iamnotachicken

Hitboxes for all the organs might be better, but I agree that it's not likely, and I wouldn't really be a fan unless they were varied for a variety of human anatomy types - a universal human figure with identical organ placement isn't very realistic, either. And, organ hitboxes still don't account for the vagary of how environment, stance/positioning, and the quality of an individual piece of ammunition all impact the interaction of injury. Basically, I really think it's too complicated for our models to simulate. We have to accept a certain level of abstraction, and the one I (personally, I don't expect everyone to agree with me) am most comfortable with, is one that maintains the experience of that variability, the what, even if it has to do a bit of handwaving with the how. Thanks! Maybe I will, but either way it's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. :)

All other opinions about the weapons nerf being realistic vs. "gamey," this seems to be simply true, to me. But, of course, this is sometimes the case - a person may die from a single handgun round, or they may be shot by a double digit figure and survive. Since it's almost certainly impossible to simulate this properly (requiring ballistics, anatomy, etc), how would people feel about weapons doing a random amount of damage within a certain range? (This is pretty much how tabletop games like D&D work, now that I think about it, but it could be more controlled). So, instead of the 1911 doing 4500 or 1389 damage, it could do a random amount between 1000 and 3500, or whatever numbers please the court. I think it goes against our FPS player instincts for certainty, but personally, I would welcome it as another level of realistic variability of the game. This isn't exactly a serious proposal, as I have no idea it it's workable, and it might be rather drastic, but I find the idea interesting.