171: From the Barrel of a Gun

[TimL]

I feel like there has been a pretty major omission from this article and discussion, a game which I haven't played for a long time but sprung to my mind when it was said guns in video games have lacked focus.

Counter-strike.

I discovered it in beta (when we were all still lefties!), but the most powerful thing about the experience, even back then, had to be the guns. Assisted by the mechanic of actually 'dying' (if only until next round), it really did feel like each of these guns held power.

The incredible balance (obviously tweaked through many iterations) meant that with the possible exception of the Scout sniper rifle (which I still loved because nothing said pwned like head-shotting a mate with a Scout), all the guns had their merits and draw-backs. Maybe that's not totally realistic, but it lead to people often having strange attachments to certain guns, defending them against perceived balance issues and so on (the AWP and P90 were memorable favourites for being derided and defended).

Every time you wielded any of those guns in battle, it felt like you WERE Dirty Harry, and those terrorist/CTs were going to be on the wrong end of your shit sandwich. Was there anything sweeter than rounding a corner with the 12 gauge Beretta and unloading it point blank into some poor bugger from halfway around the world's virtual face? Or maybe it was taking pot shots with a Deagle and scoring a lucky hit. Or just simply whoring up the AWP from some far flung corner of the map, haplessly mowing down anyone who peeked into your field of view. When that puppy landed, you knew they were gonna stay down...

Or maybe it was just me being a 15 year old boy? ;o)

 

[TOGSolid]

There is no samurai code equivalent for the gun because any fool can pick one up and kill another.

It's called Cheatingwhiteman Fu for a reason.

I'm curious why the Hitman series hasn't been mentioned. Sure you could go around killing everyone indiscriminately but that kind of defeats the point of the series.
If you actually take your time to sneak through and avoid any unnecessary killing, when you finally get to your target, put Agent 47's iconic Silver Hardballers to the back of your target's head and pull the trigger, it carries a lot of weight to it.
The difference in the game's mood when you stick to that play style is quite noticeable. Do one level and slaughter everyone, and then do the same level doing your best to sneak the whole way through. I guarantee when you do finally get to the actual kill, it'll have much more feeling and impact behind it.

 

[WolfThomas]

TOGSolid, I agree about the hitman series especially blood money. Hitting a target with a single sniper round from a attic over-looking their wedding. Or when playing without saves and getting caught by a single guard silently headshoting him and trying to drag him out of the way.

 

[Beery]

I think the writer here has a great point. In fact I'm so bored by guns in videogames these days that I've spent the last five years or so seeking out games that don't involve mass killing. Such games are few and far between, but I find they offer a lot more depth in terms of character, storyline and emotional involvement than even the most highly rated FPS game.

In one of my favourite games (the little known 'The Last Express'), the main character actually kills no-one and never touches a gun throughout the game, yet it is one of the most emotionally involving games I've played. It's the same with The Longest Journey - another game where plot and character take the place of the usual shooting gallery. Then there's Syberia, another great game that places beautiful visuals, great characters and an engaging story ahead of mindless gunplay and twitch reflexes.

I wish we could get away from this gun fixation that the industry is currently pursuing. Maybe if the industry would start placing story and character ahead of mindless action, everyone would start to realize that there's a lot more to videogames than just vacuous trigger-pulling.

 

[tendo82]

Several posters made good points regarding games in which the depiction of guns is more effective. I definitely want to acknowledge that those games exist.

For instance I found myself slightly disturbed at having to shoot the female bosses in MGS4 as they stagger toward you stripped of all their armor, defenseless and dying. I'd spent the past ten minutes hammering away at some overwrought Japanese robot with a ridiculous machine gun and really the most powerful moment of the whole encounter is when you're forced to shoot someone you've already beat.

 

[Smokescreen]

Several posters made good points regarding games in which the depiction of guns is more effective. I definitely want to acknowledge that those games exist.

