Gunplay and Ranged Combat Thread

[Wenceslaus]

Well to be honest i don´t find the gunplay lacking much. Of course the enemys could react a little more but this will maybe done in the final variant and to the recoil. V´s Pistol is a normal sized Pistol with a 21 (or maybe 20+1) magazine. That says to me that it is something like a 5.7*28 or 4,6*30 mm round in our times. Small, fast but with not much recoil....you can (as a experienced shooter) fire a MP7 fully automatic and one handed on a closer target and stay in the target with relative ease. The Shotgun seemed to be right and even the corp tech rifle which seemed to be something like a battle rifle, the smart smg had bullets which moved on its own so maybe something like a gyrojet round which has a little own rocket like propellant and just a little one to push it out of the barrel so its no wonder it wouldn´t kick much

Good point about the caliber.
Still I'm not sure if the gyrojet was really what you describe (the smoke trail is for the corp rifle too, they made sound like normal SMG).

I'm afraid they add numbers to the magazine for more comfortable gameplay and for same reason smoothed the recoil.
Better wait for more information or (hopefully) gameplay.

BTW I think those smart bullets are really cool.

Halfling - I'm not saying knockback is completely non-existent, but it's nowhere near what movies and some games make it out to be. Newton's Third Law of Motion is also a thing, yet I've seen people fire shotguns without being launched back ten feet or shattering their collarbone.

3 meters back would be really wierd.... but may I point out that she do not move at all? How many people can shooting shotguns while sliding, jumping, runing, strifing and not moving thier aim for a centimeter.

Most people can't hold camera that stable. Even with flash off.

 

[hallfing2080]

Well, Max payne 3 seems to have extremely shitty gunplay. Seems like you can't get any shittier, unless you play "Unearthed: Trail of Ibn Battuta" And we complain about alpha built cyberpunk...

False. Stating a contrarian opinion to support the "it's in pre-alpha etc" argument doesn't really hold up when you take into consideration that Max Payne 3's gunplay was considered by many as one of the better ones for TPS shooters and its ragdoll physics (euphoria) is still considered a benchmark in 2018. Welcome to facts town, population = you.

Halfling - I'm not saying knockback is completely non-existent, but it's nowhere near what movies and some games make it out to be. Newton's Third Law of Motion is also a thing, yet I've seen people fire shotguns without being launched back ten feet or shattering their collarbone.

I'm talking about realistic ragdoll physics and you're talking about cinematic exaggeration. Sure, movies and some games dial the ragdoll physics up to 11 to make it look cool but your point regarding exaggeration still doesn't hold. Did you check out that video? What was unrealistic in it? Nothing really.

 

[1veryFrustratedguy]

Consoles have shitty CPU, so it would be wasted ressources for console versions.

That can change

 

[jervi]

I'm talking about realistic ragdoll physics and you're talking about cinematic exaggeration. Sure, movies and some games dial the ragdoll physics up to 11 to make it look cool but your point regarding exaggeration still doesn't hold. Did you check out that video? What was unrealistic in it? Nothing really.

I'm talking about what I see a lot of in other games and in many movies. If they all did it roughly how what I saw of that clip did (I'm not burning my data plan and my lunch break for the whole video!) then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[1veryFrustratedguy]

Consoles have shitty CPU, so it would be wasted ressources for console versions.

You do realise most Intel CPUs these days are also effectively APUs? That's what an a APU is; a CPU and a GPU inside the same package. I think the only difference with AMD is that they fab their CPU and GPU whole on the same silicon, while Intel merely place them in the same package and link them by a system bus, though I could be wrong.

Post automatically merged: Sep 4, 2018

GTAs and Max Payne 3 worked on even shittier consoles yet they're the paragon of ragdoll physics like this.

I agree

 

[hallfing2080]

I'm talking about what I see a lot of in other games and in many movies. If they all did it roughly how what I saw of that clip did (I'm not burning my data plan and my lunch break for the whole video!) then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Well, that's just your opinion, though. Most gamers believe that kind of ragdoll physics to be the real deal. That's why there are multiple montage videos of it. Your argument against realistic ragdoll physics (which you perceive to be unrealistic) is still invalid.

 

[Sardukhar]

Well, that's just your opinion, though. Most gamers believe that kind of ragdoll physics to be the real deal. That's why there are multiple montage videos of it. Your argument against realistic ragdoll physics (which you perceive to be unrealistic) is still invalid.

Ah, it's not invalid. How is it invalid? Because you disagree with it or because this "most gamers" unreferenced number you reference also believe it's real?

1. I wouldn't bet most gamers bother to believe or disbelieve much about ragdoll physics, although quite a few of us think it's silly fun in videogames. Even the name comes from the crappy death animation necessitated by our limited tech.

