I'd like to start a discussion on this subject, since I've looked at the "FPS Cliches" I've been wondering how you make a game more realistic, yet still fun.
How can FPS games be more realistic yet still be fun?
- Thread starter James Raynor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Easy just get COD 4 and mix it together with KillZone futuristics and cool guns with lots of blood and better graphics, so die easyily but be awesome while doing so.
Easy. You make it tense, not difficult.
One of my favorite multiplayer games is Red Orchestra, which also happens to be one of the most "realistic" games I've ever played. It takes place on the Eastern Front in WW2, so you either play as ill-equipped, desperate Russians, or ill-equipped, desperate Germans. Each side has a few classes, but there is only room for a couple of players in most of them; most players are riflemen, who get these bolt-action rifles that take about two or three seconds between shots to re-prepare. There's no crosshair; all you can do is look through the iron sight. One or two players on each side has an SMG or a sniper rifle, but the SMGs jam very easily, and it's kind of tough to aim with the snipers. Obviously, getting shot has dramatic consequences.
The result of these changes is that the pace of the game is slowed dramatically. Players are hesitant to move, and actually make use of cover. It becomes an actual cooperative game with some coordination rather than the standard run-and-gun multiplayer FPS. On paper, it sounds boring as shit, but in practice, it's extremely tense, and very exhilarating.
One of my favorite multiplayer games is Red Orchestra, which also happens to be one of the most "realistic" games I've ever played. It takes place on the Eastern Front in WW2, so you either play as ill-equipped, desperate Russians, or ill-equipped, desperate Germans. Each side has a few classes, but there is only room for a couple of players in most of them; most players are riflemen, who get these bolt-action rifles that take about two or three seconds between shots to re-prepare. There's no crosshair; all you can do is look through the iron sight. One or two players on each side has an SMG or a sniper rifle, but the SMGs jam very easily, and it's kind of tough to aim with the snipers. Obviously, getting shot has dramatic consequences.
The result of these changes is that the pace of the game is slowed dramatically. Players are hesitant to move, and actually make use of cover. It becomes an actual cooperative game with some coordination rather than the standard run-and-gun multiplayer FPS. On paper, it sounds boring as shit, but in practice, it's extremely tense, and very exhilarating.
I agree with what God morning blues stated, but I'd like propose another idea.
Firstly though, what do you mean by more realistic? Realistic consequences for being shot? Realistically faithful weapons? Games designed with realistic assumptions of what a single person is actually capable of (ie one or two men aren't usually capable of taking out a small church full of 30 or so German soldiers a la Brothers in Arms).
That aside, I feel that expanding on context sensitive actions would be a great start. Giving players more ways to interact with their environment is a definate way allow that player to feel more "apart" of the game world. The trouble is, you only have but so many buttons on a controller, and having a keyboard layout that rivals that of a space shuttle is also a bit of a problem. However, with context sensitive items/zones/situations it gives you a broad range of possibilities with only one or two necessary clicks. A system designed to provide a decent interpretation of what a player is trying to do, allows the players to just do said action without worrying about the mechanics behind the action.
Firstly though, what do you mean by more realistic? Realistic consequences for being shot? Realistically faithful weapons? Games designed with realistic assumptions of what a single person is actually capable of (ie one or two men aren't usually capable of taking out a small church full of 30 or so German soldiers a la Brothers in Arms).
That aside, I feel that expanding on context sensitive actions would be a great start. Giving players more ways to interact with their environment is a definate way allow that player to feel more "apart" of the game world. The trouble is, you only have but so many buttons on a controller, and having a keyboard layout that rivals that of a space shuttle is also a bit of a problem. However, with context sensitive items/zones/situations it gives you a broad range of possibilities with only one or two necessary clicks. A system designed to provide a decent interpretation of what a player is trying to do, allows the players to just do said action without worrying about the mechanics behind the action.
How about the real life, one bullet kills? Rather than getting shot at by a hundred bullets and finding a med kit and healing or hiding behind a bush until a bar refills.
If you are shot in the leg, your character limps, shot in the arm you cant fire your gun anymore. Of course there are problems with this idea I'm sure, there is a reason we have health bars in games.
If you are shot in the leg, your character limps, shot in the arm you cant fire your gun anymore. Of course there are problems with this idea I'm sure, there is a reason we have health bars in games.
I'd like to see a bleed-out injury system, and appendage disabling.
I think that if you hit 0%, and the game gave you a countdown from 100% till you bleed out and die, in which you can make your last hoorah. Think DnD, need to get to -10 hp to die.
The above provided you don't take a hit to the heart or brain.
If you take a hit to a major artery, you have less HOORAH time.
Then add calculators for adrenaline, shock, etc. The more adrenaline you get pumping, the more you ignore your injuries. If you shock meter reaches 100%, then you start whiting out, get screen wobble.
Finally, make realistic grenades.
I think that if you hit 0%, and the game gave you a countdown from 100% till you bleed out and die, in which you can make your last hoorah. Think DnD, need to get to -10 hp to die.
The above provided you don't take a hit to the heart or brain.
If you take a hit to a major artery, you have less HOORAH time.
Then add calculators for adrenaline, shock, etc. The more adrenaline you get pumping, the more you ignore your injuries. If you shock meter reaches 100%, then you start whiting out, get screen wobble.
Finally, make realistic grenades.
Although quite an awsome prospect, I feel this strays a bit from the topic...Mr. Moose post=9.73498.797768 said:
Simple answr to that, they can't. Seriously, who wants realism? Ok apart from the graphical side of things, voicing, believability in characters, but everything else? Please.