For instance I found myself slightly disturbed at having to shoot the female bosses in MGS4 as they stagger toward you stripped of all their armor, defenseless and dying. I'd spent the past ten minutes hammering away at some overwrought Japanese robot with a ridiculous machine gun and really the most powerful moment of the whole encounter is when you're forced to shoot someone you've already beat.

I'm still playing MGS4, but I'd agree that doing this is unnerving, and I always have switched to the tranq pistol when this time comes.

There's a line in Unforgiven; it's a funny thing, killing a man. You take away all he's been, and all he's ever gonna be.

Which is what you do when you kill someone, but videogames (in the name of fun) don't include that aspect. I'm mostly OK with this; I want to have fun as much as anyone. However, arguing that guns have no mythological power in our culture is a bit like saying that they have no power whatsoever.

The argument that 'guns are just tools, especially for those of us who use them all the time', while on it's surface correct, ignores the broader implications for using that tool on another human being, and a game that addressed that aspect of the use of a gun could provide for some very powerful moments. However, is this about the gun, or is it about the culture or is it about the game?

Maybe it's a mix of all these things, as they tend to wrap around each other.

 

[bneffer]

What about the game "Black"?
Thought the plot was lacking, and the final battle an exercise in memorization, the focus of the game in on the firearms and I think they succeeded in that respect. I agree that really feeling what you are doing, i.e. ending life, is not there, but i think I may not want too much realism in death. I don't want to kill people and I play shooters for the fun and the strategy...

 

[SmugFrog]

I think that what Tom here is getting at is having a more visceral experience in using a weapon in a video game, as opposed to the "shooting gallery" style that alot of shooters have today, in which I shoot the enemy and I never see him again, and he sometimes doesn't even bleed. There's no emotional attachment to firing the weapon and the victim dying.

I agree; but he doesn't bring up any wonderful ideas on how to fix this! Tom, it's more like you had a rant without any productive ideas.

The point is, if restoring the myth of the gun is the goal, then it can only be achieved by creating games that treat the gun less like a tactical tool, and more like a big scary hunk of metal that murders people. And that can only be achieved either by creating a whole new set of controls (and indeed, input and feedback devices) that allow for a much more realistic type of interactivity, or else by scripting a ton of interactive events that editorialize the player's every casual movement.

Basically, you'd need NPCs and bad guys to behave as if they are afraid of the gun, not merely threatened by it.

That is what you need - something where you're not going around shooting hundreds of people.

I think one of the best "gun" games I ever played wasn't a game at all; it was a training simulation. Imagine this scenario:
I'm standing in front of a large screen (FMV technology) with a holstered weapon. The weapon is a 9mm handgun that has a gas cartridge to simulate the slide moving with a fired round.

On the screen in front of me, It shows my view as I'm walking through a convenience store. I hear voices from the front of the store:
"Just give me the money!"
"NO Sir!"
"Look, just give me the damn money!"

The screen shows me coming around a corner of shelves, and I can see a guy with his back to me, arguing with the clerk. I yell at the guy to stop what he's doing (of course, he doesn't respond because it's a video simulation) and I draw my weapon believing I'm seeing a robbery in progress. He suddenly turns and I notice he's bringing a pistol up to fire at me, and I take him out - when he's hit, the FMV jumps a bit then shows him crumpling the ground.

A friend of mine then does the same scenario. The argument is taking place, everything is playing out exactly the same. As the guy is turning my friend is about to shoot him, but the guy turns and is holding a bit of merchandise and says "Sir, can you help me? I'm just trying to return this item and get my money back..."

This type of game really makes you think about shooting - if you choose to shoot, you may be making a big mistake. They had several filmed scenarios, each with multiple outcomes. These types of simulators exist, and they have pellets that fire back at you too.

I really liked Swat 3; you were given a lower score for hitting hostages or not using proper "deadly force" on the bad guys. If they dropped a weapon, you "weren't supposed to" shoot them. While that doesn't provide an emotional attachment, things could get pretty hairy if you were trying to keep the hostages safe in the middle of a shootout. Also, in Swat 3, the bad guy might be hiding in a closet; or under a bed. He might drop his weapon, he might not - he might not even have a weapon.

