http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2NGg3KwKNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvttEwnVYcs

edit: ah, here’s the comic vid in higher quality:
http://digitalmindsoft.eu/index.php?id=60&did=53

“Let’s take a piccie of the tank, get bored and walk off.

Whoops we left the Germans inside, doh.”

(Germans blow Russians to pieces, GAME OVAR!!)

(sic)

:)

Which would be disappointing, but Faces of War was pretty fantastic, though. For the doubters, what’s unusual compared to e.g. Company of Heroes is that there’s a manual aiming/moving system which you can take direct control of units with, and then fully modelled locational damage. So you can take over an AT gun and knock out a tank’s treads, for example, instead of activating it as a special ability or hoping for it to trigger as a random ‘critical hit’ or whatever.

Name these ways. Hell, name two.

I’m not sure why everyone thinks people asking for ‘realistic’ means they want ‘exactly like life.’ What people want with ‘realistic’ games is often – no health regen; weapon jams; non-suicidal A.I.; environmental interaction that is meaningful (bushes make noise when crawled through, you can’t just leap over a 12 foot chasm, .50cals go through walls, but 9mm parabellums don’t, etc); weapons that don’t do ‘25′ damage, but do different damage based on where they hit, etc. The idea is that you obviously can’t make a game that perfectly represents how real life works, but you can get close in meaningful ways.

Basically:
Call of Duty – Unrealistic.
Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear – Realistic.

Numbers like penetration, armor values, ballistic and such of things are very important for the realism. It has not sense to kill a tank with guns only because you shoot him 1000 times. COver has not sense because Tank has not “point of view” or “line of Sight”, like Theatre of War. And you know where to hit, (it’s not the same a hit in front armor than side or rear), you know the range of the enemy weapon, and yours… its like compare IL2 Sturmovik with Crimson Skies.

Perfect example is Red Orchestra which is slow, cumbersome, and just dull.

You are dead to me man. Some of the most intense firefights I’ve ever had in an FPS were from Red Orchestra.

I would argue most games that are billed as “realistic,” especially FPS games, feel totally stale and the exact opposite of what I imagine being in a battle would be like. Perfect example is Red Orchestra which is slow, cumbersome, and just dull. There’s more to realism than just having the right armor penetration values for a pak gun hitting an IS-2 tank’s side armor or setting up an FPS so people die in one hit and recoil has you aiming at the sky after 3 shots in full auto. In some respects I think it can be argued that a game like Call of Duty is more realistic than Red Orchestra in certain significant ways, same thing with games like Men of War and CoH. CoH is unrealistic in many ways, but it’s got cover, side/rear/frontal armor is VERY important to consider when attacking a tank, there’s suppression, pinning, etc. soldiers act behave realistically. I value this type of realism over the realism of “numbers” that a lot of fans of stale realism games gush over.