Poll: Military vehicles not realistic enough in games?

nettkenneth

New member
Apr 6, 2009
260
0
0
well realism suck one hit kills and you got to watch the winds when sniping, i wanna have fun playing, not hiding in a bin cause there is a tank outside and i cant do shit, if you want realism good for you just make sure you don't go to far with it, i still wanna make a impact even if i am an rifleman
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
Scolar Visari said:
God damn man, just god damn. I love both of you soooo much right now. ... you for being one of the few people on here who actually understands ballistics and how bullets behave when they enter the body.
That comes from being a trained medical sergeant. For one week (7 days), 8h a day we sat quietly and listened to trained doctors tell us this stuff.

Let me tell you, some of the pictures of real battlefield wounds are nauseating. I hope I never have to see such wounds in real life.
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
WrongSprite said:
That's because those are 2 games in which NOTHING is realistic.

Look to the mil-sims like ARMA, ARMA 2 and Operation Flashpoint 1.
Damnit! My usual gushing worship of Operation Flashpoint has been ninja'd!
I'll get you for this, Sprite!
 

Nutcase

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,177
0
0
I'll meet you guys in that super-realistic game of yours when it's done. Oh, and I'll be playing the artillery. :]
 

Bigeyez

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,135
0
0
Does it really matter? Even the most "realistic" games are hardly realistic at all.

Not to mention that a game that tried to be that realistic in all aspects would end up not being very much fun to play anyways so whatever. Thats completely ignoring the insane amount of money and man hours it would take to program and get tiny details like that working perfectly.

You want that sort of realism? Go join the army.
 

WrongSprite

Resident Morrowind Fanboy
Aug 10, 2008
4,503
0
0
AmrasCalmacil said:
WrongSprite said:
That's because those are 2 games in which NOTHING is realistic.

Look to the mil-sims like ARMA, ARMA 2 and Operation Flashpoint 1.
Damnit! My usual gushing worship of Operation Flashpoint has been ninja'd!
I'll get you for this, Sprite!
Looks like there's a new Mil-sim fan in town....

¬_¬
 

griever0311

New member
Dec 10, 2008
69
0
0
Pictures are cool and all, but I've put close to half a mag into a goddamn haji before he went down. I've never had a problem putting dumbasses down with 7.62. One clean burst is all it ever took from a 240G.
 

griever0311

New member
Dec 10, 2008
69
0
0
Yeah, I already played a game called "United States Marine Corps infantry"; it was pretty fun, but was talking about realism in vidya games, sonny.
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
In games where vehicular combat is key they always make the vehicles waaaay to strong in my opinion. Simply because, yes, they give the whole thing a 'heath bar' instead of putting some hit box with 'cause and effect' elements. The most you have with hit boxes is how much damage each one reduces and nothing more then that.

Worse they then make it so you have to whittle the thing down with enough explosives to demolish a building! All because they have made vehicular combat such a vital component that you need them not just to get from A to B but because you are so squishy without them you do all that running just to die when stray bullet taps you in the toe from across the map.

And on that matter: Why not do the same thing for the human body! Sure we are squishy to the point a bullet can kill us, but the chance of that happening even on the battle field is quite low. Take a look at the statistics, thanks to modern combat armour and the likes more people come back wounded from being shot, or exploded, then dead.

So why not add a system where your body also takes realistic damage. Instead of 1 shot 1 kill anywhere, like most 'realistic' games have, you can take different rates of blood loss depending on the size of the hole and the location of it. Then even a wound that will prove lethal will give you a few seconds after being shot to at least panic and spray rounds in the enemies general direction.

I even have a not so patented three tier health system that allows the illusion of realistic health based around system shock, blood loss and structure damage.

Non-lethal damage, like a round that gets caught by a vest, causes system shock and nothing much more. It doesn't cause any lasting damage but the pain slows you down and makes it difficult to shoot straight, like being drunk. Enough could even put you flat on your arse till someone drags you to cover and gives you a minute or so to get you to your unstable feet.

Blood loss is a simple 1-100 number, disguised as a high and low blood pressure reading that drops as you bleed out. You can still function, in the seconds or minutes depending the round type and area hit, you have left to kiss your arse goodbye. Most of the time your going to panic and spray bullets around while you try to take cover and apply pressure to the wound till a medic can stop you from spilling red gunk all over the place.

