FLAMETHROWERS!!!!!!

[Colodomoko]

Think about it...

Everyone likes a flamethrower and companies like to be competative with eachother.

This is also a good example why most games take place in Africa.

 

[MrEco]

It seems that everyone keeps forgetting that Dead Space has a flamethrower.

 

[WHITE TEMPEST]

it like when next gen first came out every game had water because thye wanted to show off the cool new effects they could do with the new technology flames throwers will be the same they will die out in a year i recon

 

[I III II X4]

Not really. They're also almost totally useless in games. The only flamethrower in a game that accurately portrays why flamethrowers are useful is in MGS3, where the flames erupt quickly through trenches and corridors, burning all.

Oooh, I loved that boss fight!

----

In my opinion, the mother of all fire based weaponry in games can be found in...AC Silent Line, dual flamethrowers, man!

Or if you don't care for close range fiery mayhem, napalm rockets and howitzers are also available!

"Mmmmph hmmph!"

 

[D_987]

Why the fuck do people keep saying Waw had flamethrowers in the series first? ever heard of COD UO?

...maybe its really just not important...

 

[Fizzlewinks]

I hope it does become standard. I'd like Left 4 Dead a lot more if it had a flame thrower. Oh yeah right, plus any game where you lit people on fire is a-ok with me!

Flamethrowers aren't very effective when it comes to zombie.
You still have a zombie.
But he's on fire.

 

[Anstrup]

I hope it does become standard. I'd like Left 4 Dead a lot more if it had a flame thrower. Oh yeah right, plus any game where you lit people on fire is a-ok with me!

Flamethrowers aren't very effective when it comes to zombie.
You still have a zombie.
But he's on fire.

Yeah it was like that in time splitters, zombies are mostly melee so big issues there.

I think a flame thrower can be great. My favourites include:
Timesplitters 2 and 3 (future perfect), it wasn't at all balanced in TS2, it could stick players on fire with great ease, and is the ran into someone, then they would go on fire as well. They only way to save yourself from this to find a spot of water, otherwise youd die. In TS3 it was the same, except that the fire didn't spread by touch.
Gears of war 2, its pretty damn badass in gears, but balanced. The only real issue it has, is the regenerating health, you can scorch someone, se them turn half to ash with burns all over, but as soon as your health returns, burns are all gone.
Best of all is Team Fortress, because its fun, but balanced.

well imo anyway

 

[Are.Oh.Why]

Why the fuck do people keep saying Waw had flamethrowers in the series first? ever heard of COD UO?

UO? Doesn't ring a bell, I remember FH and BR1. Was it a PC exclusive or something?

 

[MrGFunk]

Flamethrowers have been fairly common in FPSs over the years, but I've never really found them to be all that useful.

I agree, I've never liked them in FPS. Probably due to the Timesplitters FlameTag mulitplayer. I like the Flame Plasmid in Bioshock though.

 

[linchowlewy]

Two points, firstly flame throwers shoot so very much further than most games depict, up to 80m, so they are all ways going to be "over powered" IRL the disadvantage was that it made you a slow moving bullet target who had to close to a quarter the range everyone else had also using a realistic flame thrower at CQB distances would be daft as the splash back would light you on fire. Secondly, any weapon that the U.S. voluntarily removed from its arsenal partially due to the negative media effects of its use is probably fairly horrific, so maybe if the flame thrower didn't appear in to many more "realistic" games, or if it does I really hope they hand out insta-kills because that is the stuff of nightmares.

was going to say this but you beat me to it.

basically no game throws in realism with flame-throwers because it would suck ass. everyone would rush to the flame-thrower and then become king of the server with their stream of chaos. that stuck to the ground like napalm and sears everyone in seconds.

also not to mention the other real life disadvantage was the super flammable backpack you were wearing.

 

[cyber_andyy]

They have Flame throwers in the DOW2 beta.

Why the fuck do people keep saying Waw had flamethrowers in the series first? ever heard of COD UO?

UO? Doesn't ring a bell, I remember FH and BR1. Was it a PC exclusive or something?

United offense. Its was the expansion to the original, so I believe it was PC exclusive yes.

 

[JohnSmith]

Two points, firstly flame throwers shoot so very much further than most games depict, up to 80m, so they are all ways going to be "over powered" IRL the disadvantage was that it made you a slow moving bullet target who had to close to a quarter the range everyone else had also using a realistic flame thrower at CQB distances would be daft as the splash back would light you on fire. Secondly, any weapon that the U.S. voluntarily removed from its arsenal partially due to the negative media effects of its use is probably fairly horrific, so maybe if the flame thrower didn't appear in to many more "realistic" games, or if it does I really hope they hand out insta-kills because that is the stuff of nightmares.

was going to say this but you beat me to it.

basically no game throws in realism with flame-throwers because it would suck ass. everyone would rush to the flame-thrower and then become king of the server with their stream of chaos. that stuck to the ground like napalm and sears everyone in seconds.

also not to mention the other real life disadvantage was the super flammable backpack you were wearing.

actually turns out the napalm in the backpack will only ignite due to a particularly lucky tracer round.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Yeah, I actually noticed that trend increasing. Call it better technology, and therefore better fire effects to show off, I guess.

Then why are the flames still 2d?

Because they aren't? COD WAW's flamethrower isn't 2d.

Erm yes it is.

Please define 3d, because I'm confused.