Realism in Games?

[Pyode]

About a month ago I was playing the demo for Battlestations Pacific and having trouble with it. I had never played any of the other games and the demo didn't have a tutorial so I was trying to figure everything out. I was having an very hard time with the realistic dive bombing mechanics, especially because the game gives you a bombing reticule that the bomb never lands anywhere near. A little while later I was trying to destroy some wooden shacks with rockets but it took like 6 rockets to blow up a wooden shack. This contrast of realism in gaming got me thinking...

As technology advances we can make games more and more realistic. This has the potential to take games to another level as an art form, but it can be taken too far. I don't want to play an FPS where I die in one hit from any gun or a frag grenade can kill me from 200 feet away. All that will lead to is frustrating game play which doesn't make for a good game. On the other end of the spectrum however, I don't want a game where it take 3 shotgun blasts at point blank range dosn't kill someone. A balance needs to be found.

We can't forget what the core purpose of video games is. That is to take us away from reality. To allow us to experience things we could never experience in real life. It needs to be realistic in such a way that it is immersive and believable but not so realistic that you get half way through the game and you die from one stray bullet and have to start the entire game over again.

Anyway, that's my opinion, what do you guys think?

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Well, the point of a game isn't some much for you to escape from reality it's more about putting you in a different reality. And thus realism help anchor the new reality you are in. Of course immersion and fun need to be balanced which it seems the game you're describing didn't do.

 

[Dramatic Flare]

someone once made a realistic Vietnam game. No one wanted to play it because around 50% of the time you were shot the moment you got out of the helicopter. I totally understand what you're going for.
Also, welcome to the escapist.

The place developers are trying to shoot for is "suspension of disbelief" where one understands why all these super moves and crazy acrobatics can exist, but they don't break the flow of the game. And on the flip side, no one takes three sniper shots to the head and walks away from it.

 

[Minimike3636]

I think this problem can be solved when you select your difficulty.
Unless it's Ninja Gaiden.

EDIT: Okay in all seriousness, realism is bullshit in videogames. Metal Gear Solid is a perfect example, since nobody could possibly have 20/2000 vision (damn blind henchmen). I'm not saying realism doesn't exist in videogames, I'm saying it shouldn't. Even Call of Duty's realism is drained away when you include the regeneration factor. If you want a game with good difficulty balance for a fair sense of realism, try Half-Life 2. A whack of a metal crowbar to kill a crab, 2 shotgun shells to the head to kill a zombie, and a handful of rockets to take down a chopper. Fair enough.

 

[LongAndShort]

I agree. A balance is needed. I wouldn't mind a realistic FPS in that, a bullet in the chest is absorbed by Kevlar, but breaks a few ribs so reduces your sprint time, a bullet in the leg gives you a limp, a head shot gives you a concussion and blurs your vision, a hit in the arm or shoulder reduces the stability of your weapon. I think that would be challenging without being impossible.

 

[Pyode]

I think this problem can be solved when you select your difficulty.

I'm not really talking about game difficulty. It's fine if a game takes skill. The problem is when the difficulty just comes from cheap deaths like dieing from a sniper that there is no way you could know where he is until you have already died 3 times. That is cheap frustrating game play that doesn't make for a fun experience.

 

[Crazydriver]

Honestly I think developers should stick to a stylized version of reality, as in not dying after only a few hits and (at least in my opinion) being able to do ridiculously stupid things like rocket jumps.

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

I agree. A balance is needed. I wouldn't mind a realistic FPS in that, a bullet in the chest is absorbed by Kevlar, but breaks a few ribs so reduces your sprint time, a bullet in the leg gives you a limp, a head shot gives you a concussion and blurs your vision, a hit in the arm or shoulder reduces the stability of your weapon. I think that would be challenging without being impossible.

Games like Operation Flashpoint and ArmA are very much like that, although I usually just die if I'm shot in the chest. Darn. If you take damage to the legs you'll be forced to crawl, damage to the arms will make aiming a lot harder, although these are healed by a quick run to the medic.

I'm not really talking about game difficulty. It's fine if a game takes skill. The problem is when the difficulty just comes from cheap deaths like dieing from a sniper that there is no way you could know where he is until you have already died 3 times. That is cheap frustrating game play that doesn't make for a fun experience.

