Poll: "Realism" in shooters.

[ElPatron]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: hell fuckin' no.

Keep the realism to simulators, I prefer my shooters to be straight-up testosterone-fuelled murder fests.

Again, someone who didn't read the thread.

Would you prefer to play a shooter if there was a greater focus on realistic ballistics rather than a ton of hit scan?

What the hell does the system used for the ballistics has to do with the theme of a game?

ATTENTION EVERYONE!

REMEMBER SOLDIER OF FORTUNE? YEAH, IT HAD A PRETTY AWESOME DAMAGE SYSTEM.

This is what ballistics calculation does. It's a simple example, the way the bullets have an effect on the game have NOTHING to do with the theme.

 

[natster43]

It depends on the title really. If I am playing something like CoDfish Modern Flounder or Hat Fortress 2, I don't care because I am too busy running around as a one man army or using a minigun. If I am playing Battlefield, I want there to be the bullet drop and leading and such like in more recent titles.

 

[wgar]

To be clear: the first game is just like this and just as awesome.

You can stealth-snipe as well, where you time it with the explosion of artillery nearby, and you get the slow-mo bullet-cam too.

Although it also has wind and gravity (which really come into play post-200m), whereas ArmA just has gravity and ricochets.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Ok you want realistic ballistics in Halo? So you want to take into account penetration, moisture of the air, angle of the armour(affects penetration), shield strength, speed of bullet, degradation of bullet speed and energy as per distance travelled due to air resistance, different round types, realistic plasma burn, realistic penetration through environment and possibility for rounds to bounce. Those are just things off the top of my head. Sorry, but that has no place in a game like Halo but if want to change around how certain guns work for balance that is fine but not realism in Halo. A game about a genetically engineered Space Marine fighting against Aliens in space it just doesn't suit the setting and the tone of that game.

Once again, someone taking it too far. YOU SHOULD BE IN A HOSPITAL STARING AT THE WALL FOR HOURS IF IT WANTS TO BE REALISTIC !!

It's a game ppl. Try and have some common sense. Touches of realism here and there can really add depth and make the experience more engaging. It can create a steeper learning curve which adds to the long term enjoyment. Rather than just the same old point and shoot monotony, which gets boring fast.

You do know you need to add my name so you can actually quote me? I was asked should Halo be realistic and I gave my answer pseudo-realism or light realism like BF 3 with bullet drop is not realism. A couple of realistic bits here and there =/= a realistic game. If you want to know what a realistic game looks like look at Arma, Flashpoint or Red Orchestra.

When did I ever say realism was bad in all cases? Don't put words into my mouth because you haven't read my original post or do not look like you have. Yes, if you have common sense you would realise making something like Halo with the way it sets itself out to be realistic is silly. It is like making 40k not an over powered, scaled to the extreme laughable parody.

 

[deathbydeath]

It really depends on the title. Sometimes I want to play Serious Sam or Painkiller in which case, realism be damned, but in games like Stalker, where tension and fear are key, realism (bullet drop, low health, and no regen health). Both games result in different tactics and play styles, and so have their respective uses.

 

[wintercoat]

In the majority of shooters? No. In those that are more tactical? Yes. A game like, say, Half-Life, where the majority of shooting happens in tight corridors or rooms it would be meaningless for there to be bullet drop-off for the few times you might shoot at someone from long range. A game like Stalker, which IIRC does have bullet drop-off, where there's lots of open space, yes. It makes things more interesting, if a bit frustrating, when trying to take out a base full of mercs or soldiers with a sniper rifle when you have to take more into consideration.

 

[ElPatron]

snip

And now you know: most times the military develops ONE kind of round, which is the standard, or ball ammo. Then you have AP or Tracer ammo.

Hollow points are banned from conventional warfare by the Houge convention. Guess what? Due to the nature of Halo armor, the ball ammo may actually be armor piercing.

You're just introducing Red Herrings on this argument.

snip

Even without drop off, there could be a ballistics calculator. Why? For example, realistic ricochets - it would fit with HL2's physics.

 

[Daverson]

I like realism, but I also like unrealism! (My two all time favourite shooters are probably OFP and Quake II, so you get the picture =p )

"Gun Porn" like CoD... not so much.

 

[Bad Jim]

What difference does it make if a game uses a hitscan method or a ballistic simulator?

It would allow for more balance because the game would calculate ballistic properties and developers could use those results to prevent weapons from being too powerful or too weak.

We have a winner. Actually, Quake 3 used that principle. There is only one true hitscan weapon in the game, the weak machine gun everyone spawns with. This means that every decent weapon can be dodged. Progamers consider even the weak machinegun to be overpowered for this reason.

