Poll: "Realism" in shooters.
- Thread starter Waaghpowa
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You call the hospital thing a red herring, but it's entirely relevant. In real life, there are many situations which take control entirely out of your hands. People get struck by lightning, hit by cars, or shot by rounds through the hull of a blackhawk before their feet even touch the ground. The individual actually stands a fairly slim chance of being the deciding factor in a situation, and that's generally what the player wants to be. The player must be the difference between life and death, victory and defeat. Otherwise they will be hard pressed to give a fuck.ElPatron said:
Let's take your "entirely on base" game. What would you be doing? For the sake of argument, let's say you're investigating an intel leak and have to talk to people to figure out what's going on. You've found a guy who you think might have info, but before you get to interview him, his convoy hits an I.E.D and he dies. Searching his belongings yields nothing, and the case goes cold. Alternatively, the guy responsible is caught by his squadmates 5 minutes before you arrive on base. Shit happens.
Even in a situation that doesn't directly involve combat, there are several leaps of probability that must be taken to ensure that the situation remains interesting for the full course of the game, and that the player remains the deciding factor in the outcome.
I have nothing against realistic elements, but the idea that realism is directly proportional to quality is absurd.
I read the OP gave an example of a game that shouldn't be realistic and you quoted me to say other wise how is that a red herring. You were the one that asked what would be wrong with realism in it.ElPatron said:
Also giving an example of 1 type of game that uses ammo types is hardly clinging onto it when I am asking about so much more.
Your exact words. I have stated why I wouldn't want realistic ballistics in Halo and since ammo is kind of an important part of how ballistics work along with penetration and many other variables yes they are important and certainly not red herrings.
So please do explain how what type of ammo or shell I am firing doesn't affect its ballistic properties on impact at least? Also care to explain how things like penetration, bullet speed and energy also not important when they are already taken into account in most games? Although, far from realistic.
I wouldn't mind if you could point out how I haven't read the OP since I seem to have a more or less mirror opinion on the subject as the OP.
Realistic ballistics: depends on the game. Modern shooters that pride themselves on a realistic depiction of war. Sure. Games that set up an unrealistic setting with unrealistic objectives. No. Does this mean it cant... no but it really depends on what the game is more than "shoot the bad guy."
Realistic ballistics are all well and good... but I say if you're going for realism, go all the way. I'd like to see a modern remake of the original Rainbow Six, honestly.
That said, even in a physics-breaking sci-fi epic I'd like to be able to shoot through cardboard, or between fence rails. Realistic ballistics are a nice feature in any shooter.
That said, even in a physics-breaking sci-fi epic I'd like to be able to shoot through cardboard, or between fence rails. Realistic ballistics are a nice feature in any shooter.
I really don't care and don't see why anyone else should, I'm in this gaming lark to have fun. Blasting through space monkey ninja robot assassins with my 27 barrelled laser rainbow lightning musket or desperately scanning a ruined building through the scope of sniper rifle in the hope of glimpsing the enemy sniper. It doesn't matter as long as there both fun and both realistic ballistics and silliness can be, it's all shiny in my eye's.
I do think there's way too much faux realism in video games. Sun Tzu said that the way to win battles was never to fight on an even playing field, which is exactly what Camperstrike and Tent Combat were all about, when Quake III was pretty much down to your actual ability to play. In single player, you end up with stuff like Medal of "Honor" (2010), where you spend the whole game shooting at specks in the distance, and really, how is respawning more realistic than regenerative health or pick-ups anyway?
You could have the Tour de France on open roads on the basis that "in the real world there will be traffic around", but it would be pointless, because then it's not a race, it's a roll of the dice. In fact, track cycling, and time trials, which are in the most artificial environment, are also the fairest and most dependent on athletic ability (as conditions and tactics are taken out of the equation).
Video games are supposed to be an artificial environment. Simulation can add to the experience, and I much prefer Race Driver to any arcade racer, but it only works to a point, and I think realism is a massive gimmick in FPSs.
You could have the Tour de France on open roads on the basis that "in the real world there will be traffic around", but it would be pointless, because then it's not a race, it's a roll of the dice. In fact, track cycling, and time trials, which are in the most artificial environment, are also the fairest and most dependent on athletic ability (as conditions and tactics are taken out of the equation).
Video games are supposed to be an artificial environment. Simulation can add to the experience, and I much prefer Race Driver to any arcade racer, but it only works to a point, and I think realism is a massive gimmick in FPSs.
I played the demo of Sniper Elite V2, and I freaking loved it.
I would absolutely love if more games contained at least that amount of realism, though not EVERY game. Depends on the title.
I would absolutely love if more games contained at least that amount of realism, though not EVERY game. Depends on the title.
Yes, thank you, Original Poster, for adding yet another must-have to my growing list of planned purchases!
Other than that, Sniper Elite seems to be a nice example of the level of realism I'd like to have in non-fantasy shooters. Or: I'd like to like ARMA (and such), really, but those games kind of annoy me with their tedious slow- and doughy-ness.
What happened to the days when, regarding to the demo I've just played, it was - realistically - your, the player's, responsibility to find the "vantage point" to assault that convoy!? Who is this entity which tells me exactly where to go in order to complete the task? And ffs why?
Other than that, Sniper Elite seems to be a nice example of the level of realism I'd like to have in non-fantasy shooters. Or: I'd like to like ARMA (and such), really, but those games kind of annoy me with their tedious slow- and doughy-ness.
This is what bothers me with this game, I hate how the path was essentially linear and I couldn't just go into a wrecked building for my vantage point. As I stated in a previous post, I hope that it opens up more in the full game, but it could be a symptom of accessibility of the generation. You'd figure a game about being a sniper in WW2, in a city fight, would have more options.purf said:
Ever played ARMA 2?SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Super realistic physics, vehicles with real gauges + readouts, real tactics, targets and wounds - it's the most realistic military sim to date (hell it's the only military sim in the current em of games). The only downside of it is the AI is a little retarded, but most players play exclusively multiplayer.
It's so good that the US Armed forces use a modified version of it to train recruits.
Check out Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad, the most realistic shooter I've played. It has ballistics, the screams of dying people, no hud. Seriously check it out.
ARMA2 is essentially a sequel to the original OFP, the new OFPs is made by a splinter developer and are essentially shit :LAnthraxus said:
I've seriously been considering getting it for some time now. My only problem is time. Between Tribes Ascend (which I've been playing since the beta opened in November), Battlefield 3, SWTOR, my class, work etc, I've hesitated getting it due to time constraints.BlumiereBleck said:
Then Red Orchestra 2 is the game for you. I actively put the dying out of their misery in that game because hearing them weeze and cry is so damned horrifying at times.Skoldpadda said:
That I agree with to, this game (even though it was a demo) let the player take 4-5 shots and not even flinch! Just some tomato juice on the screen again 
He also took a shit ton of shots from the same position and the AI didn't even notice, the only time they did they ran directly towards him in the open...
He also took a shit ton of shots from the same position and the AI didn't even notice, the only time they did they ran directly towards him in the open...
Realism is nice, but it think the a better way of looking at it is that extra ballistic factors simply makes combat more complex and intentional than simply lining up crosshairs. Bullet drop seems in the same vain as Halo's two tiered health system or Counter Strike's recoil patterns. It makes each kill satisfying, allows skilled people to stand out a bit more, and adds depth in general.