Unwieldy weapons, or a lack thereof

From the FPS thread in IJBM. In real life, the primary attraction of smaller weapons (knives, pistols, SMGs, sawed-offs, etc…) is their ability to be carried through cramped spaces where longer weapons would tend to snag on the surroundings or require awkward waving around to fit past obstructions, with a secondary advantage of being easier to rapidly aim. In games on the other hand, they're usually PVP Balanced by offering increased running speed, higher rate of fire (!), or greater accuracy (!?).

Problem is, I can't really think of or recall a good way to model the maneuverability granted by different sizes of weapons in-game, at least beyond the simple cap on running speed common now. In a turn-based game, I can sort of imagine an accuracy and fumble penalty on some types of terrain, but for something more visceral like a shooter I'm drawing a blank.

Well, if games other than FPSes are allowed, try picking up a Moblin's spear in The Legend Of Zelda The Wind Waker. In most places, it will hit a wall stopping your attack dead in its tracks.

edited 4th Nov '10 9:45:54 AM by Medinoc

Realism is not a good thing. The main reason realism is a bad thing is because people think its a good thing, for the wrong reasons. Lets say you are playing something like Co D 1: You are driving a tank. The tank can burn, and it will burn if it have low amounts of HP left, but it will only burn if there is a player inside it. Lets say you chase after somebody in an attempt to run them down, they run past a small pinetree, and you can'f follow anymore. In RL, the tank would have crushed over ran over the tree, possibly the same with the house, which would likely also collaps from hits of the artillery. The tank would either burn, or it would not burn. No, what they want is FEATURES. They want to be able to run over those trees, not because it makes sense(it does IR thou), but because it would be better. The same could be said about any genre: RL beats it by sheer feature amount, and usage of it, etc..... While the game sometimes got stupid and broken limitations(lets not forget [The Computer Is a Cheating Bastard]).

Well, i think the easiest solution would be to make make too heavy weapons act like it: They are too heavy even when worn on the back. And add in some fun gameplay elements to counterbalance, such as a [Macross Missile Massacre multimissile launcher that lacks proper aim direction]. Total encumberment affect speed could be fun, if the entire equipment section is properly balanced, otherwise it could turn into a unbalanced mess of ninjas running circles around anything. Perhaps dropping all equipment besides a knife and a light pistol should result in wallcliming or something, as a different funny tactic?

Medinoc, now that I think about it, CQC weapons' bulkiness are mostly covered by attack speed in games. I suppose a time point penalty on the first shot at a moving or new target location would also work this way for guns in turn based games…

I can't remember which game it was but mobility adjusted how much you lost your aim when looking/moving around. Like with a high mobility weapon you could make a 180 turn and the crosshair would get twice as big but with a low mobility weapon it would get 4 times as big.

I think this video of Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad will interest you (around 3:00).

Wow, that's extremely cool.