Games like that can really give you a pause before you shoot; and sometimes it would piss me off because the bad guys didn't care. If I took too long to ID someone and determine if they were a threat or not, I could end up being shot in the face. I don't like being shot in the face. And I don't like shooting innocents either - unless I'm rampaging in a game like GTA 4 where the world is just a big sandbox.

 

[jdun]

that sort of goes back to my point though. People who own guns and use them regularly don't see anything inherently mythical or evil about them.

But the fact that we can purchase an assault rifle, a weapon whose function lies far beyond civilian purview, is a hint that Americans' relationship with guns is deeper than the desire for a merely utilitarian tool.

You comments and other proves what mbvmgb is trying to get across. It is a myth to those people that don't own or have fire them. On the other hand, people that own firearms, for them is a tool or hobby.

I own four AR-15 and two AK-47 in my collection. I also own many type of firearms. Let take example of the so called ?Assault Rifle?, in particular the AR-15 family (M16, M4, etc.). The AR-15 is the best selling rifle in the USA for the past 25 years since the patent has expired. All major US gun manufacture make a clone of it. It is use in many ways. For example hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc. Just like any other rifle.

There are over 300 milllions firearms in the USA. About 10 millions are AR15 in private hands. The demand for AR15 outstrip the supply. Every major AR15 manufacture and part manufactures are doing their best to meet the civilian and military demands. The last AR-15 I build I had to wait for three months to get the parts deliver to my home.

The other indicator is that guns are a major political issue, such that the NRA routinely suggests that any firearm restrictions are un-American. When the gun becomes inseparable from national identity, when some would suggest it's very existence is necessary to our national identity, it has certainly entered the realm of myth.

Gun restriction is un-American because it breaks the law. It breaks the 2nd Amendment. It took 75 years to bring it up to the SCOTUS for a ruling and all 9 judge ruled as an individual right just like the 1st Amendment. The NRA mission is to protect the 2nd Amendment, promote gun sports, and land conservation.

There are well over 100 millions people that own or have use a firearm in some way. In general it is only a myth for those people that never touch them. It is only a myth if you base your knowledge on what you see and hear in the news media, tv shows, movies, games, etc.

You can learn more about the AR-15(M16, M4) as well as other firearms on AR15.com. At any given time there are over 2000 members on the forum. However I suggest you just read the comments and forget what you learn from games, TV, Movies, new media, etc because they are wrong.

There is no samurai code equivalent for the gun because any fool can pick one up and kill another.

I don't think you understand the samurai code. The samurai code is about moral principles. It has nothing to do with the weapon. It is something that is share across all professional warriors from past to present to the future.

The same is true with a sword. Using a gun properly takes about as much skill as any other weapon, but any weapon is still potentially lethal in the hands of an unskilled user.

That is correct. There are tens of thousands of firearm training schools across the USA. They range from basic to advance. Some cost tens of thousand of dollars to enter.

--

Call of Duty 4 is not even close to realistic. They might model the firearm and the general environment well. The ballistics, tactical strategy, military facts, etc are way off. For example: IIRC the two active Force Recon Battalions has been deactivated around 2006. "Spetsnaz" which is translated "Special Force" in English. There is no Russian military unit that is named "Spetsnaz". Just like their is no US military unit named "Special Force".

CoD4 is really a great example what is myth and reality. You have some server that actually don't allow sprinting. In real combat, the combatants do sprint. Why? If someone is shooting at you are you going to walk slowly like you see in the movies? Or do you run like hell and find cover? You run like hell because in real life you don't respawn. In some case combatants sprint/run to move into position, trying to out flank the enemy, or get to a general location before the enemy arrive.

 

[Fugue]

Note the comparisons in the article relate the myth of guns to movies such as Dirty Harry or Scarface. The article is about guns in games struggling to reach that level of emotional impact, not so much how old Westerns and videogames reflect reality.

But I agree with jdun and mbvmgb, that "emotional impact" isn't due to the nature of guns.