Operation Flashpoint proves my theory. It's the worst game in the world because it's so pointlessly difficult.
Operation Flashpoint proves my theory. It's the worst game in the world because it's so pointlessly difficult.
I think we need several one hit kill areas, not just the head. Heart, lungs, kidneys, brain. Then give bloodloss rather than hp damage. Different weapons make diffent kinds of wounds that bleed more or less. Health packs would just stop the bleeding, not heal the damage.
Mix in elements of gameplay from the RTS and RPG genres, for depth and character respectively.
Full Spectrum Warrior on the original Xbox is worth a look, as is Operation Flashpoint - yet, reworked as 'games' not 'simulations'.
Oh, and introduce emergent narrative so stories arise from computer-simulated situations rather than being scripted by a human author.
Full Spectrum Warrior on the original Xbox is worth a look, as is Operation Flashpoint - yet, reworked as 'games' not 'simulations'.
Oh, and introduce emergent narrative so stories arise from computer-simulated situations rather than being scripted by a human author.
Operation Flashpoint's controls were very sloppy. I feel that game could have been much better if controls for the character were more fluid, and with less delay between actions. (This applies to the infantry controls) The game makes actions that the average person person can do with little to no effort, far too tedious.curlycrouton post=9.73498.797791 said:
Flashpoints problem, is it tried to do a bit of everything, and did the seperate bits poorly. Take the game as a whole (especially with the mission editor), and the game is pretty cool; however, look closely at individual aspects of the game and you can see how poorly some of them are handled. With some more work, that game could have been much better, and all that was necessary was tightening up how the controls are handled.
Of course this should have been the case for ArmA...
It'd be REALLY funny if oyu can make an FPS that allows you to try holding a gun in one or two hands and you try to hold a shotgun in your hand in front of your head. The resulting face-smack would make the game funner than most of the FPSes today to a non-FPS Player.
Heck imagine if you could actually reach out with your hands and interact with the environment...remember Tresspasser?
Heck imagine if you could actually reach out with your hands and interact with the environment...remember Tresspasser?
I think that games like Insurgency and RO are funa s they are (but I have always been saying this and apparently Im int he minority). Im sorry but COD4 and the like are arcade games with a dose of gritty modern paint. The problem is the more realistic a gmae is the steeper the learning curve. This, to me is a good thing, as gmaes like Insurgency have a very mature player base for the most part.
But to be "fun" to the masses is the real question, I suppose. And to be fun it has to be fast paced. Honestly I dont think the average gamer will go for anyhting more real than arcade games like COunter Strike and Call of Duty, anything else appeals to a niche market.
But to be "fun" to the masses is the real question, I suppose. And to be fun it has to be fast paced. Honestly I dont think the average gamer will go for anyhting more real than arcade games like COunter Strike and Call of Duty, anything else appeals to a niche market.
Thinking about it further, I think the key is to have realistic multiplayer games, but simplify and arcade-ify it for single player. In multiplayer, if it's properly realistic, people act accordingly; they take cover, they advance slowly, they co-ordinate in order to avoid injury. In single-player, if you get shot and suddenly move at the pace of molasses, well, that's no fun; in multiplayer, it's kind of fun to struggle against the other players in your helpless state.
I would have to agree here. It is that "tension" that gets the players into the game more. To those who are used to insane combat physics, this game is quite different.Good morning blues post=9.73498.797508 said:
But really, i would say, yes, a game can be more realistic and fun at the same time. If it involves having a more creative AI, or even better immersion to the surroundings of the game, its good, as long as the game companies don't go for the same cliche WW2 game that just involves brutal shooting and piling up of bodies.
You have to make the action INTENSE, as in to say, you are so into it, you could sprout pimples in fear. Thats what i think personally.
Also, hey all.
Game developers should focus on making games fun and original rather than "realistic." Games like Timesplitters, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are good examples of this. And if you're going to be gritty and realistic, please do something original with it. Condemned is a good example of what I'm talking about in that respect.
And really, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if shooters just completely gave up any pretense of realism.
One change I'd like to see, however, is weaker enemies. I don't care if the developers weaken the main character to balance it out, whatever. But I don't EVER again want to empty an ENTIRE CLIP of Assault Rifle ammo into a regular infantryman, only to have him be perfectly fine. Personally, I think most enemies should break gradually apart like the Metal Arms baddies, getting progressively weaker until they're barely a threat. Then the player would be left with the choice of either finishing them off, or saving ammo and leaving their twisted, barely-alive bodies to rot.
And really, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if shooters just completely gave up any pretense of realism.
One change I'd like to see, however, is weaker enemies. I don't care if the developers weaken the main character to balance it out, whatever. But I don't EVER again want to empty an ENTIRE CLIP of Assault Rifle ammo into a regular infantryman, only to have him be perfectly fine. Personally, I think most enemies should break gradually apart like the Metal Arms baddies, getting progressively weaker until they're barely a threat. Then the player would be left with the choice of either finishing them off, or saving ammo and leaving their twisted, barely-alive bodies to rot.
So true, overall Flashpoint had some really good ideas, i.e, you could plan and attack enemy how you wished, and individual moments were ok, but overall the game was really bad. asides from a few mnor fun things, combat was impossible and controlling your squad was only any good as to temporarily give the enemy something else to shoot at other than your self. lol. They could turn this idea into an awesome game.DesertHawk post=9.73498.797846 said:
Was ArmA any good?