Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
7/16/2007 10:57:09 AM EDT
Anyone figure out why the UMP in counterstrike sucks so much, but the MP5 is so much better?

I still can't figure it out. The MP5 hits harder, and is more accurate despite the UMP being .45 and the MP5 9mm...


I just don't get the guns in that game. They make no sense.
7/16/2007 11:16:34 AM EDT
[#1]
As far as I can tell the nerds screwed up. I've always felt that the P90 was strangely underpowered as well. but then again it never really was "that" realistic. Take for instance the fact that your life is based on the 100% principle, and that every shot takes away from the percentage instead of causing real damage to the particular part you where shot in.

All I can say is the guys who made the game tried, but not hard enough.

7/16/2007 11:51:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Another wierd one. Pistols do more damage per shot than the automatic weapons.

Something FPS's always screw up.


FN Five-Seven pistol does more damage than a shot from the FN-P90, yet they fire the same round, and the FN-P90 has a higher muzzle velocity due to barrel length.


Or why a Galil does more damage than a AR15. ETC.
7/16/2007 1:44:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Because CS Sucks.
7/16/2007 2:11:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Considering CS originally came out nearly 10 years ago AND that it was one of the first games of it's type (online, 'non-deathmatch' style play with real tactical-esque type gameplay) I'd say it's pretty good.

BUT, if you want more realistic (but not entireley realistic) gameplay - try the new Rainbow Six Vegas multiplayer...
7/16/2007 2:43:52 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
Considering CS originally came out nearly 10 years ago AND that it was one of the first games of it's type (online, 'non-deathmatch' style play with real tactical-esque type gameplay) I'd say it's pretty good.

BUT, if you want more realistic (but not entireley realistic) gameplay - try the new Rainbow Six Vegas multiplayer...


No where near the first.

Thing is, most of these mods/games are made by armchair commandos who think they know all about firearms.  Also, there is the whole balancing issue.  CS is not well balanced, the designers also took the weapons they liked the best, and made them most powerful, ie the MP5 and Desert Eagle.
7/17/2007 7:29:39 AM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Considering CS originally came out nearly 10 years ago AND that it was one of the first games of it's type (online, 'non-deathmatch' style play with real tactical-esque type gameplay) I'd say it's pretty good.

BUT, if you want more realistic (but not entireley realistic) gameplay - try the new Rainbow Six Vegas multiplayer...


No where near the first.

Thing is, most of these mods/games are made by armchair commandos who think they know all about firearms.  Also, there is the whole balancing issue.  CS is not well balanced, the designers also took the weapons they liked the best, and made them most powerful, ie the MP5 and Desert Eagle.




Thats why COD4 is gonna be amazing.  I just watched an interview with the weapons consultant to COD4, who also helped make it.  Then I watched another interview with the lead developers and how they said they really wanted to make the weapons as real and accurate as possible.  For instance, they said for their sounds they used the actual weapons at ranges and set up tons of microphones.  For animations such as reloaded and things as simply and running with a weapon they took videos of trained professionals doing this so they could copy it.  Oh, and they fired most of the guns they are using in the game.  COD4 will be the best FPS ever.


+1; Not to mention that Counter Strike was originally a MOD - made by TWO guys. Not a professional game - an amateur mod...
7/17/2007 11:01:59 AM EDT
[#7]
I still laugh every time I reload the M4 and the animation has you pulling back on the forward assist to charge the weapon!

7/21/2007 11:30:58 PM EDT
[#8]
In fact, the very essence of CS:S is the fact that the UMP sucks, among other things.

It's a very arcady game; fast paced and simple...for instance, as my friend said, the games damage meter is based on a 100% amount, and bullets minus from a percentage rather than real damage. It's definitely a fun game, but it's just that; a game...not a war-simulator like some might call Americas Army, and Insurgency... and evens thats a long assed stretch.

Personally, I like Insurgency more out of all of 'em.

hic
7/21/2007 11:50:03 PM EDT
[#9]
one word ARMA
7/22/2007 12:04:36 AM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:
Anyone figure out why the UMP in counterstrike sucks so much, but the MP5 is so much better?

I still can't figure it out. The MP5 hits harder, and is more accurate despite the UMP being .45 and the MP5 9mm...


I just don't get the guns in that game. They make no sense.


1) Because the game was written by 14yo kids... Well, the original CS anyway...

2) Because everybody wears body armor....

3) Because it would 'unbalance' the game (and because they do not know how) to model body armor and 5.7mm performance against such realistically...
7/22/2007 12:29:56 AM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Considering CS originally came out nearly 10 years ago AND that it was one of the first games of it's type (online, 'non-deathmatch' style play with real tactical-esque type gameplay) I'd say it's pretty good.

BUT, if you want more realistic (but not entireley realistic) gameplay - try the new Rainbow Six Vegas multiplayer...


No where near the first.

Thing is, most of these mods/games are made by armchair commandos who think they know all about firearms.  Also, there is the whole balancing issue.  CS is not well balanced, the designers also took the weapons they liked the best, and made them most powerful, ie the MP5 and Desert Eagle.


The first games to do that was the ORIGINAL Rainbow Six and Delta Force...