Contrast say Counterstrike and a lot of other games which have an overpowered sniper rifle because it is a one hit kill, super accurate and impossible to dodge, allowing a good player to instakill anything he sees. The Quake 3 railgun is a one hit kill but it is a projectile that can miss.

Of course, that's only an argument for projectiles vs hitscan. Bullet drop is less important, because it's only the really long ranges where compensating for it becomes an art and few games have much fighting at that range. Shorter range fighting is generally more fun. I enjoyed Delta Force, but I generally prefer ranges that don't require scoping.

 

[Unsilenced]

If they were, they'd be just as shitty and boring as real life.

The "cinema is life without the boring parts" issue.

Doesn't happen in gaming. I think that in Red Orchestra if you jumped from a roof you'd really break your legs instead of getting a red screen. So much for the "main protagonist is crippled" argument.

It's not a good analogy. Some of the best movies ever hardly have any action - and they are a great experience. Realistic shooters are usually packed with action, because unlike movies, they require player input.

The movie Tears of The Sun is as much as enjoyable as Predator. Realism doesn't make something automatically boring. Normally in games it increases the complexity and therefore makes the game "last more" since you can just speed-run it, lets you try a multitude of strategies and many times even includes editors and quick missions. It also makes success more enjoyable but this is purely an opinion.

Most movies that are "realistic" like that aren't action movies. I guess you could say that "Dear Ester" plays realistically (avian transformations notwithstanding) in that sense, but since we're talking mainly about action-based games, it's not really relevant.

IIRC, you just die really quickly falling off things in Red Orchestra. If you "broke your legs" and had to wait out the rest of the match sitting in a corner without respawning, just waiting to be killed or until the round ended, it would suck. Even more so if every time you started up the game again it showed the inside of a army field hospital. Respawning does allow games to get away with it a bit more than movies because it's basically saying "oh nevermind fuck that guy here's the REAL protagonist" until you get shot again, but there are still limits. In a movie you can have a protagonist locked in a cellar for 2 hours and have a really interesting movie. If you try that in a game you'll just have a really angry player.

"Realistic" mechanics can provide depth, but so can unrealistic ones. That's an issue of freedom, not realism. Being able to hold your breath to steady sniper shots adds variation to gameplay in pretty much the same way that being able to call down lazors from space does. Realistic or not, it's just another option you have in your toolbox.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: hell fuckin' no.

Keep the realism to simulators, I prefer my shooters to be straight-up testosterone-fuelled murder fests.

Again, someone who didn't read the thread.

Would you prefer to play a shooter if there was a greater focus on realistic ballistics rather than a ton of hit scan?

What the hell does the system used for the ballistics has to do with the theme of a game?

ATTENTION EVERYONE!

REMEMBER SOLDIER OF FORTUNE? YEAH, IT HAD A PRETTY AWESOME DAMAGE SYSTEM.

This is what ballistics calculation does. It's a simple example, the way the bullets have an effect on the game have NOTHING to do with the theme.

He answered with hit scan what is the problem? If game sets itself up to like Bulletstorm in tone and we got a realistic combat system I wouldn't be surprised if anyone was confused.

 

[Waaghpowa]

To be clear: the first game is just like this and just as awesome.

You can stealth-snipe as well, where you time it with the explosion of artillery nearby, and you get the slow-mo bullet-cam too.

Although it also has wind and gravity (which really come into play post-200m), whereas ArmA just has gravity and ricochets.

I played the first game, and yes it had all that stealthy like stuff. Unfortunately while playing the demo for this new one, I wasn't given much room for stealth. Practically nowhere to hide, most buildings were blocked off or straight inaccessible and there wasn't any discernible explosions for me to use to mask my shot. I hope that it's only because it's a demo and that the game has more depth in the full version. One can hope >.>

 

[Torrasque]

Would I still need to use up an entire clip to kill an enemy? I don't want realistic ballistics unless it includes realistic damage

Magazine. Clips only hold ammo "temporarily".

Halo is still my favorite shooter of all time, with Time Splitters 2 following close behind.
I think that says enough about what I think of "realism".

Okay, this thread has now officially the highest "didn't read before posting" ratio of all time. Off all time!

Its game 6 for my Bruins, and it is tied going into overtime. Excuse me if I seem a little distracted.

*reads*

Ok, my position still stands. I play CoD cuz a friend of mine plays it, and whenever we play, it is fun (most of the time at least) but it can be pretty stupid sometimes with it's hit detection. I have played games with bullet drop, and realistic bullet mechanics (it was another game with sniper in the name I think), and it was lousy. I had to follow all the rules of physics when shooting enemies, and lining up shots was a hastle at times, especially for moving targets. When enemies shot at me, they had perfect accuracy... When I am sniping from 600 yards away and have to aim 2 inches up just to hit NEAR the target, an enemy should not be able to mow me down with an AK from the same distance.

