There is a difference between "realistic" and "real", you know. Any game with a real-world setting has to be realistic to some extent.Bek359 said:My response to "realistic" (non-stealth) shooters:
1. Games aren't really supposed to be realistic. IT'S WHY YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME.
I agree, there's a reason you don't see a whole lot of multiplayer-focused tactical shooters, it's damn hard to pit human players against each other in a hyper-realistic FPS without making it incredibly frustrating to play. It can work (Red Orchestra: Ostfront, Insurgency) but even the best examples such games will always be niche due to their steep difficulty curves.2. Having incredibly low health in a non-stealth game that is supposedly all about multiplayer just encourages too much cheap tactics and people working their level best to find game breakers, of which there are usually many, becausethedevelopersdon'tcareaboutbalanceImeandoubleshotguns,really-(long, increasingly unhinged tirade)
I just wish people would stop calling pseudo-realistic games like BF:BC2 and MW2 "realistic" as if they're simulators or something. Those games don't make an honest effort to be realistic in anything but looks.
As far as "realism vs. fun" goes, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. What level of realism is appropriate for the game experience depends strongly on the kind of game in question. Most of the mainstream FPS games on the market nowadays (like MW2) are strictly on-the-fence in realism terms, they're anything but simulators, but they're not meant to be.