Well when I was referring to gameplay differences, CS is a very different game than the types of shooters that the developers are always referencing with Huxley. You're talking about the same bullet recoil but the crosshair simply not reflecting it. I think the crosshair SHOULD show where the bullets are going, but for a fast-paced game I think it's better to concede a little inaccuracy for certain weapons (i.e. minigun in UT, which fires in a quasi-accurate area around the center of the crosshair regardless of how long it's firing or how you are moving) in order to allow others to be usable.
I'm not talking about deagles and mp5's here, I'm thinking more along the lines of over the top weapons. If you can imagine UT with recoil, it would be unplayable. It all just depends on gameplay, and most of it revolves around movement. The faster the movement, the less recoil (and especially variable cones of fire) work.
Basically I'm against anything that changes your crosshair in the middle of the game. That's the reason I don't play more realism-based games like BF2 and CS. I know that it's necessary for them to keep the gameplay from being ridiculous. But at the same time, sticking it IN the more sci-fi based shooters would also make it ridiculous. It's a totally different style of play.
Oh and I don't know how different games calculate recoil, but unless a particular gun has the exact same recoil pattern every time, it has an element of luck. Unless you can predict exactly where the crosshair will go after you fire your 1st shot, you're aiming based on percentages. Again it's necessary for certain games, but I don't see it working if they really do want this game to be more fast-paced than others.
|