Why do people hate realism in shooters?

[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.

 

[Lieju]

I don't find CoD or Medal of Honor 'realistic' enough. It's idealization of a war and how you need to kill countless humans just makes me sad. Real war is not like that, and I don't like the game wanting me to feel good for murdering a ton of people recklessly.

I like my shooters fun and interesting. I think Metroid Prime is my favourite FPS, because I loved exploring the environments and finding new enemies just to see what they're like.

EDIT: I'm aware there are more realistic military-shooters than CoD, and they bother me less, but they also aren't as popular.
Still, I can just not play CoD. (Although I am concerned of it's popularity making other devs ape it.)

 

[Jandau]

What exactly do you mean by realism? Because CoD is most assuredly not realistic. If we're talking about something like ARMA, then sure, but most Modern Military FPS games are about as realistic as Pikmin...

 

[irok]

Its just so boring and monotonous, there's like a new one out every other month with like a billion clones of the leading title and the variety just isn't there to keep them interesting, if you've played one you've played them all , there's really no difference. I could never stand bigotry field 3 I found it was rather painful to play through , couldn't stand dumbed down Cpt. fuckyeahmuricas fighting racist stereo types in unspecifiedistan, the multiplayer was better but it was still about as good as a modern military shooter can be , which isn't much.

Oh that and media tends to gravitate towards these things every time a shooting happens and then proclaims all games to be evil , its an easier target then most even if that isn't the case.

 

[VodkaKnight]

Realism is fine.
OVERREALISM is irritating.
I mean, if you die if a fly coughs on you, your health regenerates too slowly to be effective, you can only hold one weapon, etc. then it's annoying.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well they still have to be fun is the problem. Ghost recons and rainbow 6's. Realistic and fun, Operation flashpoint, Realistic but set up to be not fun with bad checkpoints in insane open distances to get shot from.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

I don't hate realism. I just get slightly annoyed when it's used as a game's main selling point.

 

[Talvrae]

Probably in my opinion of that kind of game bein over saturated in the market... Just have to see how CoD and the clones are dominating the game sales

 

[kasperbbs]

I don't really hate it, i just want something else for a change. Fighting cyborg aliens in quake was a lot more fun than shooting fucking muslims or russians in every goddamn game these days. Personally i prefer fast paced shooters where you try to avoid fire by moving and not sitting behind a conveniently placed boulder while waiting for the enemy to stick its neck out.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Well, considering there is no such thing as a realistic FPS I guess you can't complain to much about them.

Seriously, show me the FPS where as a sniper you sit down bored out of your skull for 9 hours waiting for a perfect shot, where your in the middle of the desert riding around looking for IEDs, where one bullet makes you unable to fight and if your lucky you can get back to the hospital, have months of physical therapy and be able to walk again, etc. etc. etc.

Not to say adding some aspects of realism is bad, it can be used to good effect like adding immersion or depth to gameplay.

Red Orchestra
Arma
Operation Flashpoint

To half the thread: The OP was referring to realistic shooters, not "realistic shooters."

Realistic Shooters: Careful progression and long duels, suppressing fire, long ranges quick deaths and slow bleed. Lots of waist high walls.
"Realistic Shooters": Slow progression due to messy fights, AARRR PEEE GEEE, short ranges quick deaths but no consequences to taking 98% damage. Lots of chest high walls.



Playing RO2, I found myself trading rifle fire with a single enemy for surprisingly long amounts of time, each of us trying to judge the range and bullet drop, and occasionally bandage up after a graze. Also, I struggled with framerate issues because my laptop isn't built to run RO2.

 

[LAGG]

Realism? Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter. Give me UT2004 where maps have low gravity and I can fire a laser beam into a concentrated ball of energy and kill EVERYTHING.

Exactly what I was going to say. What can be more awesome that this?

 

[FFKonoko]

Wow, what a loaded question and a ton of stuff following on.
What many people dislike is BORING shooters, and boring games in general. And shock, after the umpteenth time it gets a little dull trudging around a sandy brown/grey area, popping in and out of cover and being immersed in shallow jingoism.
It's nothing to do with realism though, I got sick to death of Halo, thanks to being enlisted to trudge through legendary on 2 and 3 with a friend (persistence rather than skill won the day) and after a few brief tries of ODST and Reach I basically figured, no, done with this shit. I love the voice work in one of those games, I just really didn't want to play them.

 

[BarkBarker]

Because so MANY MANY MANY developers don't know when to implement and where, I dislike a world where bullets can shoot through most materials, because this is a game, and I am not supposed to be a fucking tactical expert, but then there are times where a walk off a building does 60 damage out of a total 100, when I jump down the stairs on a regular basis and the most that happens to me is....well fuck all, a drop from that height don't hurt a bit, but then I want to approach from the water but I need a gun that doesn't fall the fuck apart when it gets hit by a sprinkler in the yard, and then we get things like a knife kills me instantly, but a fucking shotgun to the chest and they are still moving, or a fictional shooter where the big aliens can take SLUGS to the fucking face and not move, but I take one to the ankle and I need some fucking Calpol, the rules MUST be within some coherence or the game falls apart, and a lot of the time reality isn't really playable unless you tweak a lot of it, so they just sprinkle realistic every now and again.....but on a more personal level I'd have to say that human designs of weapons are always so very human, a fictional, fantasy one has more variety as a game to implement something without a previous measure, sure you may have played games about shooting guys in the head, but what about shooting guys in their top left shoulder where their heart is located with my boomerang saw blade shooter.....yeah welcome to a whole new game friends.

 

[Greg White]

I can only think of a handful of 'realistic' shooters, ARMA being the top one, Metro possibly being considered another, and frankly...they're a bit dry as far as games go. They're kinda like flight sims for shooter fans.

Arcadey shooters, like CoD and Battlefield, have more general excitement to their action, but no one in their right mind actually believes either one is realistic...or at least I hope not. They are, however, close enough in appearance to real life for them to not be mistaken for full on fantasy. They're more or less the action movies of gaming.

Then we have those that are full on, no way in hell any of this can be real, fantasy shooters. Halo, Borderlands, Rise of the Triads, Serious Sam those sorts of games. You're just here to kill stuff, preferably something alien and with massive weapons.

All that said, most people play games because they're not like real life.