Realistic shooters - first or third person

[SckizoBoy]

I will preface this by saying that I've played a fair selection of first and third person shooters in my time... and thoroughly enjoyed virtually none of them and I regard the label of 'realistic shooters' with almost complete and utter disdain.

Anyway, moving on...

Will (or perhaps 'should') game developers ever be willing or able to make a first-person or third-person shooter that is genuinely psychologically realistic? How would you personally define a 'genuinely psychologically realistic' shooter (I have my own take on this, but curious to see what variety is out there)? Would you be willing to play it (based on your own definitions of the aforementioned)? If so, do you think you would have fun playing it?

Spec Ops: the Line approaches this (IMO) and is probably one of the few (if only) examples that highlights the disconnect between the player's (generally) conscious decision to play the game (in whatever manner) and the character's involuntary psychoses. But it could only really succeed in doing so (with a part of the audience, presumably) by narrative devices and subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) cues that drove character descent. But what if a game came out that was able to tap into the natural (sane) human reaction of guilt and revulsion when they kill, even if only just a little?

 

[CritialGaming]

I feel like Spec Ops is a rare case because you have to remember that these products are ultimately games and games are fun. So there is always going to be a disconnect between realistic mental effect as well as realistic gameplay. If every game tried to hit the players mind the way Spec Ops The Line did, it would lead to the downfall of the FPS genre because nobody wants to feel shitty for fun.

Spec Ops was a awful awful experience. It was a fantastic game, with a fantastic story, but the impact it left made me personal feel like such shit that I will never replay that game, which honestly is why the game is so brilliant. But it is that desire to never touch it again that shows that the gaming space doesn't want to touch things in that way. Developers want you to play, they want you to keep playing, and that mental shock is not a good way to do that.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Play Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield. And install it with the Raven Shield 2.0 mod for improvements to gameplay.

 

[CaitSeith]

If you aren't going to provide us with your definition of "Realistic Shooter", then anything goes. Who says it isn't realistic to play as a sociopath who can shoot people without any sense of remorse? Just establish the premise somewhere in the story or the intro and bam! You have your "Realistic Shooter"!

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Spec ops the line was far from realistic. it was gears of war with sands. terrible game.

like someone mention rainbow six raven shield is best realistic tactical shooter. plus theres another realistic tactical shooter coming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PH_f3zo5_A

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Spec ops the line was far from realistic. it was gears of war with sands. terrible game.

like someone mention rainbow six raven shield is best realistic tactical shooter. plus theres another realistic tactical shooter coming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PH_f3zo5_A

There is also Rising Storm 2: Vietnam for Multiplayer.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I never get "realistic" shooters because applying realism to shooters makes them less realistic in ways. For example, having realistic bullet damage makes you die faster than you would in real life because with a KB/M or controller, players can aim faster and more accurately than the world's best marksmen. Plus, I don't think playing a game where you die faster than real life is fun either.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

As someone who actually shoots in real life, you in NO WAY want actual realistic shooters, trust me.

Would you like for your entire screen to blur out when you aim down sights? No? Well that's what you'd get in a truly realistic shooter.

Spoiler: Proper sight picture

It would be awful.

There's also no such thing as "psychologically realistic" because every person is psychologically different. Something that could be mentally scaring to one person may not be to someone else.

I read an article a while back about a soldier who came home from Iraq and thought that there was something wrong with him because he didn't have PTSD and everyone expected him to and that caused him more anxiety than being at war.

 

[Red Sentinel]

Spec ops the line was far from realistic. it was gears of war with sands. terrible game.

Woosh.

Pretty sure the theme and premise of the game went over your head.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

I guess my point is that three of the five stages of rationalisation of killing in combat are pointedly disregarded in the vast majority of shooters and still considered be fun. Would the incorporation of post-kill rationalisations necessarily reduce the fun consumers might experience? *shrug* And if not, is this a good thing at all?

Play Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield. And install it with the Raven Shield 2.0 mod for improvements to gameplay.

Apologies for the blunt tone, but read the OP again, this discussion has nothing to do with gameplay.

snip

I've got to ask, but is there a single game you've enjoyed for strictly narrative reasons at all?

There's also no such thing as "psychologically realistic" because every person is psychologically different. Something that could be mentally scaring to one person may not be to someone else.