Such experiences tend to teach me to keep my head down a lot more.

 

[Pyode]

Honestly I think developers should stick to a stylized version of reality, as in not dying after only a few hits and (at least in my opinion) being able to do ridiculously stupid things like rocket jumps.

i don't necessarily think either of those things are bad as long as those things are balanced by another game mechanic.

For example. Its OK to have a game where you die in a few hits as long as they balance it with something, like the ability to hide and some sore of radar so you always know where the enemy is, or something like that. Its fine if you make it real... just don't make it cheap.

 

[Pyode]

Such experiences tend to teach me to keep my head down a lot more.

Yea, but the point is you have already died from the first encounter. You may be able to handle him the second time you get there but there was no way to survive the first time through. That kind of trial and error game play isn't fun. At least to me.

 

[Giraffle]

I think that some games should stick to their realism, like take two different FPS's for example, Call of Duty, and TF2, CoD is more focused on realistic millitary sequences, when TF2 is a more cartooney, free-living game, that isnt a fraid to break a few rules.

Some games belong to realism, while others should be less, now with the whole point about dying easier, yeah, its bullshit to die from just 1 or 2 bullets in the middle of a battle, which is why realistic games have to sacrifice a few things, so maybe games should never become too real?

I personally dont like regenerating health, its useful, but I like healthbars/meters more, it seems more real to me, which I think why I would consider Battlefield Bad Company (havent played the WW2 one) is the best FPS I played

 

[Rustbucket]

I also dislike regenerating health, but we can't forget that bad company had a syringe which could automatically save you from death. Very realistic.

 

[V379]

If you want to really get a realistic experience play operation flaspoint, or ARMA, that will either make you love the realisim, or hate it.

 

[Pyode]

I also dislike regenerating health, but we can't forget that bad company had a syringe which could automatically save you from death. Very realistic.

That's exactly what I am saying. You can have a game be realistic like needing a medic to help you in Bad Company, but you also have the syringe to balance it out so you at least have some way to survive if there isn't a medic immediately available.

 

[Sky Captanio]

I think a good balance is something like Farcry 2 where you had to heal your self if badly wounded. Another option would be 1 bullet will kill you but it's harder to get hit.

 

[smokeybearsb]

I've played several games in which I was like, "Ok, this is slightly retarded, I was right next to a grenade explosion and didn't die of get severely wounded, that's pushing it a bit." I think several games would benefit from more realism. One being Rainbow Six Vegas. I've shot people in the head and they didn't die.

I think I game series that was really good in terms of the whole getting shot a couple of times then dying thing was the Brothers in Arms series for the Xbox. In the manual it said "
in real like there are no magic health packs which heal all your wounds." That made the game awesome and realistic. On top of that, there was also an "Authentic" setting in which you would get shot maybe twice and die. Works really well for me.

 

[YuheJi]

I think it depends on how a game utilizes its realism/lack of realism. I quite enjoy a game like Red Orchestra, where getting hit in different spots actually inhibits different abilities, and bullet ballistics often have to be accounted for before taking a shot. So while bullets would kill quickly, people wouldn't be able to hit you quite as easily and one would feel more engaged during shootouts. Dying from a few shots is only half of the realism. That is what really annoyed me about CoD: WaW, where people had almost perfect aim with most of the guns (especially if they had the right perks) and would easily kill you before you would notice they were there.

 

[Exocet]

I believe Rainbow 6:Vegas 2 on realistic did it quite well:
You can only take 2 shots before you die,but you regenerate and have a radar to see where the enemy is.
It remain casual enough to pick up and play,unlike Red Orchestra(which I love).

Of course,the game abused it's balance by leaving guys with shotguns in ambush behind corners and spawned angry terrorists with assault rifles infront of you quite often in the game.

 

[Teh Roflchoppa]

I agree. A balance is needed. I wouldn't mind a realistic FPS in that, a bullet in the chest is absorbed by Kevlar, but breaks a few ribs so reduces your sprint time, a bullet in the leg gives you a limp, a head shot gives you a concussion and blurs your vision, a hit in the arm or shoulder reduces the stability of your weapon. I think that would be challenging without being impossible.

All this but the chest effects is in fallout 3! Fallout 3 does have a tiny bit of a realism balancing though...

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

good for graphics and aesthetics, bad for everything else