When the impact of using a gun on a person is no different than using a gun on a target; when the difference is merely that the person is presenting a threat in response, there can be no more emotional impact to the encounter than that of a target. It's easy to think that because you need to kill 400+ enemies in the latest shooter that it would be impossible to create a sense of emotional weight to the use of a gun, but this is still misinterpreting where the true weight of that emotional impact comes from.

Gamers inherently realise there is no true consequence for their action. Even in a game where you could be partnered with an NPC and build a rapport with them throughout the entire story would be robbed of the emotional impact of killing that NPC at some point, because the game could always be reloaded. Without fear or worry, players will execute that character merely to observe the consequences, then reload, not having to wear them.

Again, this is not to say it is impossible to include that magical 'emotional weight'. The core of it exists in the inexorable finality of death. Not the gun, not the fancy effects. It isn't when the player chooses whether or not to end a virtual life, it is when the virtual life ends. When something is taken from the player that cannot be brought back.

Comparisons to Samurai are interesting, because they highlight this point quite succinctly. There were the Dirty Harrys of Ancient Japan; mythologised samurai. Regardless of one's weapon of choice, the story is what brings forth the attachment. Dry statistics will never carry emotional weight. Not even realistic physics and character models can create the kind of depth being referred to.

Did anyone else feel determined to complete Max Payne by the time you were near the end? Did anyone get so far into the game and then put it down, unable to sum up the motivation to get over that last hump? That's the best example I can think of for videogames, off the top of my head. The man with nothing to lose versus the one who took it all away.

 

[OrientalHero]

I live in the UK where guns are outlawed. Heh, even the British Olympic shooting team decamps to the continent (ie mainland Europe) to practice!

There is always an attraction for the proscribed. In this case, it's a gun (as opposed to drugs - from cigs to alcohol or sex - checkout any teen movie). However, looking at the mainstream movies I'm not sure if the attraction is to the gun itself so much as the trappings of the personality wielding said gun. Dunno 'bout you, but I didn't find Vinny Jones and his .50 Desert Eagle anywhere near as "attractive" as Clint Eastwood and his .44 Smith and Wesson. Heh and I sure do like the John Woo school of diving with twin pistols!

So it seems the attraction is more about the way you use them or talk them up. Not having a gun culture in the UK, perhaps the US residents can confirm if more hand gun users ape the cinema counterparts by holding the gun sideways? I can only recall one game doing that out of all the many FPS I've played since Doom.

I guess it is possible to make a "gun" alluring entirely within a game environment, but it would take lots of hints and tips. I think I remember a game in which you learn of a prototype weapon and eventually when you get it, boy, does it let rip! Might have been System Shock.

Going back to reality, whilst I admit to guns having an allure, I'm not sure it's from the same perspective as a soldier or a hunter. I don't think I want to have that attitude to life that I have to nuts and bolts! OTOH, were guns legal, yes I'd have something in the house for "home defence". But they'd be *weapons* that I'd have practiced with, perhaps with some pride in attaining skill but definitely a realisation of the "kills people easily".

But perhaps that's why I always equip the capsicum paint ball gun in SWAT 4!

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I am certainly not going to delve into the eternal Internetular G*n C*ntr*l debate here, which has been waged unceasingly since at least my Usenet days of long ago, save only to say that there are many perspectives and few converts. Save your carpal-tunnel-inducing keystrokes for something less futile, please.

I will say, though, that if you want a firearm to have the same mystique in a video game as it does in a good Western then it has to be used the same way as in such a movie; rarely, perhaps suddenly or unexpectedly, always at a critical juncture in the story, and always with meaningful consequences. It should be sudden, fast, and decisive. Gunplay would have to be rare and foreshadowed, giving it emotional impact, and have awesome/dreadful repercussions so that players wouldn't just shrug it off.

Perhaps make it more of a point-and-click adventure type RPG where combat is very rare and you're mainly conversing with NPCs and gathering clues to the baddies' hideout or something. It'd have to be more story based than action based, and the gunfight mechanism would have to be sparsely used in order to preserve that sense of awe... which means little ability for players to practice that mechanic except maybe for a tutorial plinking at cans or rocks or something. Dunno if it would sell, but it'd be different.