See that's the thing, 'psychologically realistic' need not mean that all players react in the same way, indeed it does not and should not, only that it should illicit a distinctly psychological reaction akin to the aftermath of high-impact stress. cf. in veterans, we run the full gamut of reactions to front line combat so the expectation that everyone reacts to such gameplay identically is unreasonable at best and foolish at worst.

I read an article a while back about a soldier who came home from Iraq and thought that there was something wrong with him because he didn't have PTSD and everyone expected him to and that caused him more anxiety than being at war.

In the words of Victor Frankl 'an abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behaviour'. Now, granted this was in reference Holocaust survivors, but the point still stands (no matter how you spin the statement grammatically). A key factor being that responses can be delayed. So the whole idea of 'fridge horror' (a la TVTropes) should be incorporated into the experience.

The apparent 'normality' of that veteran's behaviour would need to be viewed based on the time-frame. The US Army (and most NATO's, one would like to think) has learned a lot about how to treat veterans returning home from a tour so it is possible, and indeed probable, that he was one of the luckier ones whose cooldown time was most productive in preserving his psyche. On the other hand, he could well be a sociopath (I have no context for this, so this last is simply a statement, not a judgement). The problem is that because of societal awareness (greater than before, at any rate) of psychiatric casualties of war, those who are appreciative of this but not knowledgeable have veered to the opposite extreme in (albeit in a well-meaning way, if still ignorant) believing that every soldier returning from combat is thoroughly traumatised, unable (due to said ignorance) to comprehend that individuality still prevails in manner of recovery because all they observe is the (typically immediate) commonality of soldiers' group identification.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I think all it needs is some effort put into the writing and direction that presents each individual opponent as a different human with lives and feelings instead of an onslaught of faceless clones. Sort of like a more intense version of those particular brand of stealth games that allow you to sneakily listen to guards' conversations about unrelated bollocks. It would require effort for sure. But most people feel differently about killing when they're shown a non-dehumanised combatant, aside the few socio/psychopaths. Ultimately it would still be left up to the player's conscience, but you could always be cheeky and throw in a hidden sanity integer that screws with the player the more people they heartlessly kill. Or a mechanic where you could initiate conversation perhaps even allowing the ability to talk people out of it once you've gotten to the heart of their motivations. Yet again, much writing and effort is required for such indulgences. That's where i'd start anyway.

 

[Bad Jim]

Spec ops the line was far from realistic. it was gears of war with sands. terrible game.

Woosh.

Pretty sure the theme and premise of the game went over your head.

I liked it. But stuff like the fact that you are always going down throughout the whole game despite being on the ground at the start, while symbolic, is clearly not realistic.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Spec ops the line was far from realistic. it was gears of war with sands. terrible game.

Woosh.

Pretty sure the theme and premise of the game went over your head.

I played it and beat it just for story. although i was not very impressed with story. but its gameplay is so bad.

its just gears of war, take cover, shoot, rinse and repeat.

 

[Squilookle]

I think all it needs is some effort put into the writing and direction that presents each individual opponent as a different human with lives and feelings instead of an onslaught of faceless clones. Sort of like a more intense version of those particular brand of stealth games that allow you to sneakily listen to guards' conversations about unrelated bollocks. It would require effort for sure. But most people feel differently about killing when they're shown a non-dehumanised combatant, aside the few socio/psychopaths. Ultimately it would still be left up to the player's conscience, but you could always be cheeky and throw in a hidden sanity integer that screws with the player the more people they heartlessly kill. Or a mechanic where you could initiate conversation perhaps even allowing the ability to talk people out of it once you've gotten to the heart of their motivations. Yet again, much writing and effort is required for such indulgences. That's where i'd start anyway.

Interestingly enough Sniper Elite does that now. With Nazis of all people. You're still free to shoot them in the head after learning that extra information though.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Spoiler

snip

I guess my point is that three of the five stages of rationalisation of killing in combat are pointedly disregarded in the vast majority of shooters and still considered be fun. Would the incorporation of post-kill rationalisations necessarily reduce the fun consumers might experience? *shrug* And if not, is this a good thing at all?

Play Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield. And install it with the Raven Shield 2.0 mod for improvements to gameplay.

Apologies for the blunt tone, but read the OP again, this discussion has nothing to do with gameplay.

snip

I've got to ask, but is there a single game you've enjoyed for strictly narrative reasons at all?

There's also no such thing as "psychologically realistic" because every person is psychologically different. Something that could be mentally scaring to one person may not be to someone else.

