Why do people hate realism in shooters?

[Lovely Mixture]

It's not realism they hate, it's stupid features that are justified by "realism."


I played an Indiana Jones game, in one level you had to stick on this moving monorail but getting shot sends flying five feet back of it.

Mercenaries 2, you had to personally buy your airstrikes and fuel for them. The entire fun of the original Mercenaries was that you didn't have to do tedious shit in order to have fun.

Sure it's realistic, but it's not fun.

Alternatively, mods that make the Stalker games more realistic are just as fun.

 

[Charli]

I hate realism in MOST of my games. I'm here to do and see things I can't see in my walk about town. WOW me.

 

[The_Echo]

Well, considering I've played probably a grand total of two hours of Call of Duty in my day, and literally zero other 'realistic shooters,' I'm going to have to say it's because they are super incredibly fucking boring and uninteresting.

I don't play games to be real. I play games to have fun. Real isn't fun.

 

[Yopaz]

There's nothing wrong with it. Many people are just oversaturated with cover-based modern military shooter, I guess, and want to see more variety.

Pretty much this. It's great to see a good realistic modern shooter when it's done well, maybe with some cover mechanics, maybe not. The problem now is that most fps games aspire to be Call of Duty. It's not about creativity, it's not about creating a new experience, it's all about replicating the same experience.

Other developers don't as much copy as they get inspiration from the other pile of brown shooters, but they often end up making bland boring games where you shoot the bad guys simply because they're not wearing the same uniform.

Give us some variety and everything will be fine.

 

[Gennadios]

I see "realism" as Red Orchestra 2, and I've never heard people say bad things about it (mostly because very few people play it.)

I hate Modern Military Shooters not because I dislike the concept, or cover based shooting, or general racism towards colored people who don't speak english. I hate modern Military Shooters because there's just isn't anything tactical or war like, you get shuffled from room to room with the door locking behind you and there's always a general method to getting through point A to point B. Experimentation is actively punished in these games, one misstep and you get instakilled by a sniper to keep you in line (It's actually very similar to being in a tour group in North Korea, now that I think about it).

MMS Multiplayer is a whole different story however, I'll have to confess that I loved the Battlefield series multiplayer, just not enough to buy the games or DLC anymore.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I agree with the other posters, it's oversaturation of the genre. I was playing Medal of Honor a few nights ago and honestly couldn't tell that it wasn't COD or Battlefield. It's the same weapons in the same environments with the same combat systems and it's just so boring since we're all so used to it. Besides those "realistic" shooters are nowhere near as real as the ARMA series. In one mission in one of the earlier games I got shot in the legs and couldn't walk. In the next mission I had the same injuries (bear in mind my wounds were unscripted) and I had to crawl past soviet patrols back to friendly lines. That is realism and it was a pain in the ass but I loved it. There was a feeling of accomplishment having done that crawling where as most people do it running.

 

[archvile93]

It's because you'll find a lot more "realistic" shooters on the market rather than the "fantasy" kind. How many CoD, Battlefield and iterations of Counter Strike have been made in the last few years, compared to "fantasy" shooters like Borderlands?

And from a personal account, I absolutely hate dying in one hit. Nothing kills the fun of a game faster than a bullet to the head, which is why I avoid those games like the plague, and am left with bugger all to play (shooter-wise), and no-one to play with. And I can play HL2 Deathmatch and TF2 only so many times before getting bored.

See, I'm not talking about games like Call of Duty or even Battlefield really. Those games might be based off of reality, but are not realistic gameplay-wise. Sure, they use accurate weapons and vehicles and such, but I'm talking about games like Red Orchestra where there's no regenerative health or custom classes with perks galore and such. Games that portray real-life constraints to the game, like no infinite-sprint.

Ah, those ones. Well, it's the realism that actually kills the experience for me. I play games to have fun, no trudge through trenches...

Only to get shot from a mile away with no chance to defend yourself whatsoever.

OT: I think it's because games wiith that much realism a lot of whether you win or lose comes down to down to luck, unlike in say Serious Sam where if someone jumps you from behind you still at least have a chance (although you're at a serious disadvantage, no pun intended). If something like that happens in Red Orchestra or you choose the wrong corner when checking a room or a sniper sights you in from a mile away or you turn a corner and a tank's there, unless your opponent is hilariously incompetent, you're dead, end of story, just like in real life. I suspect that is the main reason most people don't find them fun.