Maybe if the sniping mechanics were simpler (1 target and 1 shot) or they applied to EVERYONE in the game, then I would like them more.
I am fine with hit-box games though. Games like CoD just need to L2 hit detection.

Better? I can reply in the form of a haiku if you prefer.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip

And now you know: most times the military develops ONE kind of round, which is the standard, or ball ammo. Then you have AP or Tracer ammo.

Hollow points are banned from conventional warfare by the Houge convention. Guess what? Due to the nature of Halo armor, the ball ammo may actually be armor piercing.

You're just introducing Red Herrings on this argument.

snip

Even without drop off, there could be a ballistics calculator. Why? For example, realistic ricochets - it would fit with HL2's physics.

And you're still not even considering the plethora of other things that would have to be added to make Halo realistic. Do you really think in something like Halo hollow point rounds wouldn't be used? I think things like Hague and the Geneva convention were thrown out the window in Halo with experimentation on children. This isn't even considering how Energy shields would work and function to make the game realistic and not pseudo-realistic.

Just because you want some more realistic real life things thrown in to spice up certain games does not make them realistic.

 

[ElPatron]

Most movies that are "realistic" like that aren't action movies.

Tears of The Sun
Act of Valor

They were made to offer realism. They are still action movies.

The "hospital" argument is a Red Herring. Although it could be implemented well, in a multiplayer game incapacitation is incapacitation.

If you're wounded and can be revived, you wait. If you get killed, you wait. Nothing that doesn't involve the interaction from the protagonist should be implemented.

We could have a game that could be set entirely in a military base and had no combat. However, it wouldn't be a war game, it would be more like an adventure game.

 

[ElPatron]

And you're still not even considering the plethora of other things that would have to be added to make Halo realistic. Do you really think in something like Halo hollow point rounds wouldn't be used? I think things like Hague and the Geneva convention were thrown out the window in Halo with experimentation on children. This isn't even considering how Energy shields would work and function to make the game realistic and not pseudo-realistic.

You're still clinging on a Red Herring, elements you introduced yourself that I am not going to discuss.

However, issuing hollow point ammo to defeat armor would be the most retarded thing the military would do.

 

[ElPatron]

He answered with hit scan what is the problem? If game sets itself up to like Bulletstorm in tone and we got a realistic combat system I wouldn't be surprised if anyone was confused.

No, he answered by describing the theme of the game, not the system used.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

And you're still not even considering the plethora of other things that would have to be added to make Halo realistic. Do you really think in something like Halo hollow point rounds wouldn't be used? I think things like Hague and the Geneva convention were thrown out the window in Halo with experimentation on children. This isn't even considering how Energy shields would work and function to make the game realistic and not pseudo-realistic.

You're still clinging on a Red Herring, elements you introduced yourself that I am not going to discuss.

However, issuing hollow point ammo to defeat armor would be the most retarded thing the military would do.

Are you serious? Really? Explain to me how bullet bounce, penetration and things like deformable bodies are something that shouldn't be in a game like Halo that relies heavily on vehicles and armoured enemies? If it were to be realistic. You keep using that phrase red herring but I don't think it means what you think it means. I am not distracting you from the issue I am putting forward things that would have to be implemented to make Halo realistic and you are just saying no I won't discuss them.

Then what do you want discuss?

We are on a thread about discussing realism in shooters and you won't discuss the things that would actually make the game realistic. That doesn't make sense! You are just replying to one line in my post and doing sweet nothing else. What argument are you even trying to make at this point? You have literally added nothing to this discussion for last few posts.

 

[ElPatron]

snip

Does Halo allow you to customize the kind of ammunition used? You're introducing something to argue against the use of a ballistic calculator that isn't supposed to be in the game. Red Herring.

I am not sure if you understand Halo. When I played it, to me Halo was the feeling that sometimes no other game could replicate the randomness of some kills.

Crazy ricochets would only further allow the game to throw you ludicrous deaths.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip

Does Halo allow you to customize the kind of ammunition used? You're introducing something to argue against the use of a ballistic calculator that isn't supposed to be in the game. Red Herring.

I am not sure if you understand Halo. When I played it, to me Halo was the feeling that sometimes no other game could replicate the randomness of some kills.

Crazy ricochets would only further allow the game to throw you ludicrous deaths.

No it isn't and you obviously don't know what a red herring is as you keep using it wrongly. You wanted an example of how to make something realistic and I gave it as different rounds are used for different purposes see World of Tanks.

Do you know the point I am making about how making Halo a realistic game would be ridiculous? Once again, touches of realism =/= realistic.