2. Don't decide what is and isn't invalid for others or use statements like, "Welcome to facts town, population = you. " They aren't constructive and are still mostly representative of your viewpoint.

A lot of these arguments boil down to what we do or don't like about games. What is or isn't real when you shoot a living creature varies from creature to creature.

I will say that an understated response from a shot target would be a refreshing change in Cyberpunk 2077, yes.

Oh and although Max Payne 3 had fun shooting, it was still utterly utterly silly. From my perspective.

 

[Harthwain]

Oh and although Max Payne 3 had fun shooting, it was still utterly utterly silly. From my perspective.

Could you elaborate what was silly about it? I didn't play Max Payne 3, but the reactions of enemies in the video were very impressive.

 

[jervi]

Well, that's just your opinion, though. Most gamers believe that kind of ragdoll physics to be the real deal. That's why there are multiple montage videos of it. Your argument against realistic ragdoll physics (which you perceive to be unrealistic) is still invalid.

I'm confused. Where did I argue against realistic ragdoll physics?

 

[Sardukhar]

Could you elaborate what was silly about it? I didn't play Max Payne 3, but the reactions of enemies in the video were very impressive.

You mean the running around, leaping, hurling yourself and blazing away accurately with a pistol in each hand? Or jumping over tables and counters and headshotting? Silliness.

Death animations were fine, though. Certainly better than usual, although awkward and wooden of course.

 

[Harthwain]

Death animations were fine, though. Certainly better than usual, although awkward and wooden of course.

Awkward and wooden? - Harthwain raises an eybrow - I found them to be pretty realistic, for a video game of course. And the absolute best I have seen in my entire life. So far that is. But I doubt Cyberpunk will dethrone MP3 in this category. Sadly, combat isn't CDPR's strongest point. Which is why it makes me worried it'll end up like TW3 did - me liking the theme, the story, the writing and how quests were done, but disliking the combat, especially since combat [in CP77] will be kind of bread and butter of the game (with us being a mercenary in the violent world of CP).

 

[Sardukhar]

Awkward and wooden? - Harthwain raises an eybrow - I found them to be pretty realistic, for a video game of course.

Well, if you watch them ( and I'm going to play the game again soon, I think, quite fun) you'll see limbs flop up or kind of jerk woodenly. People also fall over really slowly, often sinking dramatically to the ground.

It's kind of unavoidable, as the sprites don't have the same skeletons we do and, well, there is an element of cinema there.

But, yeah, awkward.

 

[Snowflakez]

Well, if you watch them ( and I'm going to play the game again soon, I think, quite fun) you'll see limbs flop up or kind of jerk woodenly. People also fall over really slowly, often sinking dramatically to the ground.

It's kind of unavoidable, as the sprites don't have the same skeletons we do and, well, there is an element of cinema there.

But, yeah, awkward.

I see what you mean. Very, very dramatic. They sit there and stumble about, somehow landing on their knees instead of falling backward even though the momentum should have forced them back.

Typical Hollywood nonsense.

 

[1veryFrustratedguy]

Also, many pistols and SMGs in CP2020/2077 use rounds that are smaller than the 9mm and .45 ACP that a lot of folks are used to from other games where you fire Uzis, MP5s, or Thompsons. When you use smaller rounds travelling at roughly the same velocity, you often wind up using more of them to do the same damage.

Post automatically merged: Sep 3, 2018

Post automatically merged: Sep 5, 2018

Yes, but that reality doesn't jibe with Hollywood-ism or match what otehr FPS games set in 1939-2030 do, so it must be evil and stupid and wrong. :cautious:



Also, many pistols and SMGs in CP2020/2077 use rounds that are smaller than the 9mm and .45 ACP that a lot of folks are used to from other games where you fire Uzis, MP5s, or Thompsons. When you use smaller rounds travelling at roughly the same velocity, you often wind up using more of them to do the same damage.

Post automatically merged: Sep 3, 2018

RL bullets are highly variable in effect, from "One-shot insta-kill by a .22 pistol" to "Took a dozen 9mm rounds and lived". On average though, firearms are a little closer to the latter than the former; as lethal as they are, they are nowhere near what Hollywood would have you believe where a graze is enough to kill you and the 2 people behind you unless you are a main character.

Post automatically merged: Sep 3, 2018

Do you honestly buy the trope that bullets have enough kinetic energy to actually hurl a 120-250 pound person any appreciable distance, or are you simply wanting unrealistic melodrama for the sake of being cinematic?

Based on what

 

[jervi]

Now I'm really confused. I still don't get how my arguing against cinematic exaggeration got turned into me being against realism.

 

[Snowflakez]

Now I'm really confused. I still don't get how my arguing against cinematic exaggeration got turned into me being against realism.

Frustratedguy is a strange fella.

