Swap the SCAR and M16 fire modes in HomeFront

[Baasima]

While the M16 can be a semi auto weapon, it is known for its burst fire and the SCAR, if it is the SCAR-H battle rifle, it would be primarily used as a single shot rifle. To my knowledge, neither of the SCAR rifles have a burst fire mode. I think it would be great to make this change to make the weapons a little more authentic. Other than this, the game looks really good, keep up the good work and only great things will come to Kaos Studios.

[RyanInt]

First of all, the SCAR weapon featured in HOMEFRONT is a SCAR-L and not the SCAR-H battle rifle, so it's not primarily used as a single shot rifle like you say. Why is it a problem that KAOS is trying something new? It's a good thing that they make the weapons different from each other, that way everyone can use the weapon that they like best and not the most OP weapon. Where did you get this info at? Because I’m pretty sure that the M16 wouldn’t be semi auto.

[AZUL]

My suggestion is based off real life, not any other game. No FN SCAR weapon has burst fire capabilities, therefore, the SCAR in this game, whether it shoots a 5.56 or a 7.62, is inaccurate. The M16a4 can shoot semi auto and 3 round bursts. While the M16 in this game is correct, it would make sense for it to be the burst fire weapon as the current burst fire weapon does not actually have that mode in reality.

[RockOn]

People never seem to understand the true meaning of "trying something new." Kaos is trying something new with the unique story used in the game. Kaos is not trying something new by making a weapon shoot in a mode that it cannot fire in. Trying something new isn't inherently good either. I can try something new and bust the windshield out of my car and feel the morning breeze on the way to work. Obviously, this will come back to bite me when it rains.

[Common]

Could you imagine Paul Revere yelling, "The British are coming" only to be told to "deal with it"? Are we, as paying consumers supposed to deal with imperfections in our products? In the 80's, someone tampered with several bottles of Tylenol and added Cyanide to it, was the consumers then supposed to deal with it? The manufacturers of dry erase markers received complaints about the lids on their markers being choking hazards, did they tell people to deal with it? No. Because this country is based on progress. We've went from rural farmers to technology unimaginable by the people that first set foot here. Now if we can improve this technology, should we continue to progress, however small this progress is, should we move forward, or should we "deal with it"?

[%Achan]

Unlike the examples you gave, having a burst-fire SCAR in HomeFront isn't dangerous. While it's true that gun enthusiasts might object, as you clearly do, the majority of players will neither know nor care. You are a minority, complaining about something little more than cosmetic. I think 'deal with it', though generally an over-used dismissal is quite apt here. If a burst-fire SCAR in a future (i.e. not real) setting bothers you so much, don't play the game.

[Common]

Actually, I've seen another website forum make fun of the developers for being lazy in this situation for not researching the weapons. Many shooter fans live vicariously through these games because they can't afford or obtain the weapons depicted in the game. You severely underestimate the amount of people that care about the accuracy of their weapons. For some games, there have been studies done on how to make the weapons more accurate to real life. When I say play pretend, I mean out of the context of the game itself. I shouldn't have to create my own reasons for inaccuracies within the game. Now, I've never played Oblivion, but say I wanted to use some sort of magic based on shooting Ice out of my hands but the game didn't include that. Should I just pretend that an evil gremlin in the game banned it for some reason or should I go and lobby for what maximizes my entertainment when playing the game?