BF2S Forums DEad people

Thats just plain twisted.

And they dont do it because A: shooting dead bodies and/or mutilating them is kinda wrong, so they keep that out of the game. and moreso B: because it would run up the ping count pretty bad, because of all the data on all the dead bodies all over the map, and the countdown for all of them, etc....

not that its a *bad* idea, just, not really easily done.

yes i do agree it is abit twisted but not the point of the bodies being mutilated i also agree with ping but it would be good if the bodies atleast absorb the bullets.

But thats my 2p worth.

Last edited by wensleydale8 (2005-12-15 09:57:51)

{504th}T/4.Stryker wrote:

as wensleydale8  stated it would be good if the bodies atleast absorb the bullets, I think maybe EA can find a way that everyone who died does not just "dissappear" and actually stay were they died hanging off a ladder ina  jeep or tank or jet anythign to add to the realism of the iraq war. And if BF2 is supposed to be realistic to the war in the middle east, they do mutilate bodies on both sides.

Then again, if it's real, then where's the civilians? Why don't buildings crumble after 50+ tank shells, missiles, C4s and mines go off near it. thanks to the magical local civilians, buildings cannot be dstroyed, tanks can't rush pass sand bags and 20mm cannons can't damage concrete walls or bamboos. So much for realism.

Mutilation of bodies MIGHT be done on both sides, but they don't have time to put their their guns and weapons to find a butcher knife and all the dead bodies are carted off by the starving local population, that's why you don't see the bodies.

Remeber, MEC is a regular army, with tanks and helos, Iraq is a insurgent force, with RPGs that only go "twunk" on a tank and large amounts of rifles. So one cannot compare MEC and Iraq.

but if there no blood then what would make them change the ag rating look at killzone for example that had blood but it only a 16 so why would they change it.

Typically, the dead wouldn't care if you used them as a shield. They'd probably actually approve if they in some way were able to save you with their sacrafice.

But since most of the are "Critically wounded" instead of dead, then maybe using them as a shield would be inhumane, but if they're just a arm or a leg..then I don't really mind as long as I'm not the owner of the body parts.

PinkSugarHeartAttack wrote:

I wouldn't mind being able to use corpses as bullet shields. I die plenty, I could totally help my team if they could use me as a shield! Sadly I think it would increase the drag on everyone and especially the server so I don't see it getting done.


And Aquastorm.. I can't fault you for liking Naruto, but Yaoi? Ye gads!

Ah, if everyone had fiber optic cables and 0 ping, then EA would do its best to keep us happy, but alas, optic cables are hard to repair and 0 ping is only reserved for bots.

What do you mean by "Ye Gads!"? I like yaoi, but it's not as if I'm forcing you to like it.

wensleydale8 wrote:

When people are killed on BF2 how come there dead bodys dont act as meat shields as it would be beacause you could use dead bodies to build temporary cover so that there bodys protect you .


Flame me if you want.

you just want to have your way with them dont you?

Sud wrote:

Typically, the dead wouldn't care if you used them as a shield. They'd probably actually approve if they in some way were able to save you with their sacrafice.

Yeah but what if the enemy uses your dead corpse. You wouldn't be so happy then.

I think the interesting tactic would be to be a medic, kill off a teammate when you are about to be shot, use him as a shield, then revive him and continue on.

That would be one hell of a clan tactic.

-=pM|B1zzY=- wrote:

what would u say, when u are critically wounded and u see how someone takes u away and uses your dead corpse to protect himself?

u wouldnt say anything cos u is dead...know what i mean 'arry