That's like saying, which you probably would, that the M4 and other CAR-15 models are totally similar to the M416 series from H&K...
Which ISN'T the case.
There are so many types of firearms and they seem to pick the most boring ones (or overused ones). Which is a big shame really.
Haha what the heck are you talkin about again...
You clearly see the smilarities between the MP5 and MPX. They have similar RoF. Both can shoot 9mm. Have very similar Iron Sights. The most obvious thing is simply the look of it...
And it IS one of the most modern guns. Just watch the video...
You are like the most annoying person on here right now.
Dude there are f*cking hundreds of closed bolt sub machine guns that fire at the 750-900 rpm range in 9x19mm, literally hundreds. Just shoving the "MP" tag infront of something does not make it the same. What just because it has a curved magazine? If you look at it carefully it has a reciever much more like an AR-15 design than an MP5.
Even the MP7 made by H&K themselves is completely nothing like the MP5, same goes for the UMP.
Nobody said it wasn't modern, that is not what we are getting at, the MP5 is a f*cking classic, and we want it as it was, either an A3 or an A5 version, and not some tarted up railed mess.
Seriously dude, don't argue firearm semantics with me or FullMetal you are out of your league.
Besides we aren't even talking about any technical specifications whatsoever, just looks here. Because after all none of that matters in a videogame, ROF and Damage can be edited on any gun at any time to suit their balances so it is redundant.
We are not guessing the probability of them doing it, we are simply stating that these are the authentic battlefield weapons that should be in the game.
All I want is to be able to play Die Hard in Battlefield 4.
Is that too much to stomach?
And now that Daz has bought up the soldiers holding the weapons in a weird fashion in the game, I have to talk about it too. At first, it didn't bug me. After all, you're not going to spend your game time looking at the way the hands connect with the weapon. But, let me say it again, because Daz bought it up, it spikes my eyes as well. I mean, DICE have been going on saying that Battlefield 4 is realistic and sh*t, and EVEN if in real life, soldiers hold their weapons this way (through I kind of doubt that, I can understand holding it by the magazine but not the f*cking box of the LMG), you just got to sacrifice some things. It seems stupid, period.
Yeah, I have been saying this for years, even as far back as CoD4.
The reason is just being lazy, because what they have done is given every troop the same non-mocap animation. Which is the Isosceles stance, having the front of their body facing forward. As opposed to the more oldschool (and my preferred stance) the weaver stance, standing more side on. Standing weaver style will fix all those problems because the left arm will be further forward than the right, meaning they would be able to hold an M60 by the foregrip and not the box like they are carrying round a photocopier.
The reason some armies might teach troops to hold a gun that way is that it is easier to hold the weapon up at extended periods of time. Because it can be a stress on the arm if you aren't used to it, and I guess it is easier for them to teach that way. Some say it is easier to move the rifle left and right at multiple targets and maybe it might be if you are stationary in a defensive position but it is not how any special forces or any proper shooter holds their weapon. But this is only for the assault rifles and smg's, having this with light machine guns and sniper rifles are just beyond stupid.
Counterstrike does it right, as you said, it was also perfect in Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2.