Maybe an experimental title for XNA could try this, but I strongly doubt you'd get a studio to risk much money on a long-shot. (Pardon the pun.)

-- Steve

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

One of the things I am noticing in the mechanic side of things is how damage is implemented, a head shot doing a small bonus of extra damage is quite lame.

Location damage should not even be used if not full implemented, and by that I mean you shot most normal targets in the head they are going to hurt...unlike bioshock where you get tiny damage bonuses or Dark messhia you can put 3 arrows into a black knights head and they walk about unfazed by it.

This is a version of a weapon threat system I am musing on

Start off by shirking the location damage target area by 30-50% and doubling if not tippling the damage done, adding a discombobulation setup.

Say you have a normal bullet for a normal enemy you get a 50/50 chance to stun/knock down for a higher level enemy it only damages.

% to knockdown/stun

Normal>V Normal=40%.V Medium=10%.V High=1%
Medium>V Medium=40%.V High=10%.V Normal=50%
High>V High=40%.V Medium=10%.V Normal=70%

Say pistol is normal,shotgun is medium change the ammo and the threat level increases for the target thats weak to it. Of coarse some things are exempt from knock down/stun, but even if used just for higher damage calculations(boosting damage by 2-5X) it would make for a better experience, you balance it by lowering direct damage some.


In the end a better more effective head shot/weak spot system needs to be implemented you can balance real world realism (IE shooting someone in the leg or face to knock them down) with fictional armor to protect from most shots.

Also humans are tougher creatures than given credit for and weapons are imperfect enough to make use of a script system that tries to base damage of a threat system, we are beyond pretty it dose not move us like it did and physics can get tired if not implemented well.

We need a smarter and deeper system to handle damage,protection and health(regen dose not cut it....)

Anton P. Nym
Have you played call of juarez?
Its a western style FPS dose a pretty good job representing the setting and a few weapons the slow time draw and quick draw setup was nicely done while not completely awe inspiring it had lethal head shots and that made it alil fearsome and somewhat awe inspiring to me. The overall game is so so but it hits enough marks to be worth the add to my collection.

IMO in order to make weapons powerful in presents and grandeur your going to have to make them potent and less er...spammy IE less shots more damage and more critical locations to hit on a target and that changes the nature of gameplay completely a shooter is about constant movement and on today's smaller maps it makes the games shorter and shorter. If you build a range based FP game with the theme of hitting locations on your target, hiding from and returning better fire from cover without running out of ammo you will ave a slow paced but highly intense game of bullet tag, it could well be interesting to further develop the train of thought but the industry as it is can not handle such creativity they prefer their boxed sterile content.

 

[jdun]

I bet no one know what firearms were used in the Wild West on top of their head. However most of you know what the Wild West look like and the characters that was in that era. It was the environment and not the gun itself that made the Wild West what it is.

Like I posted before it is hard for people that have never own or handle a firearms to tell the difference between fantasy and facts. Most of these people get their information from movies, tv, games, news media, etc and 99.9% of it is wrong.

Take for example HK. HK firearms is in almost every game and films. Their MP5 and Mk.23 pistol for people that never own or fire a gun before is the best firearm ever made. To them it is use in US Special Forces. The reality is the MP5 is not use in US Special Forces anymore. It was used in the mid '90s for a short time but not anymore for the past 12 years. SEAL use Sig 226, M9, or 1911, the Mk.23 was never use, maybe SEAL wannabes not not real SEAL. In fact the Mk.23 got discontinued because there wasn't enough wannabes SEAL that willing to pay $2k for the pistol. Yet every games has these weapons which is the complete opposite of the reality of things. They did it is to keep the fantasy alive and I understand but the drawbacks is you got game kiddies spewing bad facts into the Internet boards.