See that's the thing, 'psychologically realistic' need not mean that all players react in the same way, indeed it does not and should not, only that it should illicit a distinctly psychological reaction akin to the aftermath of high-impact stress. cf. in veterans, we run the full gamut of reactions to front line combat so the expectation that everyone reacts to such gameplay identically is unreasonable at best and foolish at worst.

I read an article a while back about a soldier who came home from Iraq and thought that there was something wrong with him because he didn't have PTSD and everyone expected him to and that caused him more anxiety than being at war.

In the words of Victor Frankl 'an abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behaviour'. Now, granted this was in reference Holocaust survivors, but the point still stands (no matter how you spin the statement grammatically). A key factor being that responses can be delayed. So the whole idea of 'fridge horror' (a la TVTropes) should be incorporated into the experience.

The apparent 'normality' of that veteran's behaviour would need to be viewed based on the time-frame. The US Army (and most NATO's, one would like to think) has learned a lot about how to treat veterans returning home from a tour so it is possible, and indeed probable, that he was one of the luckier ones whose cooldown time was most productive in preserving his psyche. On the other hand, he could well be a sociopath (I have no context for this, so this last is simply a statement, not a judgement). The problem is that because of societal awareness (greater than before, at any rate) of psychiatric casualties of war, those who are appreciative of this but not knowledgeable have veered to the opposite extreme in (albeit in a well-meaning way, if still ignorant) believing that every soldier returning from combat is thoroughly traumatised, unable (due to said ignorance) to comprehend that individuality still prevails in manner of recovery because all they observe is the (typically immediate) commonality of soldiers' group identification.

One has to wonder through prolonged exposure to all the different types of violence in media and the internet, to someone who has an obsessive mind, what?s really shocking or traumatic anymore.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9L4bRXL94Ws

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Interestingly enough Sniper Elite does that now. With Nazis of all people. You're still free to shoot them in the head after learning that extra information though.

Oh, is that in the 4th entry? I played the 2nd and 3rd, but don't recall much from them. However, the 4th is now free on the PSN store today, so will be trying it out this evening hopefully.

 

[Squilookle]

Interestingly enough Sniper Elite does that now. With Nazis of all people. You're still free to shoot them in the head after learning that extra information though.

Oh, is that in the 4th entry? I played the 2nd and 3rd, but don't recall much from them. However, the 4th is now free on the PSN store today, so will be trying it out this evening hopefully.

It started with the 3rd, I think. You can hover over enemies with your scope or binoculars and it will tell you little snippets about them. In 4 this got really ramped up. It's at the point now where you can snipe people after learning their favourite music, little foibles they have, how they're worried their wife is cheating on them back home, etc...

 

[Dalisclock]

I feel like Spec Ops is a rare case because you have to remember that these products are ultimately games and games are fun. So there is always going to be a disconnect between realistic mental effect as well as realistic gameplay. If every game tried to hit the players mind the way Spec Ops The Line did, it would lead to the downfall of the FPS genre because nobody wants to feel shitty for fun.

Spec Ops was a awful awful experience. It was a fantastic game, with a fantastic story, but the impact it left made me personal feel like such shit that I will never replay that game, which honestly is why the game is so brilliant. But it is that desire to never touch it again that shows that the gaming space doesn't want to touch things in that way. Developers want you to play, they want you to keep playing, and that mental shock is not a good way to do that.

Spec Ops is a game I considering engaging rather then fun. It's really not fun at all, and that's the point. But it's engaging as hell, keeping your interest despite how shitty things continue to get and most of it being your fault.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

It started with the 3rd, I think. You can hover over enemies with your scope or binoculars and it will tell you little snippets about them. In 4 this got really ramped up. It's at the point now where you can snipe people after learning their favourite music, little foibles they have, how they're worried their wife is cheating on them back home, etc...

Ah, had a looksie and see what you mean now. For a moment I was wondering if you meant the game would let you convert Nazis through conversation instead of killing them. But yeah, watch dogs 1/2 does something similar also. While it certainly adds a little extra something, it's still only limited to a line. You could have a Hitler on screen with the pop up merely saying "likes to paint in spare time," while conveniently omitting the unpleasantries. I can't trust this system not to sugar-coat real assholes. Perhaps if they were mandated to provide pros and cons...then we could have "likes to paint in spare time, buuuut also dabbles in casual genocide and fascism. Swings and roundabouts, eh?"