Okay, fine, I'll admit it, one of my (I think rather harmless) quirks is that I like video games. And, yes, all you young'uns, one fine day you, too, are going to discover that you are in your forties and still playing with your XBox 360 (or PS3 . . . or both, for that matter, for all you spoiled little brats . . .). Then again, I also still play with model trains and little hunks of pewter that look like tanks, too . . . What can I say? He who has the most toys, wins.
Anyway, as I "died" for the thousandth time today in exactly the same place in a game, it occured to me that I have a few questions - and observations, I suppose - both for those who make games, and those who play them.
First of all, for UbiSoft and Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 . . . since when do handgrenades bounce off walls like rubber balls? I mean, yeah, I could plonk a grenade off a wall a foot or so, but your grenades come bouncing back at you like superballs. Come on, I've heard of "relaxed" physics, but that's overdoing it more than a bit.
Oh, and you do realize, right, that real CT teams consist of more than three guys? More importantly, you do realize that the other guys on the squad actually do more than soak up bullets? Honestly, I've seen more responsiveness out of the inhabitants of a graveyard . . .
I've also got to ask, just when does it get fun when the enemies never miss? Sure, I suppose you've got to find some way to make up for the fact that they tend to charge blindly straight into your sights, but really. If I can empty half a magazine into some guy standing five feet away from me and have him laugh it off because presumably my aim off, at least do me the courtesy of saddling them with the same sort of aiming difficulties.
Speaking of enemies, is it really that difficult to ensure that once they are dead they stay that way? Okay, getting shot in the back by someone you just killed is kind of funny the first time it happens, but really aggravating the next six hundred times. And why do you think it's terribly fun to have one guy going up against, oh, a few hundred enemies? Particularly when they never miss and seemingly can shake off headshots like rain drops . . .
And for those of you who have played and mastered both Rainbow Six: Vegas and Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 and froth on and on about how "realistic" the games are . . . If you really think that the games have given you a taste of or mastery of CT operations and CQB, I can only suggest that you never look into that as a possible line of work. As a matter of fact, please don't even pick up a real firearm, you're just going to hurt yourself.
Ah, Call of Duty 4. I love that game . . . but talk about enemies who blindly charge into your line of fire and who never miss . . . Oy. At least when you shoot someone in that game, they stay dead . . . most of the time. But, really, what's with the automatic spawn points for the enemies? I ask because it seems that, if you and your "platoon" (for you do have a lot of A.I. buddies alongside for the ride) secure an area, it should be a no-brainer that enemies can't appear there. Especially when they appear a foot in front of you and empty the entire magazine of an AK-47 into your face. On the bright side, though, at least the grenades don't go bouncing around like tennis balls . . .
As I said, I love that game, but if anyone out there thinks it is even remotely like a real battlefield, I would advise against ever joining the Army (or the Marines, since the Army doesn't make an appearance in Call of Duty 4), because you'll be in for a rude shock. If you tried to do in a real firefight the kinds of things you do in a videogame firefight, the only thing you'll earn is a ride home in a box with one of those letters from DoD that starts off "We regret to inform you that your son is dead because he was stupid . . ."
Now, for the game that's currently giving me fits, Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation . . . Look, Namco, a long time ago, I was a fighter pilot. And I can accept that I can not do in a game the same things I used to do with a real-life high-performance jet fighter. No problem. Still, for a game that bills itself as being so ultra-ralistic, there are some things that should still be the same . . .
How about this as a for instance? When a jet is "down in the weeds" and using terrain-masking in a nap-of-the-earth profile, i.e. below five hundred feet of altitude, and zipping along at a thousand miles an hour (and, look, a jet that low can't travel that fast, but . . .), it can not be shot down by another aircraft or a SAM. That's the whole reason the tactic was invented in the first place.
An enemy aircraft certainly can't get below you, and if it gets in front of you, you're going to blow past him before he has time to do anything . . . unless he likes mid-airs. Any enemy pilot who manages to get in behind you is going to be too busy avoiding imitating a lawn dart to worry about anything else. The only approach angle you have on an aircraft flying NOE is from above, and that just isn't going to work. Here's why. First off, the approach angle is too steep; I can guarantee that you can dive down on the target, but you're never going to be able to pull out of that dive before you hit the ground. Second, your aircraft's radar can't track something that close to the earth; you're going to lose the target in the ground clutter. Even a pulse-doppler radar with a variable PRF isn't going to be that helpful, because it's only going to "see" a target that is moving directly away from or directly at you; if it's moving perpendicular to your course, the radar won't "see" it at all. Third, the guidance-systems on your weapons won't be able to track a target that close to the ground . . . nor will the guidance systems on a SAM.
Oh, speaking of SAMs, every one of the blessed things is controlled and guided, at least initially, by the battery's radar unit. If you take down that radar, SAMs are pretty much useless. Sure, you can blind-fire them and hope something wanders close enough to the proximity-fuse to set it off . . . but I wouldn't go betting the farm on that.
Before I forget . . . avoiding SAMs and, for that matter, AAMs . . . It would have been nice if you included chaff and flares in your game, because all combat aircraft have those systems. Sure, sometimes they work, and other times the missile still bites you, but it would have been nice to have them. But at least you did include breaking to avoid missiles, even though that seems to rarely work in the game. Look, I've got to tell you, it's a really exciting maneuver and not for the faint of heart, and the timing has to be just right, but . . . The maneuver works because a missile, be it a SAM or an AAM, can not match it. With a SAM, you point your nose at the weapon, wait until the time feels right, and then break hard in whichever direction looks best to you, and the missile can not make the turn to follow you. It will fly right on past you, at which point you can cease worrying about it . . . unlike the SAMs in the game. The same with AAMs; a good, hard break can succeed at evading the weapon.
Speaking of the AAMs, I really have to admire how, in the game, sometimes the "tracking" works and sometimes it doesn't. I mean, nothing is quite as fun as having a target locked up in the pipper, but for some odd reason the missile refuses to lock on, or even acknowledge that there's an aircraft out there with a huge "KILL ME" sign painted on it . . .
Oh, yeah, and one generally doesn't have to wait thirty seconds or so from the time a control input is entered until the aircraft actually responds. Just thought I'd point that out . . .
Finally, I have to ask again, just when does it get fun when you find yourself confronted with a 1-v-30 (because, no matter what you tell your wingman to do, he only responds with helpful comments like "Watch out! They've got a lock on you!" instead of doing something actually useful like, oh, engaging the enemy) where your missiles refuse to track and you can't hit squat with your gun? And since when can aircraft reverse direction in, like, no time or space at all? I mean, I've seen aircraft in this game pull off maneuvers that even the nimblest UFO couldn't match . . .
Maybe I'm just missing out on something, but, really, I believe a game should be fun and not punish the player. Is that too much to ask for? Or perhaps I should just take up cribbage . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment