Why don't video games ever have realistic shotguns?

Why don't video games ever have realistic shotguns?

Attached: shotgun.png (600x481, 238.12K)

blame doom

Because it's less fun to just have another rifle. And shotguns don't have multiple cones videogames, it's just 1 cone.

if everything behaved realistically it wouldn't make for a fun game

cop out answer

The EVA-8 in Titanfall 2 worked realistically. In fact it's range combined with it's choke was so good they had to widen the spread in a later update.

most devs didn't become devs by being well versed in gun physics. even if they do I can still see multiple arguments for using the status quo.

>We need to balance everything to the point it's all useless
It's not about realism mate.

video game combat happens at unrealistically close distances, which means that semi auto shotguns would always be the best choice if devs didn’t nerf them. In real life you need to be able to engage from 3m to 300m

Any shooters that use realistic shotguns as the "default" gun as opposed to assault rifles?

how would that be any different than a game with a bolt action rifle that 1 shots you

Is it still good?

These. Shotguns act like they do in games for balancing purposes and to make the games more interesting. They would be obscenely good if they were realistically portrayed and invalidate many other ranged options.

/thread

NOOO MY REALISMRINO YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE FUN IT GOTTA BE SERIOUS BUSINESS

Team Fortress 2

Last I played it was still good.

this entire thread is >hasn't played anything but cawadoody

Attached: 1560177962631.gif (350x273, 1001.31K)

>invalidate many other ranged options
Pellets wouldn't be penetrating the armor plates

Faster reload per shot, bumpfire, semiauto.

Because most games aren't designed for the ranges where a shotgun's downsides would matter you stupid fuck

Attached: SHIT THREAD.jpg (874x547, 95.42K)

Or Tarkovfags who unironically think that game "did shotguns/guns right"

Rising Storm and Rising Storm 2. We can stop discussing it now.

not an argument

>NO WE CANT MAKE SHOTGUNS POWERFUL THAT WOULD BE UNBALANCED
>Why yes, lets make assault rifles good at every range and every situation

>WE NEED TO NERF SHOTGUNS

This has always been the worst answer ever.

Either make shotguns natural or remove them from the game entirely.
I can write a scenario right now where having a shotgun doesn't have to be nerfed.

>be in video game
>have shotgun
>limited ammo (Resident Evil)

>be in video game
>have shotgun
>specific loadout where the rest of the loadout is balanced (TLoU)

I fucking hate you newfags who always use the may may response of "it's for balance".
No, it's just bad design.

This is the real issue especially in RPGs. There's almost never a reason to use anything other than an AR.

They generally have worse hipfire performance, shut the fuck up.

how the fuck can you be so autistic about shotguns
there's a billion unrealistic things in any videogame and you bitch about shotguns?

Red Orchestra
Red Orchestra 2
Rising Storm
Rising Storm 2
Insurgency
Insurgency Sandstorm
Escape from Tarkov
Project Reality
ARMA 2
ARMA 3

Stop making this thread

Attached: 3.png (654x658, 424.78K)

lol

but the shotgun in doom is like a sniper

The one thing I liked about overwatch was the fatty's shotgun. Of course it's stupid as shit, but it was immensely satisfying properly gauging the distance and effectively getting a point-blank hit because of it. When you nailed it, people would just fucking disappear.

>Double barrel
>Pump
>Semi
>But NO auto

Attached: 1584197748216.png (158x237, 89.68K)

wow, i can't hipfire with the weapon that excels when properly aimed. what will i ever do

the USAS-12 is now a battle pickup dude

Why dont armies use them more if they are so great?

Use it in a different situation? Meaning it doesn't excel in every situation, which is the statement I'm countering?

>it's range

Attached: 1574707864768.gif (300x300, 655.88K)

>red orchestra 1 and 2
>shotguns
havent played them in forever but didnt the ruskies and krauts never use shotguns?

Because real-life armies don't generally fight at "unrealistically close distances"?

Real life combat doesn’t involve guys running around bunny hopping and hip firing at each other from 10 feet away.

Games never have large enough spaces or realistic damage models/health systems.

Armor penetration. Ammo size/weight.

Because rifles (just like in games) are better in every situation.

What game do rifles outperform shotguns at point blank?

>Real life combat doesn’t involve guys running around bunny hopping and hip firing at each other from 10 feet away.
Someone flunked out of basic.

Attached: 1565503778068.jpg (1024x606, 129.74K)

>Rising Storm 1 and have realistic shotguns
>somehow doesn't break the game
Shotguns being melee weapons is just bad game design, no excuse

or maybe i can adjust my aim and prepare myself before engaging any situation, regardless of my weapon choice? you shouldn't be relying on hipfire or reckless aiming with any gun.

Because modern doctrine is all about shooting niggers from as far away as possible.

there's a trench gun with realistic behaviour

siege because unlike every other weapon in game shotguns don't insta-kill on headshot and turn into popcorn pretty quickly when leaving close range distances

Technology and doctrine advanced quickly following WWI. Trench warfare was the shotgun's time to shine as a Frontline weapon, and it did so well that nations protested it's use in "civilized" warfare.

However, even in WWI, volume of fire proved to be the name of the game, and this was something shotguns did not provide.

Shotguns are still effective in the right situation
e.g. see every smoke player in pro league getting multiple kills on stairs

the engagement distances you have in a videogame are far different than in most modern military conflicts, at those distances shotguns are usually better and when military's know they will be fighting in extremely close quarters only they do use shotguns but for most operations since you don't know how the fighting will go down it is better to carry around a single type of weapon which will usually be the rifle.

Because games don't have firefights at realistic ranges.

>it did so well that nations protested it's use in "civilized" warfare.
lmao wrecked

>you shouldn't be relying on hipfire or reckless aiming with any gun.
Why not? If you're using a good gun for it, it's accurate enough and faster and you're faster. It's better suited to a specific playstyle. That's like saying you should always stay still because snipers suck otherwise.

I always thought the name shotgun was weird, wouldn't shootgun make a whole lot more sense?

>birdshoot
>buckshoot
Dumbass

You mean the same doom that actually had a shotgun act like a shotgun?

It doesn't shoot fucking guns. It shoots shot, as opposed to bullets.

It's amazing how the sci-fi drum-fed pump-action shotgun is still one of the most 'realistic' performing shotguns around.

>fires flechette shells to justify fucking up sci-fi armor
>justifiably fucks niggas at a good distance instead of tickling them when pass 10m
>fills an actual niche other guns can't fit

Attached: Clark_15-B_Shotgun.png (1596x1056, 256.06K)

it's called a shotgun because the pellets are called shot

How much shot could a shotgun shoot if a shotgun could shoot shot?

The origianl Doom had the shotgun fire in a line which is as you can see in the graphic above, realistic enough. Maybe the Super Shotgun is retarded, but then again you never use the Super Shotgun unless you're in close distant fight.

unless your hipfire is just as accurate and controlled as someone with readiness and pin-point accuracy (which is highly unlikely in most games about realistic weaponry), you will get out-gunned.

And what game is this this referring to? I have literally never seen pellets change angle mid-air.

Attached: 1555871067113.png (105x143, 19.73K)