Guns & 'Realistic' Shooters

[maturin]

Sniper rifles are some times a source of annoyance for me too. A few games will end up having them so powerful a shot in the leg will instantly kill you, others will require you to fire 3-5 rounds at an enemy before they die. For a heavy caliber bolt action rifle, I believe the preferred is a 1-shot-kill when hitting the torso. I can understand when a semi-automatic rifle has a 2-3-shot-kill in the torso, but not more. Luckily games seem to get these quite well, but seeing as you'll occasionally have quite wide differences between the effective semi-automatic rifles and the fully automatic assault rifles in power, the fully automatic rifle will lack too much in both range, accuracy and stopping power.

The real problem with sniper rifles is that in most games you use them at ranges that would be considered point blank in the real world.

And for everyone thinking that they are so magically powerful, consider that the vast majority of sniper platforms used by the military fire the exact same size round as the SCAR-H, M14 and FAL. The Dragunov is the only common marksman (not sniper) rifle with a larger cartridge, and it is only 3mm longer.

 

[MetroidNut]

I think the biggest issue is that game developers think that they can get away giving different damage values to the same type of bullet.

Here's a perfect example:

Spoiler: This gun fires a 12.7x40mm cartridge

http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/2/20/M6d-pistol.jpg

Spoiler: And so does this one.

http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/1/1d/M6C_Magnum_Sidearm.jpg

If you've played Halo 1 and 2 you'll see quite quickly that these guns do completely different amounts of damage, despite firing the same round and having around the same barrel length.

It's maddening that game developers don't get this. All they need to do is say that they're using a different bullet caliber. It's really easy.

Well, in that particular case, they might have a sci-fi explanation in place of a realistic one - specifically, doesn't the Halo 1 pistol fire high explosive rounds, and the Halo 2 one just fires "ordinary" 12.7mm?

As for the original topic, what it really comes down to, in my opinion, is that games like Call of Duty shouldn't be trying for "realism". Reality isn't fun (especially getting shot at...).

 

[Elamdri]

I think it could be sort of fun if there were some type of arterial damage, it's just that not very many game developers have tried it in fps. It could be done as a damage over time or a different kill animation or something. Of course this could get quite gory with blood squirting out and stuff XD

Eh, once you introduce damage over time mechanics to an FPS, things deteriorate fast. Generally, in an FPS, you take initial damage from the hit and then either recover HP over time or remain at a lower HP until you die or pickup a healing item. Adding deteriorating HP for a hit to the leg wouldn't be very fun, because it would make just about any leg shot fatal. Usually you win just about any gun battle in an FPS with a sliver of health anyway, any bleedout from that would kill you.

As far as ballistic physics, games like BFBC2 sort of implemented this with bullet drop and velocity. This makes it somewhat of a challenge when playing a sniper, but every kill is satisfying.

I think I should clarify, when I say ballistic physics I mean more the random spread of bullets from a gun. I actually enjoy things like Bullet Delay and Bullet Drop. What I'm saying is that when it comes to balancing, I think it's just easier for developers to adjust the damage vs. adjusting the spread of the bullets.

 

[slarrs]

Well... realistically if I was shot in the leg/arm, in a major artery I would bleed out in 5 minutes, give or take, but probably less considering they probably didn't just shoot me once. However we'd all get rather frustrated if we died after EVERY fire fight, assuming we're hit at least once. In real life, you can't afford to be shot. However games tend to lean toward an situation where not only will you be shot, you'll be shot repeatedly and come back to life many times, over the course of about 10 minutes or so.

Reality isn't what games are going for. They're going for a realistic feel, modified in many places for enjoyment. If a game had one shot killed or put you out of commission, as would be realistic in most cases, and health degenerated rather than regenerating after you've been shot, I suspect the game would find a select niche of gamers, but would fail in the mainstream.

Quite simply, being shot at realistically is not very fun, and usually doesn't last very long.

 

[figday]

My two cents.

Game devs and publishers slaps the 'realistic' word in their games to attract buyers, and show -off their 'improvements' in making games.

A game can never ever be compared or synchronized with real life stuff. Maybe not yet.

peace out

 

[Brawndo]

It's because quick-scoping CoD players damn nothing less than laser-point accuracy, otherwise they will rage.

I prefer Brothers in Arms' gameplay mechanic where your accuracy is impacted negatively when people are shooting in your general direction, and most guns are not accurate past 100m

 

[Shock and Awe]

I think the biggest issue is that game developers think that they can get away giving different damage values to the same type of bullet.

Here's a perfect example:

Spoiler: This gun fires a 12.7x40mm cartridge

http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/2/20/M6d-pistol.jpg

Spoiler: And so does this one.

http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/1/1d/M6C_Magnum_Sidearm.jpg

If you've played Halo 1 and 2 you'll see quite quickly that these guns do completely different amounts of damage, despite firing the same round and having around the same barrel length.

It's maddening that game developers don't get this. All they need to do is say that they're using a different bullet caliber. It's really easy.

To be honest I think Halo is one of the few games that can get away with stuff like that, mostly because they are not even trying to be realistic. They have zero problem going into the market and saying "No realism here, though we have fun if thats what you are looking for," And to be fair, the C variant in Halo 2 uses semi-armor piercing rounds, the D variant in Halo:CE uses High Explosive rounds.

