How do you think death should be handled in shooters?

[white_salad]

I don't care about how you are effected by the bullets, but once you die, you should be dead. I know most people don't like this system, or it's only on some game types, but I really like it. Like in gears of war online, most games are once you die you're dead, and it adds to the threat and danger levels when you see an enemy.

 

[AetherWolf]

Has anyone here played Bushido Blade?
It came out on PS1, yet has some extremely realistic combat. There's no health bars, you cripple opponents to slow them down, and win by dealing fatal blows.

If only modern games did this.

 

[Brawndo]

After shooting someone you are immediately transitioned to a court mini-game. After a series of quicktime events in an attempt to prove the shooting was a justified act of self-defense, you are either set free back into the level to continue, OR you are subsequently placed in jail to await sentencing. At this point you will begin the jail minigame, which lasts approximately 25 years to life depending on how lenient the judge is feeling. If you find the minigame boring you can return to the main game earlier by performing the "public service" minigame in which you spend several months picking garbage using the Playstation Move or Xbox Kinect controllers.

Do I have a right to counsel, and if so, is my appointed attorney another player or the AI?

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Like this

 

[TheDooD]

Games should really start handling death in shooters in a realistic and altogether unpleasant way. So far we've had hordes of shooters where enemies were just moving target ducks, but we're living in an age now where we should be enlightened enough to make death in a shooter seem unpleasant, near-the-knuckle, realistic, so the player doesn't think of his targets as mere obstacles, but people like him/herself. I think this would make for a far more compelling and immersive gameplay experience and would prove that even the most mindless areas of the market are still willing to be mature.

Eventhough that's a great idea you're forgetting the fact people play games for fun so they can really careless about seeing their enemy suffer In a realistic fashion. Even with that they'll still kill the enemy with a icy detachment. I can see this style of death in single player but multiplayer nah... At the end of the day games are about fun not a guilt trip.

 

[maturin]

If you were trying to do things realistically, there could be no reaction at all. Randomize that shit, and use minutely-detailed interior hitboxes.

 

[Professor James]

Besides, are you saying that if someone shot you in the arm, you'd just shrug it off?

No, but I don't think I would immediately fall down and die.

 

[Akiada]

It's not entirely unrealistic. Purely speaking from a standpoint of what the body can take there's nothing short of a hit to the skull that should kill a man instantly. Even a blow to the heart shouldn't be instantly fatal because the body will still have enough oxygen left for about half a minute of operation.

Buuuuut that's not how things play out in reality. Getting hit hurts and is shocking as all hell. That shock can be enough to knock you out cold. A hit to the arm might not kill you right then, but it might hurt enough to knock you out.

And as as far a game goes "unconscious and bleeding out" is as good as "dead."

I call bullshit on the "games for fun" argument, the machinist was regarded as a great film to watch, even though it wasn't "fun". It's not just about fun, it can be an enjoyable experience even if we make it hard-hitting and unpleasant. And I think we should at least try it, because it's less horrible than depicting the loss of human life as just a run-of-the-mill kind of thing.

Spoilers: Some people have different conceptions of "fun." Some people like unrealistic, arcadey experiences where they're a marathon-running, regenerating rambo super-star, others like their shooters to be tactical, squad-based experiences where getting shot is a very bad thing.

Both horrible grit and hollywood action can be fun to different people, or fun to the same people at different times.

 

[MattyDienhoff]

Games tend to go to one extreme or the other. Either people are absurdly tough or die in a few shots to *any* part of the body. The former results in people who can survive being shot in the head two or three times, and the latter results in people dying from being shot in the big toe three or four times. Neither one makes a whole lot of sense.

Fallout 3 is in the former category but nonetheless deserves some credit for its "crippling" system, because that ensures that an injury isn't just some health points but will hinder your performance until you deal with it. Crippled arms = decreased accuracy. Crippled legs = limp around slowly. Crippled head = concussion, blurred vision, tinnitus, decreased perception. Etc.

Incidentally, another game that did that was the first Operation Flashpoint way back in 2001. Shots to the legs would sometimes render the player unable to stand until they could get to a medic for treatment, and shots to the arms would badly affect accuracy.

Another thing OFP did differently to most games in terms of wounding is the way damage is calculated. A hit to any body part would have a certain percentage chance to kill and a certain percentage chance to wound. A hit to the leg might have a 30% chance to kill, for instance, while a hit to the head would have a 95% chance. The remaining 5% of "survivable" headshots is likely to account for things such as bullets glancing off of helmets or taking part of someone's ear off. So the end result is that it'd usually only take one or two 5.56mm bullet impacts to the torso to kill someone, but occasionally it would take three, and rarely even four or five. This also applied to the player so sometimes you would get shot in the torso and die instantly, but on rare occasions you might be full of bullet wounds and shrapnel impacts and keep on going.