Actually thats not 100% fair... It does have bullet travel time and drop even though both are exaggerated. --- 2500k @ 4.4 | P8Z68-V Pro | H80 | 8GB | 670 | 256 ssd | 6Tb hdd | Win 8 64bit | ax1200w | BD burner | cm690II Steam: DV8ing1
#3Cool_Dude667Posted 9/22/2013 3:16:13 AM
Go recon. --- Not changing this sig until Christ returns -- Started 30 A.D 3770K @ 4.2Ghz | 16GB Corsair Vengeance | GTX 670 SLi
#4_GRIM_FANDANGO_Posted 9/22/2013 3:55:51 AM
casual as CoD
Actually thats not 100% fair... It does have bullet travel time and drop even though both are exaggerated.
Yeah, they are both arcade style military FPS, so of course there are going to be a lot of similarities. First of all, they both use an aim down sight mechanic. They both have recoil in their weapons and the mechanics for burst firing, hip firing, sniping and so forth. But within this subgenre they are quite different. Perhaps not only just in gunplay but in the overall flow of the game. Then there are specific differences like suppression, bullet drop, the fact that everything is a little slower, and the larger variety in ways to fight the opposing teams. --- I5 760 | GTX 760 | FILCO Majestouch 2 tenkeyless | Zowie FK | Asus Xonar DGX | Sennheiser HD 518 | Samsung S24A350H
#5LordSeiferPosted 9/22/2013 5:53:10 AM
they both have recoil? so they are the same game --- ^ this
#6ThePCElitistPosted 9/22/2013 7:00:07 AM
ARMA is a simulator and is hyper realistic. Any other franchise is just a game with watered down mechanics. --- When I'm Miqo'te http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3LGf9SSWrU
#7El_KazPosted 9/22/2013 7:10:35 AM(edited)
BF3 models all bullets as projectiles, while CoD (and most other shooters) simply use a hitscanning system. In that sense, the mechanics are closer to the ARMA series; the main difference being that bullet drop and speed are researched and modeled for each caliber in ARMA, while BF3 uses the same values for whole weapon classes (AR, LMG, SMG, etc.), and values are probably chosen for balance above realism. --- Wait... what?
#8_GRIM_FANDANGO_Posted 9/22/2013 7:54:16 AM
they both have recoil? so they are the same game
Not sure if this was in response to me, but if you read my comment you'd know that I was saying they are quite different despite sharing similar gunplay/gameplay mechanics as military FPS. --- I5 760 | GTX 760 | FILCO Majestouch 2 tenkeyless | Zowie FK | Asus Xonar DGX | Sennheiser HD 518 | Samsung S24A350H
#9ZeraphLordSPosted 9/22/2013 8:09:38 AM
stalker > BF3
bf3 would be better if it used proper speeds and gravity, but otherwise it's okay
cod ironically has better (shot fired to shot hit) time because ping time is longer than it takes the average bullet fired ingame to travel anyway
at least bf3's it's hit detection decent (with controllable interp), bc2 was horrid
cod went the other way once they capped snaps --- The best course of action is to just get the information you need, then get out while you're still alive. - destroy everything on GameFAQs
#10Orestes417Posted 9/22/2013 8:12:27 AM
Don't know why you mention stalker with ARMA with regard to shooting mechanics. One is a simulator and the other is based on virtual dice rolls. As for Battlefield, no it's not a sim. It's not intended to be and would be a vastly worse game if it were. --- If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.