Flamethrowers...

Technology and Gaming
#1

Well, I don’t really get it, why so many games and even movies show this device as a weapon which is still used in modern combat.

Maybe it is just me, but if I play any games that play in the present, the near future or even the remote future and meet futuristic soldiers with flamethrowers there, I always have to think about the fact, that nearly most armed forces have already decommissioned this weapon, because of problems, deficiencies and other reasons. So why should a modern soldier be equipped with an outdated weapon? Why not giving them any futuristic firearms instead?

I mean, games and movies are fictional and a lack of realism is no problem at all, but sometimes it is a little bit ridiculous. Especially, if it even wouldn’t make sense in a fictional reality.

#2

Maybe it’s because liting people on fire is so much more satisfying than simply shooting them.

#3

In that case you could give the player simply a spray can and a lighter instead.
This would fit, without having lack of contact with reality.

#4

you started a thread about the validity of flamethrowers in video games? I’m thinking you’ll get more flame throwers than flamethrowers in this forum.

…heh…

/witicism attempt

#5

@JoeP

THEY ARE
FUCKING
GAMES

/thread

#6

^ This.

It’s a video game. It’s meant to be entertaining, not realistic. Even realistic games blur the line between realism and entertainment.

Look at Call of Duty 4. Many people said that’s a very realistic game. Yet, you can take untold amounts of damage (just let yourself rest when you go into red and you’re all ready to go), survive an RPG hit (you go into red but you don’t die), and even survive being hit several times by a helicopter minigun. A HELICOPTER MINIGUN.

Burning people is obviously fun, so game designers are going to implement flamethrowers even if they don’t fit. I frankly like flamethrowers. It’s so satisfying to burn the shit out of somebody. :smiley:

#7

If you’re complaining about flamethrowers being combat deficient, then take a look at Team Fortress 2’s flamethrower, it can airblast a heavy weapons guy. I’m sure a weapon like that would be very useful in combat.

#8

I personally hate anything having to do with flamethrowers.

#9

I personally wish I could code so I could make a flamethrower for HL2.
So many zombies, so little fuel canisters…

#10

Flamethrowers…

Let’s face it: Many people like to set other people on fire. Many people are sick evil fuckers.

#11

You can set people on fire.

ON FIRE!

#12

in4JohnKiller118’s AMMO THAT SETS ZOMBIES ON FIRE

#13

It’s more efficent to have a spraycan and a lighter than a flamethrower?\

Derp.

#14

Nah, Left 4 Dead 2 is out. The Boycott is dead and so is the Boycott of the Boycott.
Though I will say that flamethrowers are awesome, and more games need them.

#15

Irony strikes.

#16

Because flamethrowers fucking kick arse!

Seriously, there are far to few games that have a flamethrower, and those that do usually nerf it to the point that it’s no fun using.

#17

team killers, its always the guy with the flamethrower… ALWAYS

:expressionless:

#18

My roommates and I built a flamethrower in our dorms last year.

There is a video of it blowing up on youtube if someone is crafty enough to find it (No, it didn’t have any fuel in it at the time, we just pumped our air tank with too much PSI)

#19

Well, if I want to implement weapons that can set enemies on fire, I definitively wouldn’t give a modern soldier an outdated weapon, but incendiary ammunition for example.

I was talking about sense, not about efficiency.
And it doesn’t make sense to see soldiers equipped with those weapons in a modern combat.

It already exists, SMOD has it for example.

#20

Games = Fun
Flamethrower = Fun

Games + Flamethrower = Twice the Fun

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.