• Hi Guest. Welcome to the new forums. All of your posts and personal messages have been migrated. Attachments (i.e. images) and The (Old) Classifieds have been wiped.

    The old forums will be available for a couple of weeks should you wish to grab old images or classifieds listings content. Go Here

    If you have any issues please post about them in the Forum Feedback thread: Go Here

Games Getting It Wrong..

will try to find it and post here

here it is

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Enfield is mostly an XL64, however there are one or two XL70- parts. Not the EM-2. The EM-2 has absolutely nothing to do with the SA80 project, other than being a bullpup and built in the Enfield factory.

There were multiple prototypes of the XL64 model made, most of which saw trial service. I've seen one or two photos of them on trial in the mid 1970s in N.Ire. There are rumours that a few of the XL60s (64, 65) and the XL70s saw service in the Falklands, but I have seen absolutely no proof of this other than hear-say. So it's sort of time accurate (give or take a year or two), a fully working Enfield is possible, but the Yanks having them? Absolutely not. There's no way in hell that they'd be given to any other nation.

But then as I said 2 pages ago, this is a game where fully functioning AUG A1s are around a good 8 years before the first paper design existed, or having fully functional thermal cameras...

As for that expert, I'm sure I read on one gaming website last year (Escapist and or Ko-thingy) that he wad outed as a fraud who had no real military experience and had been writing books for years. (But I may be mistaking him for another military consultant in games)

 
wouldnt supprise me, i mean ljust play the game and it will tell you, the only thing they got right about any type of war zone, is that there are guns and bullets, thats all they got right

 
having fully functional thermal cameras...

As for that expert, I'm sure I read on one gaming website last year (Escapist and or Ko-thingy) that he wad outed as a fraud who had no real military experience and had been writing books for years. (But I may be mistaking him for another military consultant in games)

Oh and I'm sure that although they had colour TV, a camera spike like that?

and has anyone mentioned how the L96 traveled back intime from 1982???

If he had been i wouldn't be surplrised as he didn't seem too concerned about getting stuff wrong but had a quick google and it doesn't look like it

 
Like I said, I know one popular FPS's military advisor turned out to be a fake (and had also been a consultant on a few films, and he had personally written several books on special operations warfare in 'Nam) but I'm not 100% certain it is that specific guy (I'm only saying this to avoid slander/libel.... etc)

In other news, Andy McNab wrote some of the plot for BF3, and is also their technical consultant.

 
the one thing that f*cking anoys me about Battlefield, RPGS and carl gustaves, tehy are not homing missiles.........RPG its a line of sight grenade for f*ck sake, and the carl gustave. its a fires a shell not a rocket.

 
suddenly BF isn't that godly! (and comence angry replies)

but i think we can all agree that the most realistic war game out there is mario kart? :D

 
while i do notice things that are done wrong in both games and films im not usualy that bothered if im honest, a game can never ever be realistic no matter what they do so i would rarther they made things look cooler/play better

for people who do like more realistic games i found battlefield 2 reality mod to be the best as they put a system where having bullets fly pastyour head darkens your screen giving you no choice but to duck for cover to be able to see again thus making suppressive fire etc actualy work!

 
anything that tries to be realistic is going to get things wrong, i just love battlefield because its just in all a brilliant attempt, as they actually mix all aspect into the game, unlike most where choppers tanks ect are killstreaks.

I just like getting a huge team together who spec in differnt areas and taking full advantage of those, like having a guy who is good at flying choppers can drop of a full squad airbourn style, or you can move in with boats and have a fwe guys in tanks doing artillery stikes and a few others with snipers covering your flank, and the maps are actually lagre enough to actually make full use of a sniper rifle. unlike COD where every map is a CQB map no larger then a council house. where a quick greande throw will reach across the map.

 
I find the single player rainbow six vegas to be rather good attempt

 
i love raibow six, altough majority of my time in that game was spent place c4 on rails then zipping down to blow my self off the map, too much fun

 
Pre-Vegas, the Rainbow series were amongst the most 'realistic' FPS around. I'm not saying there were the most, just because I didn't play enough FPSs around that time.

By the Vegas/V2 sub-series, they've lost some of the realism. Which to be honest, I agree with - they made it a little easier to play at the expense of some of the overly obsessive gameplay (such as putting the 3rd person cover bit in, the extra-magazine capacity, the ridiculous plot for V2...).

That said, when you set the difficulty to high, it's still one of the most realistic on the market.

Love using L85-ACOG as my long-arm, and MP5 with hi-cap for short range. Fun game.

 
what I love about R6V2 is you can make your own loudout, I made a Black Hawk Down one witht the M4 and 500 tactical (had to have a bit of creative licence) but normally i use the L85 or MP7 for CQB (both with hi-caps) with either the M4 (ACOG) or G3 (X6) or one of the LMGs

even on easy a sniper will still kill in one shot and most of the time other guns will aswell

 
while i do notice things that are done wrong in both games and films im not usualy that bothered if im honest, a game can never ever be realistic no matter what they do so i would rarther they made things look cooler/play better
for people who do like more realistic games i found battlefield 2 reality mod to be the best as they put a system where having bullets fly pastyour head darkens your screen giving you no choice but to duck for cover to be able to see again thus making suppressive fire etc actualy work!
BF3 has that PR suppression fire screen blur thing, so it ought to be pretty good.

It's the only game I'll be buying this year aside from Gears 3 for the campaign.

 
I think the cocking handle on the PSG1 was on the wrong side in Metal Gear Solid 2 and lets face it Airsofts like it when the guns aren't licensed because we get to play are 2nd favorite game

Name the Gun and B!tch about it :P

P.S. TF2 Forever

tf2_big.jpg


Just playing but it is a fun game and i dont see the point in fighting over the games until there out then we split into BF3 and MW3 and all meet up skirmish

 
Back
Top