 

[Resetti's_Replicas]

Realism sucks. Guns jam, misfire, and are harder to aim than in the video games. Also most things are less explosive. People say the want realism, but it's like Mad Men, they don't know what they really want.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

Probably my favorite first person shooter is Red Orchestra II, which is all about nitty grity muddy horrible warfare, chock full of numerous attempts to make the game, if not realistic, feel authentic to a battlefield. When I GM, I shy away from high fantasy like D&D and Exalted and all that other stuff, and play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Song of Swords, because I find realism and recreating a time period more interesting than extreme power fantasies. I also love Borderlands and Chivalry, two games dedicated to the ridiculous and silly. Some people prefer the more ridiculous, and that's totally all right. Unfortunately, the market is saturated with stuff like Call of Duty and Battlefield 3. It isn't realistic to make people like me happy, and it isn't silly and fun to make other happy. It's a flavorless brown sludge that doesn't go down for either of us. And, rather unfortunately, that genre is what has gotten the label "realism".

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't think they're hated, it's just that realism as an aesthetic isn't very interesting at this point.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

And whenever I read topics about shooters on other forums, almost every time the word realism is mentioned, someone follows up with, "If you want realism, go join the army!" I don't understand what's so wrong with wanting a bit of realism in shooters. If you don't like realistic shooters, you don't have to play them. They obviously won't be replacing arcade shooters any time soon.

I'd wager that the people who respond this way are nearly always doing so with Call of Duty and Battlefield in mind. And unless every single realism-related post goes out of its way to make the distinction between your typical modern military shooter and ARMA-style quasi-simulators, you can't blame them for that, since CoD and its like intentionally market themselves as being "realistic," in order to appeal to teens and tweens who think that the whole brown-and-grey modern warfare aesthetic automatically equates to maturity or being "hardcore."

Of course, there are people who simply don't like ARMA or Red Orchestra for reasons others in this thread have already mentioned, but like you say, they aren't overtaking the industry or anything, so avoiding them in favor of less realistic games is a simple matter. The backlash against realism is instead targeted at Call of Duty's particular brand of realism, which is doing away with arcade shooters on a massive scale because publishers look at the series's profits and force developers to mimic that style in a doomed attempt to play catch-up - a situation that's bad for everybody.

 

[Lygus]

Arma 2 + ACE2 Mod provides unmatched realism in video games. It feels amazing, a lot of attention to detail and simulation.

Not interested in graphics or very accurate weapon models, but varying environments in Arma 2, as mods, provide a unique experience every time you play.

I find most people who play arcade shooters and hate any realism are mostly disappointed of their own lives. Habits tend to say a lot, after all.

P.S. Don't forget Operation Flashpoint (2001) - the king of all simulation. Still alive.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I don't particularly hate realism in shooters, I just find it boring.

Unless a shooter with implied realism has some humor, interesting characters, a great plot, game mechanics, and an interesting world to shoot in, I tend to not really waste my time with it.

Games that rely more on a sci-fi setting with cool game mechanics, like Vanquish, while being below par on characters, plot, and setting, are usually given a free pass by simply being fun and challenging.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

There is everything wrong with realism in shooters. And any game that purports to be realistic deserves to be ignored by gamers.

Allow me to explain: Realism -by its very definition- can never be reality. That which is "realistic" is never actually real, rather, it merely conforms to your preconception of what is real. Anyone who does not understand this needs to think long and hard about it until they do. ARMA is not "realistic" in the sense that it portrays reality. It is only realistic in the sense that it conforms to what you (often erroneously) think reality is.

The reality is quite different: You move with a squad, firing often from the maximum effective range of your weapon at targets that are impossible to see with the naked eye. Keeping in cover as best as you can until the HMG/Grenade/Mortar/TOW can strike the enemy emplacement. When you get shot, you rarely see the person who shot you, and then if you live you are shot with morphine and carried from the scene. Doesn't seem like very interesting gameplay, does it?

These games use the specter of "realism" merely as a marketing ploy, and honestly I find it rather disgusting and immoral. You are far better off with something like Doom or BioShock, that clearly has no pretense to reality, yet at the same time, manages to contain more essential truth because it is not trying to deceive its own audience.

 

[clippen05]

To each their own IMO, but for me, the "realistic" type shooters are just boring. If I play a shooter, I want fantasy. I want unrealistic guns, insane jumping, fun...

Fun for you is not necessarily fun for all types of people. Obviously some people must enjoy scenarios where they will die in one shot if they stick their head out at the wrong time, just not the majority of people.

 

[clippen05]

There is everything wrong with realism in shooters. And any game that purports to be realistic deserves to be ignored by gamers.

Allow me to explain: Realism -by its very definition- can never be reality. That which is "realistic" is never actually real, rather, it merely conforms to your preconception of what is real. Anyone who does not understand this needs to think long and hard about it until they do. ARMA is not "realistic" in the sense that it portrays reality. It is only realistic in the sense that it conforms to what you (often erroneously) think reality is.