 

[Suhiira]

Also, many pistols and SMGs in CP2020/2077 use rounds that are smaller than the 9mm and .45 ACP that a lot of folks are used to from other games where you fire Uzis, MP5s, or Thompsons. When you use smaller rounds travelling at roughly the same velocity, you often wind up using more of them to do the same damage.

That's because E=MC2, the impact force (and recoil) are dependent on both the size and velocity of the projectile. This is the basis of the long standing debate over the NATO 7.62mm and NATO 5.56mm. In theory they are equivalent rounds, and up to a point they are, but then you get into the issues of energy retention over distance, the ability to pierce cover, bullet mass determining how much ammo you can physically carry, etc. etc. etc. So while E=MC2 is clear and easy other equally important factors aren't.

 

[hallfing2080]

Ah, it's not invalid. How is it invalid? Because you disagree with it or because this "most gamers" unreferenced number you reference also believe it's real?

He's been trying to explain to me how we're asking for unrealistic ragdoll physics while I'm asking for realistic ragdoll physics and for the weapons to feel impactful with each bullet shot at the enemy. His perceived unrealism is irrelevant to the conversation because we are not asking for unreal/immersion breaking physics. For example, I am not asking for CDPR to make it so that when I blast someone with a shotgun then that person should fly through walls. Nobody in this thread asked for that. So really, what is the point of telling me about unrealistic ragdoll physics in movies/games as an example to support his argument that it is unrealistic to want what should naturally be expected from a game with gunplay? It's pointless.

Also, there really is nothing unrealistic about what I have used as an example (Max Payne 3 ragdoll montage video) to support my argument. That's how people move/react when shot. That's a fact. That's how much a weapon of varying size recoils when shot. You are free to dislike/disagree with it but that doesn't make it any less real. That's literally how even ballistic gel works when shot at. That's exactly what NaturalMotion (devs) was aiming for with Euphoria (animation software). Here, take a look at this:

Source: http://rockstargames.wikia.com/wiki/Euphoria

"giving each character unprecedented interactivity and realism." FACT!


I also don't mean to imply that an opinion is wrong just because it's in the minority. I'm simply saying that Max Payne 3's ragdoll physics are very, very accurate based on a fact that most people acknowledge. It would still remain a fact if most gamers disliked it, which they don't because MP3 sold like hot cakes. Take a look at the articles linked below.

1. Max Payne 3's in-game gunfight physics make it a modern wonder.
2. Max Payne 3 Euphoria for the masses.
3. Max Payne 3, a masterpiece of a modern noir.

At the time of release, there were a ton of them but I've listed a few archived ones I could still find. Now I don't think people would praise the technical aspects of MP3's engine and gunplay so much if it wasn't all that good. Basically, Max Payne 3's gunplay and ragdoll physics are lifelike and that's a fact. People can dislike it but it will remain a fact. To further elaborate, it would be like saying CryEngine 2 used to make Crysis (2007) wasn't a technical wonder, nor a benchmark (it's still a benchmark btw) for games. That'd be your opinion, which is fine, but it is still factually wrong and can be proved wrong.

Therefore, his argument about it being cinematic/exaggerated or unrealistic is invalid.

1. I wouldn't bet most gamers bother to believe or disbelieve much about ragdoll physics, although quite a few of us think it's silly in videogames.

Actually, I would bet on that. FPS games live and die by their gunplay mechanics, and ragdoll physics are an intrinsic part of that. If the shooting/physics is wonky and you can't feel the oomph in your shooting then your immersion is gone and the experience is a bust. If CP2077 is going to appeal to FPS audience then you can take it in writing to the bank that those guys care about the gunplay being impactful. DOOM 2016 is worshipped because of the gunplay. Every weapon gives you a satisfactory hit on the enemy. The ragdoll in DOOM is fantastic! I don't think it would have garnered such praise or sold well if that were not the case.

2. Don't decide what is and isn't invalid for others or use statements like, "Welcome to facts town, population = you. " They aren't constructive and are still mostly representative of your viewpoint.

Fair enough, but what I stated is a fact even without the cheeky tone. It's not just my opinion. Euphoria (animation software) was developed with the goal of making it unprecedentedly realistic, and for that matter, it absolutely is. Disliking or disagreeing with it doesn't mean that it isn't realistic.

A lot of these arguments boil down to what we do or don't like about games. What is or isn't real when you shoot a living creature varies from creature to creature.

I agree. Most of our arguments and debates here on the forums are pure conjecture and personal preference. However, when there is a counter-argument supported by a fact; the rest is pointless. Doesn't mean I won't listen to other arguments but so far all he's done is tell me that realistic ragdoll physics is... well, exaggerated/unrealistic.

I will say that an understated response from a shot target would be a refreshing change in Cyberpunk 2077, yes.

In my opinion, that would be a mistake and also unrealistic. Pain tolerance and body mass only go so far, especially with weapons capable of shredding flesh and severing limbs with charged projectiles. People rarely shrug off bullet wounds as shown (ironically) in the movies/games.

