PDA

View Full Version : Are the weapon innacuracys important or not?



Mr_Hairs
03-26-2008, 04:13 PM
As with RSV1 a lot of the weapons in the game are innacurately portrayed. Now, I'm not talking about the relative power/accuracy of the weapons, which is often debatable, so much as the magazine capacities.

Why, for instance, did Ubisoft decide to increase the magazine capacity of the G3KA4 and the SCAR from 20 rounds to 30, whilst decreasing the magazine capacity of the L85A2 from 30 to 25?

If its for the sake of balance, then why not simply make the 7.62mm firing G3KA4 and SCAR more powerful? This would give not only balance to the guns, but variety as well (85% of the assault rifles have 30 round mags, whilst two others have 25 round mags).

Most important of all is the realism factor. I don't play games like Halo as I don't like laser guns and alien plasma cannons etc. I play games like Rainbow Six because I like a real-world setting and realistic weapons. This is spoilt somewhat when guns are messed with for the sake of balance in a way that breaks suspension of disbelief.

I don't understand why Ubisoft strive to use the real-world names for these weapons and accuratelymodel their appearances if they're going to convey them in an unrealistic manner

TheWarHam
03-26-2008, 04:17 PM
The stats are off, but making guns like the G3 more powerful with a 20 round mag sounds great, but would lead to it being overpowered anyway. You usually take no more than 5 shots and reload.

Mr_Hairs
03-26-2008, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by TheWarHam:
The stats are off, but making guns like the G3 more powerful with a 20 round mag sounds great, but would lead to it being overpowered anyway. You usually take no more than 5 shots and reload.

But surely the L85A2 must compensate in some way for its smaller magazine? Otherwise the devs wouldn't have felt the need to unrealistically decrease its magazine size. It can't be too hard to give a weapon a smaller magazine and make it even slightly better in other ways.