Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games

Real-Life Equivalents of Video Game Weapons 137

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-give-me-a-rocket-launcher dept.
antdude writes "This GamesRadar article compares a bunch of fantastic video game weapons and their real-life equivalents: 'There are certain things we just accept in video games. An overweight pipe technician can jump five times his own height. A first aid kit will instantly heal bullet wounds and replace lost blood. And any theoretical physics model can be cleanly packaged into a lightweight, handheld weapon with a minimum of fuss. But in certain cases, that last one isn't too far off the truth. As guano loopy as most game weaponry is, some of it definitely isn't implausible. In fact, some of it exists already. Kind of.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real-Life Equivalents of Video Game Weapons

Comments Filter:
  • by lyinhart (1352173) on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:32AM (#31228116)
    The article doesn't features game with actual weapons like Call of Duty, it instead features weapons that don't actually exist yet as they are portrayed in games. I hope someone else does a comparison with how weapons work in Modern Warfare 2 with their real-life counterparts, kind of like how Top Gear did comparisons with Gran Turismo and real life cars.
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:09AM (#31228326)

    This list was about sci-fi/non-real weapons that in fact DO have at least a somewhat functioning real counterpart. It wasn't about real weapons that are in games. However in general, whining about real weapons not being real enough in games is silly. Games are, well, games. They aren't meant to be real. Things are done in the interest of fun. One thing you see extremely commonly is that magazines are magical. That is to say if you do a tactical reload, you keep all the ammunition that was in that mag, yet every one you insert in to the weapon is full. Of course the real world doesn't work that way, but pissing around with loading magazines is boring in a game. It is done for fun and gameplay, not for realism.

    However, I will give you your point on the M1 clip issue precisely because being able to do tactical reloads makes a game more fun. In general, I like games where you can reload your weapon as often as you like. Fire one bullet and take a guy down? Reload. The point of limited magazines/clips in a game is so that you can't just hose down enemies continuously, not to be perfectly real. So yes, it makes sense to allow you to swap out the clip in an M1 when you like.

  • Medipack (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmuslera (3436) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:19AM (#31228414) Homepage Journal
    One thing that share futuristic video games with not so futuristic (i.e. from WWII and other wars) are "magical" medipacks,you get them and no matter what hits you (knives, grenades, a lot of bullets,some maybe in the head) you end with full health. Of all video games "weapons", that should be the one that would make a big difference for all.
  • by Rich0 (548339) on Monday February 22, 2010 @11:56AM (#31229942) Homepage

    Yup - at significant speeds impacts are quite impressive.

    That's why I was scratching my head at the Day the Earth Stood Still remake. In the beginning there is a ship detected flying towards earth. Somewhere in the dialog or on a display or something it was indicated that it was moving at some significant fraction of c - maybe 10-20% or something. Then they start talking about where it will land with the goal of sending in a science team to be there when it arrives. The science team is surprised that it apparently decelerated before landing so there was no big crater or anything.

    Now, if I were in a science team and I found out that an object of significant size (in this case significant means bigger than a grain of sand) was flying towards the Earth at 20% of c, the last place I'd want to be is within 1000 miles of the impact point, and for that matter within 1000 miles of the point on the Earth opposite the impact point. To be honest, I'd probably prefer just to not be on the Earth at all. However, if I did decide to be at the spot where it would "land" then I wouldn't be shocked to find out it had decelerated - the fact that I was still alive would already confirm this.

The Force is what holds everything together. It has its dark side, and it has its light side. It's sort of like cosmic duct tape.

Working...