Structure damage represents vital organs and load bearing structures like muscles in the arms and legs. Damage to this just causes an instant effect, from drowning on your own blood to being unable to hold the gun as steady as you could without the muscles aching like all hell from being torn up by shrapnel. A head shot still can drop you faster then anything else, a second before everything goes black, and having your heart ripped from your chest will be a very bad day indeed.

Lots of ideas that stem from that too but this isn't the time and the place.

Still, yes! In regards of changes to the health of vehicles, and even people, I don't see why we are using old and outdated methods. Realistic cause and effects can not be that difficult to program in, surely?

-------

Added: A interesting book I was reading, and still am now and then when I am bored, was on sniper training. The author wrote a few good chapters on how a single bullet can reduce the efficacy of modern day tanks and other armoured vehicles. With proper hit boxes in place one could, in theory, reduce the combat effectiveness of a tank to the point the tank crew will have to expose themselves to be of any efficient use at all. Even with nothing more then small arms fire!

I would very much like to see that. Cause as much as people complain about a realistic game having you left cowering while a tank rolls pass.... they already do that! If your not equipped to deal with a tank, many games of which you can't carry enough anti-tank explosives on hand to deal with it single handed, then your left cowering completely.

If you could take out vital targeting systems with a bullet it would at least give you the chance to escape from the tank even if you don't have anything that could disable or destroy it.

PS: for the person complaining a realistic tank would be hard to control. We are not talking about having to operate every leaver manually here, the interface will still be simplified. After all we can just assume your 'character' knows how to handle a tank even if you do not. You will be surprised to find out that tanks are quite manoeuvrable! For all their weight they are quite agile and current games don't' do them any justice as they now stand.
 

Valkyira

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,733
0
0
If they were as realistic as possible it would not be fun. They would be impossible to control and instead of driving around flawlessly, everyone would be crashing.
 

monalith

New member
Nov 24, 2008
112
0
0
project reality on the BF 2 engine has bullet deviation, destructible terrain, proper crew requirements for vehicles, localised damage i.e if you hit a tanks treads with a rocket it losses its tracks and finally some classes con build building
 

RufusMcLaser

New member
Mar 27, 2008
714
0
0
nikki191 said:
even flashpoint and ARMA still use hitpoints for vehicles. may take a while but yes a guy with a heavy machine gun can still destroy a main battle tank given enough ammo.. think you can eventually with an assault rifle too, its been a long time since ive played them so could someone else confirm that?
It's true, but it takes forever.

In response to OP, realism has to take back seat to playability. I love my copy of Steal Beasts PE but wouldn't recommend it to anyone but a die-hard tanksim fan. It's my experience that games which reflect an aspect of real life which is inherently unbalanced are beset by cries of "BALANCE!" from the players.
 

Nick Bounty

New member
Feb 17, 2009
324
0
0
Realism in games can only take you so far. Otherwise devs will have to take in terrain, exhaustion, actual bullet damage (taking away the health bar and med kits), friendly fire (if its an American campaign), weather patterns and so many other variable that may result in one-hit-kills that it may take away from the fun of actually playing a game.

As for vehicles, they are alright as they are now. If you need realism to a full extent then ARMA I and II might suffice
 

tkioz

Fussy Fiddler
May 7, 2009
2,301
0
0
Realism doesn't always mean Good and/or FUN. Seriously I'd much rather play a fun game that sacrifices a little realism then a game that's 100% realistic but no fucking fun
 

AmrasCalmacil

New member
Jul 19, 2008
2,421
0
0
WrongSprite said:
AmrasCalmacil said:
WrongSprite said:
That's because those are 2 games in which NOTHING is realistic.

Look to the mil-sims like ARMA, ARMA 2 and Operation Flashpoint 1.
Damnit! My usual gushing worship of Operation Flashpoint has been ninja'd!
I'll get you for this, Sprite!
Looks like there's a new Mil-sim fan in town....

¬_¬
An' this forum ain't big enough fer th'both o' us...

... No wait! My mistake, it is. Tea?