HK went bankrupted twice in the 90's because they couldn't sell their guns. In the US, HK is near the bottom of sales. The US handgun market it is dominated by 1911 and Glocks. The 1911 is the best selling handgun of all time in the US. Almost all firearms companies at one time or another made 1911 clone. It is a constant money maker. Glocks owns 70% of the local Law Enforcement market in the USA. Beretta owns the US military market. Sig and S&W take mostly the rest. Yet HK is predominantly shown in games and films. Basically there is a disconnect from reality. I have no problem with it because they are selling a fantasy product. Reality can be boring something and you have to make ends meat to feed your family. The downside again is you got a lot of game kiddies that thinks HK is the greatest thing on earth.

Damage is simple in real life. You get hit by a rifle bullet in the chest, you're mostly dead or out of the fight. Pistol bullets are less lethal then their rifle counterpart but a well place shot in the chest can have the same effect as a rifle bullet. Like they said in training school, its about shot placement.

Here a perfect write up about HK product:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/hk-because-you-suck-and-we-hate-you/

The best handgun shooter in the world don't use HK. They use 1911 and Glocks.
http://www.idpa.com/tj.asp?ID=173

 

[masterhibb]

For instance I found myself slightly disturbed at having to shoot the female bosses in MGS4 as they stagger toward you stripped of all their armor, defenseless and dying. I'd spent the past ten minutes hammering away at some overwrought Japanese robot with a ridiculous machine gun and really the most powerful moment of the whole encounter is when you're forced to shoot someone you've already beat.

Actually, I didn't find those moments powerful at all. Supposedly, you're looking at a broken and exhausted enemy, stripped of the armor and weaponry that had made them powerful. Yet they're still bigger bullet sponges than any of the soldiers you had to fight through to make it to that point. If you want a more powerful scene, one shot should drop her to the ground like a sack of potatoes.

That's just the thing--guns in games don't feel powerful because they aren't powerful. Am I supposed to feel empowered in a shooter when I unload half a clip into the average grunt, only to watch him stagger for an instant and continue rushing straight towards me? A real bullet (or even a movie bullet) doesn't just shave off a portion of some unseen hit point variable and get forgotten about.

Let's use Uncharted as an example: you might assume an automatic rifle would be the more effective weapon in a situation where you are outnumbered. In most cases, though, I found the lowly pistol most useful, because you had a better chance of getting a headshot--the only time the bullets weren't just added to some damage total and shrugged off. Even if a headshot didn't kill the enemy, it at least stopped them from shooting back for a moment. On the other hand, if you were lucky enough to find a Magnum or Desert Eagle, for 6 glorious one-hit-kill shots you felt like you had actual power. It was the only time you felt like you were wielding a weapon that was not only longer range than your fists, but also more powerful.

It isn't just because of the lack of tension or consequences that guns have lost their sense of power in video games. It's caused just as much by the fact guns in games are nothing more than a mechanic--just another part of the math that runs the game world, and another variable to be balanced. In the Western, as in reality, guns are not balanced. Guns are the final word in interpersonal conflict. They're the trump card. When many of the most popular shooters allow enemies to soak up dozens of bullets without slowing down, though those same enemies can be neutralized by a single button press using a melee attack with a knife or even your fists, is it any wonder the gun as an entity has lost its mystique?

 

[NonCuro]

This reminded me of a letter I read about someone's experience playing one of the MoH games. He said he was gleefully blasting away nazi's until he came upon two of the enemy standing about smoking looking like they were in conversation. And this is when the author started thinking that these two man-shaped polygons could be talking about their kids and whatnot. He said he realised that he felt a bit repulsed y the fact he had to shoot them. They were just going about their guard duties. I suppose to restore "the myth of the gun" your target's have to seem human in more than form maybe.

 

[jdun]

For instance I found myself slightly disturbed at having to shoot the female bosses in MGS4 as they stagger toward you stripped of all their armor, defenseless and dying. I'd spent the past ten minutes hammering away at some overwrought Japanese robot with a ridiculous machine gun and really the most powerful moment of the whole encounter is when you're forced to shoot someone you've already beat.

