The real Aperture Sight

#1_Newshot_Posted 11/5/2008 7:42:51 AM
Real
http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com/nomenclaturephotos/rearsightassembled.jpg


fake (this is really a red dot)
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/280/reviews/944198_20081007_screen010.jpg

This just makes me mad, cod has always been about realism
Not anymore
not people are going to be running around with red dots


---
List of Trolls - LC46D82U, Kratier, Shatteredhope, EvilVampireX
#2BrennLMGPosted 11/5/2008 8:21:50 AM
agree 100%. COD 1 & 2 always felt like WWII, with forming front lines and Guns assigned to what nation you were. This game is just disappointing...
#3DodydddPosted 11/5/2008 8:54:22 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#4DodydddPosted 11/5/2008 9:02:00 AM
There are more than enough ways to prove "cod has always been about realism" is false by contradiction (using examples of unrealistic things found strewn all over the MP in Call of Duty games). Call of Duty has never been about realism, this is where you're wrong. Rather they have acheived some degree of realism in order to provide what the real point of the games are, "immersion". They never made the games with "realism" as the main intent/aim. Call of Duty was not made to train soldiers. They're action first person shooter games, not simulators.

How exactly you can judge the realism of the unreleased entire game by playing the beta of the "multiplayer component" (important) is beyond me. Are you aware of the overhead and boringness associated with making it as realistic as you seem to want? You want seperate buttons bound to pull the clip out and put the clip in (as opposed to one reload button), jamming guns, having to go take a piss during the middle of the round (because realistic soldiers have to urinate)? Go wait for Farcry 5.

By adding a bit of realism but adding some unrealistic things at the same time they can make an immersive experience, not a realistic experience. You seem to forget it's a game.

"COD 1 & 2 always felt like WWII, with forming front lines and Guns assigned to what nation you were."

What? What makes you even think they have to do what Call of Duty 1 and 2 did? So Call of Duty 4 is excused from having guns non-static to teams but suddenly this game isn't? Forming front lines? Have you ever actually played any of the PC Call of Duty games? I'm pretty sure nobody has ever formed front lines on a daily basis in pub servers in the history of PC gaming.
#5BrennLMGPosted 11/5/2008 12:11:30 PM
On these maps people kinda seem to be everywhere, same with COD4(maybe not as much as WaW). It seemed like in COD 1 and 2 the two teams seemed to push each other back and fourth out of there spawn, you always knew where the mass amount of enemy's where. In this game you never know where to look they are everywhere behind you in front of you beside you. Doesn't seem like WW2 at all.

In COD4 it was necessary to have a pool of weapons to choose from because it would be completely unfair for the OpFor (assumed middle eastern) sides to only get to choose from such a small variety of weapons. In WW2 each nation had its OWN and UNIQUE set of weapons, therefore giving a large variety of weapons, and giving you a feeling of "right now I am an American soldier using a M1 Garand fighting Wehrmacht soldiers" this just gives you such a cooler feeling then "i am an American soldier using a MP40 fighting the Japanese in the pacific". There is a difference in what is realistic and what makes sense. Basically, right now whatever team you choose doesn't mean anything, they are all the same.
#6DodydddPosted 11/5/2008 6:45:34 PM
"On these maps people kinda seem to be everywhere, same with COD4(maybe not as much as WaW). It seemed like in COD 1 and 2 the two teams seemed to push each other back and fourth out of there spawn, you always knew where the mass amount of enemy's where. In this game you never know where to look they are everywhere behind you in front of you beside you. Doesn't seem like WW2 at all."

Except this is a known problem with the beta. Errant spawn points that are fixed for either the full version or the first update to the full version. The developers have publicly acknowledged this. What's the problem here?

"In COD4 it was necessary to have a pool of weapons to choose from because it would be completely unfair for the OpFor (assumed middle eastern) sides to only get to choose from such a small variety of weapons."

Why would they have a small variety of weapons? They have a massive amount of weapons they can use (old Russian throwbacks) and other weapons that could be considered easily accessible.

"There is a difference in what is realistic and what makes sense."

Well that's subjective don't you think? Everything makes sense.

Fact: Treyarch designed the game so any team can use any weapon, no weapons are locked to a specific team.

That make sense to me, what doesn't make sense about it? That it wasn't like that in real life? Which is the "it's not realistic" argument by logic.

"Basically, right now whatever team you choose doesn't mean anything, they are all the same."

So what? Are you implying that a side should have some kind of benefit? Aren't they supposed to feel the same?
#7Ricka-the-RekkaPosted 11/6/2008 4:29:29 AM

Germans did have scopes for their MP44 tho. But the MP44 in WaW is nothing like the MP44 in CoD4, its quiet a joke the aiming is terrible and looks badly designed, and also sounds rubbish

#8Postal_GuyPosted 11/7/2008 8:48:20 AM

lol CoD has always gotten the name MP44 wrong... its an STG44 (Sturm Gewehr)

kinda funny they never fixed that

#9Ricka-the-RekkaPosted 11/7/2008 8:57:07 AM

both mean the same MP - Machine Pistol 44

Sturm Gewehr - Assault Rifle

i beleive it came out the factory called MP44 but Hitler renamed it STG44.

#10morpheus077Posted 11/8/2008 1:57:34 PM

cod has always been about realism?

lmfaoooooooooooooooooooooooooo