OT: I definitely agree with the OP. I have no problem with games being pseudo-realistic, though I hate it when they claim to be true to life and a bunch of idiots think they know firearms because of it. They get it in their head that rifles are accurate at full auto, a FAMAS has a huge damage difference from a M-16A2, and that a burst in the chest doesn't stop a person dead in their tracks.(Unless of course they are wearing quite a bit of body armor but I never saw a game where they did)

 

[Thaluikhain]

something realistic that many forget to take into consideration is that unless your heart or brain ceases to function, you can still fight back. this is why the stopping power VS. penetration debate is so large. i remember there was a shootout between FBI and armed gunmen, with the gunmen wearing armored suits and the FBI using pistols. the gunmen took something around 50~ bullets, and were still shooting at and killing the officers.

Worse than that. An FBI report I read a while back said that even if the targets heart is destroyed, they might still have up to 10 seconds of voluntary movement left. Of the top of my head, I don't recall a game which had a "fatally wounded, but still has a few seconds left" mechanic, because it'd really suck to get killed by a person you've effectively just killed yourself.

People need to stop underestimating bullets. Those fuckers are scary as hell. If you get shot and the bullet isn't stopped by your vest, you're either dead or crippled to the point of not being able to do anything. If your vest does happen to stop a bullet, you'll be winded, you'll be bruised, and you might even have a few broken ribs. So a bullet hitting you almost always leaves you out of commission in some shape or form.

Not according to the official documentation I've read. It's not uncommon for people to not notice they've been shot in the heat of the moment. Reagan didn't, we he was nearly assassinated.

Also, if the vest protects you, surely the force you take is the same as the firer takes in recoil? Having said that, there's lots of hilarious videos of people underestimating the recoil when firing a gun...[small]though they tend not to put the results of people losing control of the weapons firing on automatic and shooting themselves[/small]

And then there's no way of getting the pain of being injured across...at most there's the half-second of startlement when someone jumps out and shoots you.

 

[Vampire cat]

I notice that a lot of people are COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that increased weapon power would result in a firefight being a LOT shorter, and that there often wouldn't be time for whoever you are shooting at to actually fire back, much less hit if he's on the move.

I KNOW that there are loads of people that would like a fighting chance even if they are caught by surprise, but if these game mechanics were to be implemented there WOULD be quite a few changes to how players acted. And making suppressive fire a deciding factor in a game is very hard, as no good game would deny the player the ability to "spawn in" and keep playing after they die. That would just be silly. I guess this is a subject that requires a lot of objective thinking.

It seems some people think that I would like a game to BE real life. I don't. I'm merely asking that games claiming to be "realistic shooters" put some more focus on the realistic part! I'm not stupid and I'm not ignoring what makes a game a game, and any person that thinks real war is cool or fun scares me genuinely. Why should this stop us from getting a nice, realistic feeling experience with fun elements?

Appreciate all the feedback I'm getting on this ^^.

(Unless of course they are wearing quite a bit of body armor but I never saw a game where they did)

I can't imagine how bulky a soldier would look if he was to wear adequate protection for the damage characters soak up in video games ^^.

 

[rockingnic]

As far as realism in shooters, this video pretty much explains my view for the most part...

 

[maturin]

I think I should clarify, when I say ballistic physics I mean more the random spread of bullets from a gun. I actually enjoy things like Bullet Delay and Bullet Drop. What I'm saying is that when it comes to balancing, I think it's just easier for developers to adjust the damage vs. adjusting the spread of the bullets.

At the engagement ranges of your average FPS, the dispersion of a rifle will be barely noticeable. You'd be modeling the inaccuracy of the player, not the gun.

 

[Laurence Kone]

something realistic that many forget to take into consideration is that unless your heart or brain ceases to function, you can still fight back. this is why the stopping power VS. penetration debate is so large. i remember there was a shootout between FBI and armed gunmen, with the gunmen wearing armored suits and the FBI using pistols. the gunmen took something around 50~ bullets, and were still shooting at and killing the officers.

Uh, if you're talking about the North Hollywood shootout, it's L.A.P.D. versus two disgruntled computer engineers, just to correct you.

 

[Priest of Lies]

It's hard to do a really 'realistic' shooter. If it were realistic there would be no regenerating health, you would have to drag yourself to a medic who would pull the bullets out and have to patch you up. And even still you would'nt be able to run around as if you were never injured. It would leave some form of lasting damage. Like reduced accuracy or decreased stamina for sprinting(because every shooter has that now). Plus there would be weapon restrictions. If your load out had an SMG and pistol for a medic, you cant pick up rocket launcher. Pilots would'nt have a lot of stamina, paratroopers would go in with few weapons so they could move through the drop zone faster. There would be different ammo types and you could share ammo withyou team mates if you were putting up a final stand.

 

[Chimichanga]

If you haven't already, get any game out of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series.

Bullet drop, everything is pretty damn-near lethal, and it just feels right.

I'm aware that they still have their fantasy elements and aren't completely perfect in terms of realistic gun-play, but it's still the most immersive, and closest to what you're talking about.

Because of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., I can't stand any of the less realistic shooters anymore.

People who cry about it being "too hard" are just too coddled by Halo, COD, and all these other shooters where you can easily run up (outrunning bullets, mind you) and knife somebody for a 1 hit kill and survive. Nothing I hate more than games that pander to the fantasy demographic who want to play like it's the middle ages with swords, shields and gravity hammers in a modern FPS.

Guns > melee. No excuses - no fucking way should you even get close to me, even with unlimited sprint and the commando perk, noobs.