What are some of the biggest pet peeves you notice in video games?

Mine is shotguns, I've yet to play an FPS that has a realistic shotgun. All of them have crap range even though a modern shotgun can fire up to 500 meters away effectively.

What are some of the biggest pet peeves you notice in video games?

Mine is shotguns, I've yet to play an FPS that has a realistic shotgun. All of them have crap range even though a modern shotgun can fire up to 500 meters away effectively.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. If you are using a slug round it will be effective but not 500m effective. Keep in mind thats half a f*cking kilomiter which is not as short as you think. And, IIRC, an M16 has an effective range (point target) of 600 meters, and (please correct me if I'm wrong) an area range of about 800 metets. I doubt a slug shotgun can reach that range.

Also in most games, they tend to use buckshot/spreadshot rounds in shotguns over slugs, this again greatly reduces the range and damage (at log ranges) as the individual pellets spread furthur apart over a distance.

My biggest pet peeve in most video games is the lack of story. It seems to be a recent trend (in some of the big franchises) to half-ass the story and focus on the multiplayer. Some games are understandable (Counter-Strike for example) but other games need it. The older CoDs (World at War, Call of Duty 1-4) all were brilliant because of the story, but now the series is sh*t and I wouldn't go near them unless I was to get paid for it.

Hell, I'm a bit worried about Battlefront because EA told DICE to focus more on the multiplayer than the story. Hopefully, DICE won't listen to EA, but we will find out in November.

Slug ammo on planetside 2 sg is pretty beast, like M1 garrand from bad company 2, kills most infantry in 2-3 shots, post nerf, pellets can kill in 1 shot but the versatality/range of running slugs outweighs the 1 ohk of limited range, the argument goes is why can you tank 10 of my 7.62 rounds at center mass but your sg can ohk me out to X meters, it's a legit argument in gaming, the rifle users have a point there

Theres always world war 2 online (PC) for the most extreme of realism but that said realism is also the reason that war sim is so niche/obscure

I'll have to check WW2-O

Rifled slugs for a shotgun can fire up to 750 meters (although not accurately) and I've personally seen someone grab a deer at 450 meters with one.

Technically any round fired from any gun can go 750 meters inaccurately. So your point of moot. Also you witnessed a rare shot with someone who has remarkable skill After 100 meters, the slug slows down which reduces killing potential as well the drop of the round. At 450 meters, that is the max killing range (unless you are lucky as f*ck) as opposed to my example earlier (the M16) has a potential radius of 1.5ks.

For hunting purposes, slugs would be best (due to safety reasons). For CQC and War type senarios (ie. Video Games) buck shot is best. You want to kill someone at long range in a video game? Use a damn rifle.

The point is, they don't stop after 15 meters like nearly every videogame has them stop.

The shotguns in New Vegas are realistic.

They are great, but fallout isn't an FPS, its an RPG.

My pet peeve is re-spawning. It's unrealistic. It sends our children the wrong message.

Shotguns in PvZ are pretty good. Do great damage up close, some damage at a distance, but is very inaccurate and only really decent with an immobile target at distance.

My pet peeve is random battles/grinding. Not so much Dust's version of grinding, because its not too bad, but particularly in RPGs where you find yourself having to grind pointless battles for hours just in order to get to where you need to be in terms of experience to make it through the story.