Boom! Chest Shot?!

Editor Randy Yasenchak from explores the question "Should chest shots be as vital a target as head shots?" in video games.

From E-G: "In current day body armor, there are still weak spots between the ceramic plates and under a soldier’s arms. In this photo of a Battlefield Bad Company 2 soldier, he’s not wearing groin protectors, nor is he wearing shoulder protectors in his vest. I feel those areas should be considered as “vital” in video games depending on the angle of the shot and the type of gun that is being fired."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
SeanRL2987d ago

Well, a bullet through the heart is just as bad as a bullet to the face, so ya.

Of course, at close range with a shotgun it's not gonna matter.

Christopher2986d ago

IMHO, chest shots/deaths should reward the most. It's how professionals are trained to shoot in real life and it's the most logical place someone should aim at when trying to hit someone.

The fascination with head shots has lead to aim assists which has only lead to the idiocy of chaotic combat in my limited experience. It's one of the reasons why I just can't get into online FPS games.

evrfighter2986d ago


you don't like aim assist? On the platform I play we call that aimbot. You are simply playing on the wrong platform my friend.

It's unbelievable how console kids can claim they are omgahsum when console fps games are released with aimbots. If you want the real deal and wanna play with the bigs. You need a pc.

Dramscus2986d ago

try mag. Has very little aim assist. Its super different than other fps.

a_squirrel2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

I've hated it on halo, when I'm trying to snipe someone, and someone close walks by, it moves my aimer.
The first halo had no beatdown autoaim at least.

Play hardcore in BF: BC2. I love getting those shots from across the map. Headshots are just a bonus

Kornholic2986d ago

Aimbot is a completely different thing than aim assist.

Nice try, though.

SilentNegotiator2986d ago

I only want to see "chest-shot" one-kills in games in which you can lean.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2986d ago
East_Coast2986d ago

One hit kills? God no. They need to get rid of the head shots all together.

outwar60102986d ago

Games need to be more realistic as most shots are fatal and games should reflect this.

poindat2986d ago

I semi-agree with you here. Games should reflect that, but only partially. By that I mean, split the playlist into 'realism modes' (one/two shot kills, etc.) and regular style.

Here is where I think that MW2 did something right, with the Hardcore modes. Basically IW did what I said above and split the playlist to satisfy everyone, and it works well.

As for single player, the harder modes of gameplay already do this to an extent, but many games need to even it out to where both the player and AI go down in one or two or three shots, which I think is good.

MiloGarret2986d ago

It's a gameism, in other words, a fictional mechanism designed to provide an ejoyable experience to the player. Changing this would result in a lot of suckass games.

Elwenil2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Most FPS games today have some form of body armor being worn for at least one side. Some of the trauma plates allow people to sometimes survive a shot that would ordinarily kill them in real life. So I can see why chest shots do not kill in most games. Even when one faction does not wear body armor it sort of has to be implemented for balance. The important thing to remember is that these are games and unless you want one bullet wound to the thigh to incapacitate your character, you are probably barking up the wrong tree. I personally enjoy realism and simulations but I seriously doubt very many FPS players these days really want to go full sim or anywhere near sim. So where do you draw the line? Allow chest hits to critical areas to kill but not one to the femoral artery? Should you still be able to run and gun after being shot in the leg? Should a player be able to throw a grenade or knife with a wounded arm? Very few shooters today have very much in the way of realism and I seriously doubt that the current crop of gamers would stand for it. Look at how bad Operation Flashpoint:Dragon Rising was received even before all the bugs became evident. You can't have your cake and eat it too so it may be best to just leave well enough alone.

RayRay362987d ago

Without a doubt. You know how many times I hit someone in the chest with a bolt action in BFBC 2 and didnt get a kill? A sh*t load, and thats why I stopped playing.

leapfrogger2987d ago

The worst is when someone is running at you to knife you, you'd dump a clip into their chest and they still kill you with the knife.

That's some freakishly strong body armor!

Jack-Pyro2986d ago

Not that strong if it can't take one stab to the chest.

I mean Fuck, I think my Leather Jacket could probably take more than one stab....

outwar60102986d ago

argggggh that plagues kz 2 if you kill someone they shoot at you after they're dead and kill you WTF

outwar60102986d ago

you sure? everyone else was moving around normally and everything maybe its some sort of glitch with the death animations

rkimoto2986d ago

It's actually called Commando Pro LOL, lamest perk I've ever encountered

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2986d ago
RadioFreeGamer2986d ago

Exactly. I don't so much agree at more realistic hit boxes just for the sake of automatic weapons, but so that 1-shot weapons like most sniper rifles are as effective as they should be.

Also on that note, if I hit someone with a 50-calibur Barrett then they should drop in a crumpled heap. Regardless of whether or not the shot penetrates armor, it still delivers the same amount of kinetic energy over a relatively small area. Should definitely be enough to drop them.

RBlaze2986d ago

50 cal bullets rip through.things. Fact is... If you put a 50 cal weapon in a game, you should make it a one hit kill. Regardless of what area is hit, the person who is hit is incapacitated.

Upper body shots should be near lethal in games which are meant to be realistic a burst from an assault rifle to the upper body incapacitates... The designers know this yet they rarely apply it! Instead, they seem to only force instant upper body kills if a shotgun is used! Most weapons will kill or seriously injure if they are fired at close range and hit almost any part of the body! Never mind the chest!

Convas2987d ago (Edited 2987d ago )

Yeah, that's one thing that annoyed the hell outta me when I was going for the SpecAct achievement with the M95. I couldn't understand for the life of me why the most powerful sniper rifle in the game (100% Damage) required me to put TWO rounds through the chest for a kill. It was a Bullsh*t design choice on DICE's part and one that should be rectified for future release, if not in a patch now.

wicko2986d ago

It makes sense for balance though, otherwise it would be unbelievably overpowered. I've definitely gotten 1 shot kills with that gun that weren't headshots though, but I was running around with the red dot scope and using it close range, going for the same trophy/achievement you were.

Cenobia2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

They did that to balance the game. If you could one shot people on like 50% of their body, everyone would be camping.

Snipers are useless enough in objective based games. Do people not remember how shitty it was to find themselves on the barrel side of an AWP?

RadioFreeGamer2987d ago

I'm sure it would be much more difficult to do this from a design standpoint, but bullets really should have an effect on how your character can move. If you get shot in the chest, you get staggered. If you're dumb enough to run out in the open against someone who's kneeling behind cover, you should get hosed. Snipers running around in MW2 with the speed boost and 2 shotguns, I'm looking at you.

Forbidden_Darkness2986d ago

I can kill someone in the leg with my shotgun in MW2, but when i hit them in the chest with a sniper i only get a hit marker sometimes :(

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.