the air or some shit. Epic win, imo.