Oh and although Max Payne 3 had fun shooting, it was still utterly utterly silly. From my perspective.

I agree! I loved the gameplay and hated the story. It was the most non-Max Payne of the Max Payne games. Made me want a proper remake of the first 2 games, but that will never happen.

[A proof-read cluterfuck of a post, sweet jesus.]

 

[Snowflakez]

He's been trying to explain to me how we're asking for unrealistic ragdoll physics while I'm asking for realistic ragdoll physics and for the weapons to feel impactful with each bullet shot at the enemy. His perceived unrealism is irrelevant to the conversation because we are not asking for unreal/immersion breaking physics. For example, I am not asking for CDPR to make it so that when I blast someone with a shotgun then that person should fly through walls. Nobody in this thread asked for that. So really, what is the point of telling me about unrealistic ragdoll physics in movies/games as an example to support his argument that it is unrealistic to want what should naturally be expected from a game with gunplay? It's pointless.

Also, there really is nothing unrealistic about what I have used as an example (Max Payne 3 ragdoll montage video) to support my argument. That's how people move/react when shot. That's a fact. That's how much a weapon of varying size recoils when shot. You are free to dislike/disagree with it but that doesn't make it any less real. That's literally how even ballistic gel works when shot at. That's exactly what NaturalMotion (devs) was aiming for with Euphoria (animation software). Here, take a look at this:

View attachment 10976546
Source: http://rockstargames.wikia.com/wiki/Euphoria

"giving each character unprecedented interactivity and realism." FACT!


I also don't mean to imply that an opinion is wrong just because it's in the minority. I'm simply saying that Max Payne 3's ragdoll physics are very, very accurate based on a fact that most people acknowledge. It would still remain a fact if most gamers disliked it, which they don't because MP3 sold like hot cakes. Take a look at the articles linked below.

1. Max Payne 3's in-game gunfight physics make it a modern wonder.
2. Max Payne 3 Euphoria for the masses.
3. Max Payne 3, a masterpiece of a modern noir.

At the time of release, there were a ton of them but I've listed a few archived ones I could still find. Now I don't think people would praise the technical aspects of MP3's engine and gunplay so much if it wasn't all that good. Basically, Max Payne 3's gunplay and ragdoll physics are lifelike and that's a fact. People can dislike it but it will remain a fact. To further elaborate, it would be like saying CryEngine 2 used to make Crysis (2007) wasn't a technical wonder, nor a benchmark (it's still a benchmark btw) for games. That'd be your opinion, which is fine, but it is still factually wrong and can be proved wrong.

Therefore, his argument about it being cinematic/exaggerated or unrealistic is invalid.



Actually, I would bet on that. FPS games live and die by their gunplay mechanics, and ragdoll physics are an intrinsic part of that. If the shooting/physics is wonky and you can't feel the oomph in your shooting then your immersion is gone and the experience is a bust. If CP2077 is going to appeal to FPS audience then you can take it in writing to the bank that those guys care about the gunplay being impactful. DOOM 2016 is worshipped because of the gunplay. Every weapon gives you a satisfactory hit on the enemy. The ragdoll in DOOM is fantastic! I don't think it would have garnered such praise or sold well if that were not the case.



Fair enough, but what I stated is a fact even without the cheeky tone. It's not just my opinion. Euphoria (animation software) was developed with the goal of making it unprecedentedly realistic, and for that matter, it absolutely is. Disliking or disagreeing with it doesn't mean that it isn't realistic.



I agree. Most of our arguments and debates here on the forums are pure conjecture and personal preference. However, when there is a counter-argument supported by a fact; the rest is pointless. Doesn't mean I won't listen to other arguments but so far all he's done is tell me that realistic ragdoll physics is... well, exaggerated/unrealistic.



In my opinion, that would be a mistake and also unrealistic. Pain tolerance and body mass only go so far, especially with weapons capable of shredding flesh and severing limbs with charged projectiles. People rarely shrug off bullet wounds as shown (ironically) in the movies/games.



I agree! I loved the gameplay and hated the story. It was the most non-Max Payne of the Max Payne games. Made me want a proper remake of the first 2 games, but that will never happen.

[A proof-read cluterfuck of a post, sweet jesus.]

Are you implying that, because a company and some press outlets say something is realistic, it's realistic, as a fact? I just want to be sure I'm understanding, this is not intended as a jab at you. Don't want to misrepresent/strawman you if possible.

I admit I have not shot anybody in real life. But I'm pretty sure that people who get shot don't slowly sink to their legs and fall forward dramatically. See the video I posted above.

 

[jervi]

Okay, if people are going to say I said things I didn't say, I'll just leave and y'all can have me say whatever you want me to say even when it's not really me saying it.

Good day.