Oh dear, you can't use the sniper rifle as a CQC weapon

Oh god, how terrible. A game actually attempting to balance combat instead of allowing everyone to quickscope everything with sniper rifles.

Atrocious. Horrible.

Seriously, did inXile collectively rape your dog or something?

 

Realism is a non-argument. Every game is an abstraction of reality, every combat system an abstraction of actual combat. Unless you describe what kind of system you want and why it is more realistic than what is proposed, feel free to do so.

On subject, Surf Solar is apparently arguing that quickscoping should be in the game. I prefer Wasteland 2's approach, since it's based on something very realistic: sniper rifles aren't used for close range combat. They aren't suited for it. To use a Dragunov in close combat you'd have to use it without iron sights or remove the scope in combat, thus making it useless as a marksman's rifle. Some sniper rifles don't even feature iron sights.

I really don't see why inXile attempting to introduce distinct weapon roles in accordance with reality is bad. If anything's unrealistic, it's the insistence that rifles designed, built, and used exclusively for long range combat should be perfectly usable in close quarters. Leave quickscoping to CoD kiddies.

 

I see you're in one of your funny moods again. I don't see how that's taking choice away from the player. Sniper rifles are unusable in close combat. How is giving weapons their proper niches and reflecting how weapons behave in real life bad, pray tell?

Not to mention, you're obviously just cherry picking updates and previews just to find things to complain about. Out of nearly 4,000 words, you pick 20 just so that you can attack inXile.

 

No, you get shot in the face while you wrestle with a meter long rifle trying to get an aim at a guy with a submachine gun. That's one of several reasons you don't see military marksmen bunny hopping around the battlefield quickscoping terrorists.

Seriously, you're complaining for the sake of complaining. OH GOD MAH SNIPER CAN'T USE HIS RIFLE IN CLOSE QUARTERS DUMBING DOWN DUMBING DOWN. Your bitching is even more ridiculous when you consider the fact that the problem is solved by taking a few steps back and firing from a distance. Y'know, the article says that, in the bit "too close."

 

Yes, because bitching that something is "not realistic" is meaningless unless you explain how it's supposedly unrealistic and how your proposed solution is somehow more realistic and improves gameplay in a better way.

There is no gameplay benefit to allowing Rangers to quickscope their way to victory. If anything's realistic, it would be giving the enemy a high bonus to accuracy, since, realistically, they would just grab the flailing end of the over a meter long rifle and shoot you in the face.

Simply disallowing the use of a sniper rifle when the opponent is too close is more beneficial, since it reinforces the role of the rifle, emphasizes keeping your marksmen at a distance and gives reason to carry backup weapons in case of close combat. It also provides balance against other weapons, since the sniper rifles, with their high penetration, would effectively rule out other weapons in the field, which is about as divorced from reality and fun gameplay as it gets.

Seriously, your complaints make no sense.

 

Is it really that sniper rifles don't work at all below a certain range or is there a big malus to accuracy? That's not entirely from the wordings of the article in my opinion.
I'd prefer the malus, it still does reflect the role of the weapon and accounts for the fact that there's nothing keeping you from firing the thing from your hip, no matter how inaccurate that might be.
Similar to the scoped hunting rifle in Fallout 2.
I think that is what Surf means.

 

If you want to utilize argumentum ad absurdum, then at least make sure your facts are in order. Fallout and Fallout 2 have plenty of problems with its gameplay. Weapons have no defined niches, aiming penalties for scoped weapons are easily offset by reasonably high skills, to the point of using them in close combat with ease, and there's very little balance among weapons. Hell, shotguns outclass assault rifles.

You would also do well not to put stuff in other people's mouths. The point was that arguing for sniper rifles to be available for use regardless of distance to the enemy, even if they're in your character's face, is essentially arguing for quickscoping a'la Call of Duty, instead of noting that maybe, just maybe, it's done to make this weapon class more distinct.

And you can use them on shorter distances with penalties, you just can't use them if the enemy's too close to your character. But don't let facts get in the way of your tangent.

They don't work if the enemy is too close. Fargo wasn't specific about it, but the example used was the enemy being right next to you. You have to take a couple of steps back to be able to use it.

It's really no problem, Solar's just having one of his days I guess, taking a completely irrelevant point and complaining.

 

The problem was that sniper rifles were stupidly overpowered and had no penalties in close combat in vanilla J.A.2. I remember storming buildings with snipers, because one shot to the head was usually all that was needed.