raskolnikov_22
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 210
Call of Duty 4 is too short, but has some great missions-sniping in Russia with a .50 for instance, or infiltrating a cargo ship and wiping out the crew as they sleep hehe.
RoostRider said:I have one better......
At a range near here there was a projector screen that recorded where your real gun, real bullets went. It was linked with video on the screen to record hits and score you. There were several different 'games' you could play including 'old west' shooting scenarios to attacking dogs to target/speed practice.
It was a lot of fun, but then the owner of the range went to prison for many and varied offenses and the new owners don't use it.....
I have no idea what it was called aside from 'lots of fun' from everyone who used it.
The next time you shoot at a paper target, remember you said this.They are fantasy worlds with fictional consequences.
Did you ever watch a movie?They are fantasy worlds with fictional consequences.
You're not seriously equating actual target shooting with a video game are you?!!?
Seriously?!? What part of your video games improves your accuracy, stance?
Can anyone tell me how video/computer games discussions are firearms related (beyond their inherent inaccuracies depicting firearms and shooting)?
It's a too much of a stretch to compare a FATS training system with some FPS on a Wi. Having done both as well as having trained FOF with simunitions (where mistakes HURT) there's not much that I see in common between real training (simunition, airsoft and real simulator training) and these games.
Those who claim that video games provide any type of real world discipline are a lot like those who complain about movie mistakes. Both are fake, fictitious, fantasy, but there will always be people who want to believe in them.
Im guessing then that any type of "computer simulated combat" could be construed as useless, based on what you say.