Arguably same as blood spatter, quite sure you dont become blind if you get shot on toe but it was there to force ppl do the what should be done “realisticly” aka seek cover.
And in ww2 it took 25? - 50k? rounds / per kill. Cone of fire probably got quite close to those “realistic” numbers.
Choose the jan -16 / - july 17 the closer u get the -17 the more and more you get reviews of terrible “forced” realism gameplay.
Oh yes almost forgot the stamina of ~320kg human with serious case with asthma.
Even in enlisted most (if not all) “muh realism” ppl agree it’s not realistic.
Only ppl who are against realism say it’s realistic to prove their point.
Still mostly technicall stuff and a lot of angry asians I won’t bother to translate.
Do they ? Could have sworn it took about 700 posts to finally switch them to talk about immersion.
Theres not a single game that is realistic if we go down to nitpicking.
Regardless how unrealistic the features of hng were they were there to force more “realistic” approach to gameplay.
Daym, i suppose we have different reviews in steam then.
One possible difference here might be that H&G is not advertised for “realism” at beginning, unlike Enlisted, so they generally attract different group of players. The concept of realism is neither correct nor wrong, but sharp change of concept that attract initial players is usually risky.
I could have sworn almost everbody agreed dispersion update was shit.
You made 2 arguments about how “realisitc” H&G was.
Also you argue that those 2 “realistic” features caused H&G to fail and you ignore techncal problems, ballance, economy, grind etc.
So I wonder who is nitpicking.
I’d argue that many things that make H&G more realistic than BF for example, were there since the very beggining.
So it’s a problem of forcing ppl and doing it badly.
Quite sure I spoke about realism and forced realism approach, dont recall ever saying that game generally was realistic.
Game can have elements that forces “realism” regardless the game isnt realistic.
And as we know by now it never suited this exact game.
MMM no, no they werent.
Attempting to force ppl to play in more realistic approach.
Sure, differency was that blood spatter made you almost blind aka you were literally forced to seek cover rather than continue the combat.
I still dont see the realism here since its just another shitty made visual.
I also dont see how their blood visual is realistic since this requires blood to be all over your face which is not really likely unless you got hit on the neck or face or so which would also mean that you got headshoted/ dead or getting closely hit by explosives.
You get hit, you seek cover in this exact case you are forced to do so.
Quite sure this is how majority of people would react in situation when they get hit.
I dont recall saying it was realistic. Rather forcing realism to gameplay.
Sure it had numerous issues, forced “realism” to gameplay -16 / -17 were by far biggest changes at that time.
Which had by far biggest impact to gameplay that simply became shit.
Im not gonna suffer through old devstreams and read through some years old news articles of the former master pleb of a bankrupt company so you can prove your point.
So far I saw only one comment speaking about realism in tons of comments about technicall issues.
By any means it wasn’t the biggest problem. Big? Maybe, but not the biggest.
This is your answer.
So I find it quite pointless to go thru the effort.
If this matter actually intrests you, I gave you the source to learn more.
Theres also the HNG Forums were this kind of matters are spoken by far more.
As well as you can exclude the players with less than 20h in steam reviews.