Why has this never been an FPS?

[RatRace123]

Alright, we've all seen those military FPSs where you play as either the rookie who rises to the top in one epic battle (or war) or you play as the badass veteran who also happens to be fighting in an epic battle, or war (almost always the biggest of his life).

So here's my question, where is the realistic FPS? Here's my thoughts on how it would work: you play as a standard grunt, nothing special, you get shipped off to another country for a military operation. You survive the firefights, the mission was a success, most everybody lived (the ones who died didn't wear helmets) and you move up one measly rank (making you a slightly better, but still relatively unimportant grunt)

That's it. Why does everything have to be an epic battle where YOU are the ONLY ONE who can stop the enemy?

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Isn't that the basis of every multiplayer war-themed game?

That's it. Why does everything have to be an epic battle where YOU are the ONLY ONE who can stop the enemy?

Because in every other situation YOU are the ONLY ONE who is a player-character.

 

[konor77]

because it wouldn't be as fun as being the big badass

 

[Robert632]

Why does everything have to be an epic battle where YOU are the ONLY ONE who can stop the enemy?

because it seems more entertaining then being a lowely grunt to the devs.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

...because if it wasn't it wouldn't be as fun?

 

[Sgtkillalot0]

Because it would be 'stupid' and 'pointless'

 

[lasherman]

Because if the player isn't the hero, it would probably be hard to make it seem like he is actually contributing something to the war. Nobody would want to play a game where it feels like you have absolutely no effect on the story.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Because it isn't satisfying? Because it isn't gratifying? Because we all know that realistic games don't work?

 

[davidboring]

Because if people wanted to put in a lot of tedious, repetitive hard work for very little reward, they'd go to work.

Or play WoW.

 

[Icecoldcynic]

Someone has never played star wars battlefront...

 

[RatRace123]

It wouldn't be less fun, it'd still be a war. But it would be devoid of all those cliches, that accompany the FPS genre. Mostly in terms of story, and characters, but it would definately be more realistic.


Also, I love Battlefront (that's one of the things I like best about it)

 

[Neosage]

Hmm you mean like Star Wars Battlefront? Or CoD online?

 

[MGlBlaze]

Let me once again say that it wouldn't be as fun.

You see, real-life guns are frighteningly powerful and even a single torso hit with a handgun would cause serious damage and leave a person on the ground if they weren't wearing armour.

It takes some serious armour to protect against the higher-energy rounds, too; and I don't think there are any helmets that can save your life from such rounds. The real-life military also uses AP, Incindeary, Explosive, EXPLOSIVE-INCINDEARY, and many other types of rounds in all calibres. Frag grenades also have a very large blast radius; offensive grenades having a guaranteed lethality range of 20 feet, and defensive grenades can cause serious injury or death at ranges greater than which a person could reasonably throw them, hence why you NEED to throw them from behind cover.

Realism is something games need to stop trying to reach, or pretending to have. If an FPS was truly realistic, it would be anything but fun.

 

[wizzerd229]

because it isn't fun

 

[Nevyrmoore]

It does exist.

It's called Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis.

 

[fix-the-spade]

So here's my question, where is the realistic FPS?

You need to play more videogames!

Go and look up SWAT 4, Operation Flashpoint, the entire Battlefield series... there's shit loads of games where you're just a grunt in the machine, you just aren't looking.

 

[Mariena]

Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, Armed Assault 2 .. Those are the series you're looking for.

And they're fun.

 

[pneuma08]

That's it. Why does everything have to be an epic battle where YOU are the ONLY ONE who can stop the enemy?

Well, it's easy to develop and also caters to the tastes of westerners. Also it's not nearly as gratifying to see someone else be badass while you just look on.

That said, the Call of Duty series has actually been subverting this to a degree. While you are the star, you're always surrounded by your comrades in arms and are never the squad leader. You also provide support for other troops or a tank at times, which lends itself to the theme that You Are Not Alone. It's one of the things I've loved about the CoD series ever since the beginning.

 

[omega 616]

It would spawn like a 20 of the same game before you ended up as the bad ass vet.

So you will have taken a £40 game and turned it into a £800 series, with the inevitable bad few games in the series.

 

[Cabisco]

Fore more realism I'd check out Operation Flashpoint. However i came to the conclusion that if realism makes the game less fun, why bother. If you really want something that realistic, go sign up to the army. Your d-pad will be replaced with much more accurate M4. Your fictional boot camp which hardly teaches you about being a real soldier will be replaced by a real boot camp. Lastly, and most luckily you won't have to get annoyed at regenerating heath as when you get shot, you will hurt Unless your wolverine, in which case thats awesome.

I actually prefer the idea of being the one man army, for me it makes me less annoyed at idiotic AI. Take MW2 for example, when playing as a regular US soldier you ever realised your taking on a mountain of troops as one man yourself, however on Halo games that makes sense... your a super soldier. Sadly i don't think a more realistic game will solve that, as AI isn't that smart and they will always target you before their damned AI counterparts on your side. It's a damned conspiracy.