afcourse you cant put everything in real life into the game, however you can put combat tactics into the game like running sideways, ect. ect.
The point is there's a lot of things you can put in a game that are technically realistic because they're "possible irl
", but that is a very questionable
design premise in terms of realism design in general, and not remotely germane to g_realism 1
Plain and simple: fast strafing ability in games always
leads to circle strafing at some distance regardless of how strafe speed may mitigate weapon accuracy, because it will always work at some range; this has been demonstrated and proven in over a decade of game design -- which is why it and other 'possible'
things from bunny hopping, to diving, and technically impractical speed are not
featured in serious realism games.
In the real world, certainly a man can run laterally and spray suppressive fire, and make himself a big, bright, visible, noisy awkwardly moving target which is why it's rarely done in any 'real world
' environment other then Hollywood and Ballywood. In games fast lateral speed always
enables circle strafing as a tactic that prevails over more realistic fire maneuver tactics.
So for the Designer it's an ultimatum: 'possible
' and 'liberating
' movement like game hopping, running, diving, and strafing at olympic speed at the expense of realistic fire maneuver tactics, or enforce realistic maneuver combat by design. This thread's premise is the latter kind of design, if you want Urban Terror: CQB
, not only does it already exist, there's an entire General forum for that flavor of design, why does this ridiculous dreck have to go in this thread?
This wouldn't even be tolerated as a topic for serious discussion on Tactical Gamer, GRN, Armaholic, or BI Studios forums, hence my jokes...