Suggestions | Forums

[Squall_Rifleman]

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Squall_Rifleman:
It's funny how WK posted a picture where there are soldiers holding their weapons down when the original reticule system defended by him has every soldier holding their weapons up on their faces all the time.

Actually, I posted that pic concerning FPWV. Now as someone who has been shooting over 30 years (including my stint in the Marines and all Marines are rifleman, including a cook) and not once have I ever carried, viewed or shot a weapon as seen with a FPWV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup, that's why I'm asking them to do it correctly. I don't expect a perfect FPWV, because you and I know that there's no way to do that in a computer screen.
But I'd rather have a weapon view that is made as realistic as possible than the old and boring reticule system.

[WhiteKnight77]

Prozac may also have the XBox version too. That may be why he stated what he did. I tried RvS (which had a FPWV option) and I did have it turned off. When I tried MP, I was forced to use it. Once forced, it is no longer an option. If there was a way to over-ride server a setting like that it might be fine, but if they can't leave it out completely. I played CoD for about 3 months. While I like the iron sights somewhat, the FPWV didn't do anything for me and could not be turned off. Games with FPWV really don't do anything for me.

[Squall_Rifleman]

That's the problem. While other aspects of the game can make up for the lack/presence of FPWV (depending on your preference), the best option would be to make it optional, though it would probably end up in an useless weapon model like in Raven Shield. That wouldn't do it for me, at least.
So unless the developers figure out a way to implement both systems and making them even, the will have to choose between the two options, at least for multiplayer.

[Fyredawg]

Dude I really wish you would stop taking my disagreeing with you personally. It isn't ment that way.

Like I said neither here nor there .... and I promise you I played this game tons way back in the day. I pretty well stopped playing online after IT and the changes that people here were fussing about were implemented.

I dont care for any game with the fpwv, now thats just my opinion your welcoem to yours, in fact if they made it strictly something that you could toggle I wouldn't have a problem with it. But most of the "old hands" along with thier servers I think would have it toggled off.

[Squall_Rifleman]

Originally posted by Fyredawg:
Dude I really wish you would stop taking my disagreeing with you personally. It isn't ment that way.

Like I said neither here nor there .... and I promise you I played this game tons way back in the day. I pretty well stopped playing online after IT and the changes that people here were fussing about were implemented.

I dont care for any game with the fpwv, now thats just my opinion your welcoem to yours, in fact if they made it strictly something that you could toggle I wouldn't have a problem with it. But most of the "old hands" along with thier servers I think would have it toggled off.

Nah, I'm not taking it personally, Dago... no worries.
I welcome you guys' opinions too, as I said above I agree with ya in most of the points you bring up about keeping the classic feel.

[buddhiraja]

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Tell me one person in this pic who can see his weapon!



If more than a small portion of any weapon, much less a barrel, is in view, I will eat evey PC game I own.

I had replied to this in another post. These soldiers seem to be in a semi-alert state and not actively looking for enemies. In GR we are very often in an alert state and looking for enemies. In such a situation, I think the guns are held stock to the chest and more or less perpendicular to the body. You yourself had stated that in a post sometime back.

If such is the position of the gun, then in the game we should see only the tip of the barrel, if the gun is held relatively low and the top of the scope as well, if the gun is held marginally higher. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If the guns are being carried in the position that you have shown, then there should not be any reticle pointing to the middle of the screen as is the case with GR. Why have you not opposed that fact ?

Further, the soldiers must be carrying, aiming and handling their guns somewhat differently depending on the situation they are in. By this I mean whether the battle is a CQB or not, whether the soldier is alert, semi-alert or relaxed etc.

In a tactical shooter like GR, these gun positions should also be accurately represented because tactics should also involve which aiming, shooting and gun carrying style to use in various situations in order to obtain optimum advantage. I would really like to know these facts from you.

[WhiteKnight77]

One thing about that pic, they are doing a training run through, there isn't even a magazine in the recievers. What you can't see is the movement of his eyes. When on patrol, you should be scanning the area. Something else to remember too is that the human eye sees movement better than trying to pick out a stationary object. This is especially true at night when not using NVGs or IR optics. A very good example of that can be seen in Platoon. Charlie Sheen's character wakes up while being bit by ants and is looking up the trail (granted there was a backlight in the movie but even without the backlight, the same thing happens) and you see 2 trees. He looks down then back up and there you see an NVA soldier standing next to a tree. You lose sight of something when staring at one spot all the time.

I don't remember if it was this thread or one on the console forum, but all FPS games have a reticle or pips of some sort even if it does have a FPWV. You wouldn't hit a thing without them.

[Kurtz_]

FPWV
- It's going to be in the game, just make it capable of being toggled off.

- MP server setting. The issue of forcing the view in a server. I think you should be free to use any view you want - ret only, FPWV or OTS. This is up for debate.

[WhiteKnight77]

I don't want to be forced to use FPWV if I join a server. When I host, there will be the option to use it if FPWV is in the game. Now, so people can't cheat on my server, there will be no OTS. People worked hard enough to get any sort of 3rd person view removed from RSE games due to people using for that very reason.

If neither are something that can be turned off, well I guess I play old games.

[Squall_Rifleman]

I really don't think they'll keep the OTS view for the PC version, that wouldn't make sense. I see a lot of people on the console forum that do like the OTS, but I'm pretty sure the majority of the PC players would prefer no third-person view. Correct me if I'm wrong.