I wanted to reinvigorate the G_Realism 1
discussion now that there's an actual CQB release to give the discussion context with respect to existing features and capabilities.
While it's completely valid for a Developer to incorporate as many features as satisfy his idea of fun, a recent discussion with some Tactical Realism Fans I was trying to interest in trying out CQB got some intersting responses that reaffirmed the value of a g_realism 1
While CQB got favorable reviews of some of its features like realistic scopes and more realistic movement, other features like akimbo weapons and some of the speed moves still possible were regarded as laughable parodies of realism that would strongly discourage their interest.
In a nutshell they see a lot of potential for CQB to be a game they like, but that looks like it will be lost to them due to features that are a deal-breaking turn off...
What I've gleand from my own experience, posts on these forums by the few that are clearly TR fans, and first hand discussion is that we'd still like to have the option
for more restricted realism which generally would include:
· no akimbo weapons
· no kant in lean FPP view (or no leaning)
· no, or much more limited jumping
· slower more realistic first Alpha PPM metrics
· context correct weapon attachments
· one-life objective game modes (VIP cited by 11 people)
Summarily all expressed more interest in the quality
of feature implementation as it effects how realistically a game is actually played as more important then quantity
All appreciated that CQB was a one man show, and thought it was impressive, but could be a better game with half the assets and feature flexibility in the load out system -- with just a few good maps, more realistic functional metrics, and objective play-modes.
Games (especially free games) get hammered with Players exploring and exploting the limits of movement and maps -- often culminating at a point where it is literal explit play that diverges radically from the Designer's intention, and the nature of FPS game perspective and play design magnifies this.
Just one example can be seen at the start of the typical 'Action Realism
' FPS round where map knowledge virtually always has Players sprinting along very precise routes, exploiting precise grenade launching points, raceing to key-hole fire positions; making the start of a round a competitive race between team mates
to these critical spots on the map; TC game thus far have been no exception.
Movement restrictions, in some cases even sub-scale restriction greatly curtails this sort of scenario where opportunistic play consistently prevails over more realistic, careful, team oritneted, tactical maneuver as you can't quickly escape a position of exploit after you've leveraged the exploit, and if your speed is greatly curtailed you have
to rely more heavily on cautious and maneuver and cover of your tema mates
Circle strafing offers yet another and perhaps the 'poster child
' illustration of liberating movement speed (that can even be to scale) permitting tactics that would never prevail no less work in the real world...