The reality is quite different: You move with a squad, firing often from the maximum effective range of your weapon at targets that are impossible to see with the naked eye. Keeping in cover as best as you can until the HMG/Grenade/Mortar/TOW can strike the enemy emplacement. When you get shot, you rarely see the person who shot you, and then if you live you are shot with morphine and carried from the scene. Doesn't seem like very interesting gameplay, does it?

These games use the specter of "realism" merely as a marketing ploy, and honestly I find it rather disgusting and immoral. You are far better off with something like Doom or BioShock, that clearly has no pretense to reality, yet at the same time, manages to contain more essential truth because it is not trying to deceive its own audience.

Clearly you've never played Red Orchestra 1, the old Operation Flashpoint games, or ARMA, because if you did, you would realize that many of the things you said occur in the game. You often fire from 500m away in Arma and Red Orchestra 1 (Not really 2), and mortars and artillery are usually necessary to make gains in ground control some scenarios. You rarely see the person who shot you in these games, even in red orchestra 2 in some scenarios. And while you don't get carried off the field in a stretcher, as I don't see how that would be possible from a gameplay standpoint, you do experience everything else you've said; people play these games so some people must think its fun, just not the majority of people.

Seriously, do you think that the developers of these games make them this way to insult the lives of real soldiers and veterans and exploit their struggles as an attempt to sell more games? You're delirious. Maybe Call of Duty and Battlefield market themselves like that, but then they are not realistic games. To think that they make these games to falsely portray what war for a quick buck is quite a stretch to believe.

 

[clippen05]

It's because you'll find a lot more "realistic" shooters on the market rather than the "fantasy" kind. How many CoD, Battlefield and iterations of Counter Strike have been made in the last few years, compared to "fantasy" shooters like Borderlands?

And from a personal account, I absolutely hate dying in one hit. Nothing kills the fun of a game faster than a bullet to the head, which is why I avoid those games like the plague, and am left with bugger all to play (shooter-wise), and no-one to play with. And I can play HL2 Deathmatch and TF2 only so many times before getting bored.

See, I'm not talking about games like Call of Duty or even Battlefield really. Those games might be based off of reality, but are not realistic gameplay-wise. Sure, they use accurate weapons and vehicles and such, but I'm talking about games like Red Orchestra where there's no regenerative health or custom classes with perks galore and such. Games that portray real-life constraints to the game, like no infinite-sprint.

Ah, those ones. Well, it's the realism that actually kills the experience for me. I play games to have fun, no trudge through trenches...

Only to get shot from a mile away with no chance to defend yourself whatsoever.

OT: I think it's because games wiith that much realism a lot of whether you win or lose comes down to down to luck, unlike in say Serious Sam where if someone jumps you from behind you still at least have a chance (although you're at a serious disadvantage, no pun intended). If something like that happens in Red Orchestra or you choose the wrong corner when checking a room or a sniper sights you in from a mile away or you turn a corner and a tank's there, unless your opponent is hilariously incompetent, you're dead, end of story, just like in real life. I suspect that is the main reason most people don't find them fun.

That's a very respectable answer and I know exactly what you mean; I get annoyed at this too sometimes. Although turning a corner in a lot of shooters can potentially dangerous...

 

[ron1n]

I think you'll find the main reason FPs communities get annoyed with people whinging about realism is due to game balance issues.

The more 'realistic' you make an FPS, the bigger you run the risk of cheap, overpowered, broken things being added.

People just get fed up with game balance or enjoyment taking a back seat to gimmicky 'realism features' being added that severely restrict or often even 'break' the flow of the game.

Not to mention the poor implementation of many of these features due to the fact it is in fact a game as opposed to real life.

Prime example would be the absurdly broken and stupid 'supression' mechanic in Battlefield 3. As scary as it would be to be shot at in real life, I can't imagine it making you blind or causing your return fire to magically miss regardless of whether you're on target or not.

That's not to mention all the factors of real life warfare that simply cannot be put into a game: i.e Emotion, Pain etc.

 

[clippen05]

Well, considering I've played probably a grand total of two hours of Call of Duty in my day, and literally zero other 'realistic shooters,' I'm going to have to say it's because they are super incredibly fucking boring and uninteresting.

I don't play games to be real. I play games to have fun. Real isn't fun.

As I've said to other people, what you consider fun and what everyone else considers fun are two entirely different things. These games wouldn't be made if at least some people didn't have fun playing them.

 

[The_Echo]

As I've said to other people, what you consider fun and what everyone else considers fun are two entirely different things. These games wouldn't be made if at least some people didn't have fun playing them.

I think the preface "in my opinion" is fairly redundant in this thread.

The question is "why do people hate realism in shooters?" I, as a person who would be a part of the "people" referenced in that question, gave my answer (although maybe 'hate' would be a strong word). Which is entirely my own opinion.

We all know fun is subjective. That much is obvious.