Tazer or Flamethrower? Vote Please.

[Farley4Fan]

Papa whatever you do, it may seem like a good idea, and it is - it's also creative, but in the context of this game... I think your going to have to accept that nobody likes the idea, for the many reasons already given.

i agree.  I still fail to see a lot of those 'reasons' but everyone's got their opinion and I'll accept that.  lol, and you can't say nobody likes it. someone voted for flamethrower!!!  ;D

Tidenburg, halo, gears of war, none of the maps burn.  How about call of duty?  Haven't played that one yet.  The only game in recent memory that had a flamethrower that had a severe effect on the environment was far cry 2 - and as far as I know it was a revolution for fire in games.  I would have no problem with nothing on the map burning.  A little black smear would look fine and even that's not needed.

[Tidenburg]

I don't remember a flame-thrower in Gears? Halo's flamethrower left flames on the floor and Call of Duty has the full blown interaction like Far Cry.

:REMEMBERED GEARS:
It left flames like in halo and people could get burnt by flaming corpses.

[frvge]

I voted for flamethrower.

[LennardF1989]

Lennard, don't target me next time you try to change someone's attitude. 

I actually named you because that's my feedback to you... I could repeat it now, but I'm a lazy (like most programmers, hehe).

[Farley4Fan]

I don't remember a flame-thrower in Gears? Halo's flamethrower left flames on the floor and Call of Duty has the full blown interaction like Far Cry.

:REMEMBERED GEARS:
It left flames like in halo and people could get burnt by flaming corpses.

Sorry.  It's in gears of war 2 - should have made that a little clearer.  Sure, there were some burning effects by the flamethrower but it was a full-blown massive flame thrower, lol.  I'm suggesting a short flame burst.  It does not need to burn anything accept people. 

[Tidenburg]

But think about it really, why would anyone ever make a flamethrower with _that_ small a canister per shot? It's completely nonsensical and unless the credit crunch is hitting the Mercs hard then there would be no explanation for it.

As we learnt with SC:Convictions, you shouldn't fix what ain't broken. ;)

[Spark Mandriller]

But think about it really, why would anyone ever make a flamethrower with _that_ small a canister per shot?

So security guards can use it to knock out intruders!



This idea sucks stop talking about it already fuck.

[Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet]

How about spreading some cam-gas  in the spies face to let them taste their own stuff? :P

[I <3 U]

Huh?

[Farley4Fan]

But think about it really, why would anyone ever make a flamethrower with _that_ small a canister per shot? It's completely nonsensical and unless the credit crunch is hitting the Mercs hard then there would be no explanation for it.

As we learnt with SC:Convictions, you shouldn't fix what ain't broken. ;)

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that people are stuck too far up in realism.  Still.  Even after all the talking we all did about 'who cares about realism?' I still see people going "well is this 100% plausible in our world?"  Probably not completely, but it's a friggin game and people STILL (emphasis on the surprised still) want to copy reality.  Soooo lame. 

[Tidenburg]

You're grasping at straws for any defence you can find for this idea now aren't you? To be frank, I don't give two shits about realism. If the game's fun then that's all that matters, but how would you feel if I said we should change the Mercs gun for a water pistol but it shoots water in small canisters which are so compressed it does exactly the same as a normal gun. Your first arguments would be:

-It's an unnecasary change, which actually changes nothing.
-It's an unpheasable replacement for an already pheasable item.
-It doesn't fit with PS's atmosphere.

Just drop it already.

[LennardF1989]

You're grasping at straws for any defence you can find for this idea now aren't you? To be frank, I don't give two shits about realism. If the game's fun then that's all that matters, but how would you feel if I said we should change the Mercs gun for a water pistol but it shoots water in small canisters which are so compressed it does exactly the same as a normal gun. Your first arguments would be:

-It's an unnecasary change, which actually changes nothing.
-It's an unpheasable replacement for an already pheasable item.
-It doesn't fit with PS's atmosphere.

Just drop it already.

QFE

Although, a bit of realism isn't wrong. Probably the whole community would go crazy if we make both the spy and merc superhumans which can jump unrealistic heights and move around with the speed of light.

[Spark Mandriller]

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that people are stuck too far up in realism.

Sacrificing realism for a reason is one thing. Sacrificing realism to implement a retarded idea when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative available? That's just dumb.

Making spies able to instantly heal off any wounds by using a healthbox isn't particularly realistic, but it makes the game better, so it's okay.
Making the sky green, just because, is stupid. It doesn't add anything other than stupidity. It's not okay.

Now tell me, does your idea add anything other than stupidity? Please tell me if it does!




Also, I've got to ask, why are you defending your idea so persistently even though it's obvious that nobody likes it? Do you see people rejecting it as rejecting you? Are you desperate to contribute something to the game, no matter what? Why is it so important to you?

[LennardF1989]

You are being a little hypocratic IMO. You always have been very defensive towards new gadgets/weapons (as in, "no one likes it, so stop defending it"), why are you doing exactly the same thing now?

[Spark Mandriller]

hypocratic

Like doctors!