Actually, I didn't find those moments powerful at all. Supposedly, you're looking at a broken and exhausted enemy, stripped of the armor and weaponry that had made them powerful. Yet they're still bigger bullet sponges than any of the soldiers you had to fight through to make it to that point. If you want a more powerful scene, one shot should drop her to the ground like a sack of potatoes.

That's just the thing--guns in games don't feel powerful because they aren't powerful. Am I supposed to feel empowered in a shooter when I unload half a clip into the average grunt, only to watch him stagger for an instant and continue rushing straight towards me? A real bullet (or even a movie bullet) doesn't just shave off a portion of some unseen hit point variable and get forgotten about.

Let's use Uncharted as an example: you might assume an automatic rifle would be the more effective weapon in a situation where you are outnumbered. In most cases, though, I found the lowly pistol most useful, because you had a better chance of getting a headshot--the only time the bullets weren't just added to some damage total and shrugged off. Even if a headshot didn't kill the enemy, it at least stopped them from shooting back for a moment. On the other hand, if you were lucky enough to find a Magnum or Desert Eagle, for 6 glorious one-hit-kill shots you felt like you had actual power. It was the only time you felt like you were wielding a weapon that was not only longer range than your fists, but also more powerful.

It isn't just because of the lack of tension or consequences that guns have lost their sense of power in video games. It's caused just as much by the fact guns in games are nothing more than a mechanic--just another part of the math that runs the game world, and another variable to be balanced. In the Western, as in reality, guns are not balanced. Guns are the final word in interpersonal conflict. They're the trump card. When many of the most popular shooters allow enemies to soak up dozens of bullets without slowing down, though those same enemies can be neutralized by a single button press using a melee attack with a knife or even your fists, is it any wonder the gun as an entity has lost its mystique?

I think almost all the gaming developers either doesn't understand modern combat or too wrap up on the balance issue. To me I think its both.

"Never bring a knife to a gunfight" and "A pistol is there to help you get a rifle".

The first one means that knife are obsolete in a gun fight. There is only one case in Iraq that a knife was use in a gun fight and that was because he ran out of bullets. The second phase means that rifles are better then pistol in almost every situation. Pistol vs. Rifle, 98% of time the rifle will beat out the pistol in a gunfight. Yet in games pistol beat out rifle 98% of the time. In the US military you're aren't issued a M9/pistol unless you're a SAW/machinegun gunner (that because you're aren't issued a rifle), MP, Special Force, or Officer(there might be others but those are specialize cases). The training you receive for pistol is far far less then rifle in the US military.

 

[Nutcase]

Reality is a bad comparison. What games should aspire to, at least for the time being, is delivering the kind of impact movies do.

It all comes down to two things:
effect on target
who the target is

Guns will feel powerful, when games dare to go for emotional impact, the people you are shooting are humanized, and the resulting mess is not sanitized. This is not a question of gore.

Who is the person you are shooting? What does he like and care about? Does he have friends or family?

Does the person you shot slump down against a wall, incredulous of his mortality, and lose consciousness? Does he throw down his weapon, surrender and ask you to spare him - or give you his last words to pass onto someone? Does he drop like a rock, but then bleed and scream for minutes before his consciousness goes? Or did you shatter his arm, and he's shooting through a haze of pain and panic unable to aim? Is he unhit, but afraid and trying to get away?

Does someone else stop fighting you and run to the fallen man? Hug him and cry? Or dash out of cover to drag his comrade into cover, braving the sniper (you) because that's what needs to be done?

When the dust settles, did you shoot the right person, or were you perhaps jumpy and paranoid enough to confuse a civilian with an armed enemy?

What we need is the Heat, the Reservoir Dogs, the Battle Royale, the Full Metal Jacket of games. The excuse "can't be done" does not fly, when no one is trying.

As far as the physical effects go, guns need to be louder and more powerful. The bullets should go through objects. (This is one of the subtle things that made Counterstrike guns so great.) They should also destroy objects where it's reasonable. And they should put normal humans down in a flash. If gameplay demands someone is not easily killed, it might be a good idea to make them something other than human.

 

[Baneat]

What about sasha?