which make for a funner shooter realistic games like the call of duty series or battle feild series. or non-realistic games like duke nukem or halo series.
Poll: realistic or non realistic shooters
- Thread starter the bionicdingo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like shooters that involve enemies being killed in humorous ways, like the shark gun in armed and dangerous or pretty much anything in Ratchet and Clank. Realistic games are often called "gritty" or "Hardcore" but I think it just means the developers can't imagine anything cool so they have to steal from life.
Realistic. Based on your description that would mean my two favorite fist person shooters (Battlefield 2 and Counter Strike: Source) fall into this category. Even if I went stricter, I'd still prefer a Project Reality or ArmA II to an Unreal Tournament, Quake, Halo, or something. Shame Call of Duty seems to be the posterboy of realistic shooters, because it really isn't that good.
Realistic shooters is a bit of a misnomer, if MW2 was realistic at all, you'd take 1 bullet to the gut and lie screaming like the ***** that you are.
So yeah, realism in games is still a far cry from actual realism, but why should we try and make things more realistic? Games are about forgetting real life for a bit, you don't want to feel the actual pain of getting shot, the actual fear of 'OMG theres 20 zombies right next to me' or the actual sense of dissapointment when Link realises he still isn't going to nail Zelda
So yeah, realism in games is still a far cry from actual realism, but why should we try and make things more realistic? Games are about forgetting real life for a bit, you don't want to feel the actual pain of getting shot, the actual fear of 'OMG theres 20 zombies right next to me' or the actual sense of dissapointment when Link realises he still isn't going to nail Zelda
You really can not cast this poll without defining the genres to specifics.
What some may call realistic other may call unrealistic.
For instance;
I would class MW2 as an unrealistic game, as it does not account for physics as the Battlefield series does. In the same term, I would not put MW2 in the same pot as Halo and Duke Nukem.
What you should be asking is weather people prefer an FPS that is Sci-fi/fantasy based over a real world base.
What some may call realistic other may call unrealistic.
For instance;
I would class MW2 as an unrealistic game, as it does not account for physics as the Battlefield series does. In the same term, I would not put MW2 in the same pot as Halo and Duke Nukem.
What you should be asking is weather people prefer an FPS that is Sci-fi/fantasy based over a real world base.
That...would be so awesome.Angus565 said:
OT: I prefer non-realistic like Halo. But "realism" isn't very real seeing as someone running really fast with a knife is usually more effective in Call of Duty then using an actual gun.
Non-realistic. If you mean in terms of player vulnerability.
In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer, most of the basic starting weapons kill players very quickly at medium range.
In Halo 3's multiplayer, on the default settings, the most common starting weapons (AR, BR, pistol) cannot kill really quickly. And I, personally, prefer this to the above.
HOWEVER, I like that one cannot call down air-strikes, nukes and missiles in Halo 3 which strikes me as realistic. Where the opposite is true in MW 2. So this whole 'realistic vs non-realistic' thing is just a poor way of comparing games, generally, I've found.
Objectively, neither type of shooter is more fun really. I would think that fun is perhaps one of the most subjective things there is.
In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer, most of the basic starting weapons kill players very quickly at medium range.
In Halo 3's multiplayer, on the default settings, the most common starting weapons (AR, BR, pistol) cannot kill really quickly. And I, personally, prefer this to the above.
HOWEVER, I like that one cannot call down air-strikes, nukes and missiles in Halo 3 which strikes me as realistic. Where the opposite is true in MW 2. So this whole 'realistic vs non-realistic' thing is just a poor way of comparing games, generally, I've found.
Objectively, neither type of shooter is more fun really. I would think that fun is perhaps one of the most subjective things there is.
love em both, prefer unreal to the max but i do play both
i just hate it when my friends try to claim how real some shooters are..they scream at some points at how real mw1 was on the computer which i respond "oh really? scrolling around and clicking on a mouse is realistic is it? huh, what have i been playing all these years?"
(note i have nothing against pc shooters, i play tf2 quite enough as it is, just laughing at the logic they try and throw at me)
i just hate it when my friends try to claim how real some shooters are..they scream at some points at how real mw1 was on the computer which i respond "oh really? scrolling around and clicking on a mouse is realistic is it? huh, what have i been playing all these years?"
(note i have nothing against pc shooters, i play tf2 quite enough as it is, just laughing at the logic they try and throw at me)
In the case of Realistic (i.e. Medal of Honor, call of Duty, ect.) vs Unrealistic (Halo, Killzone, Resistance, Doom, ect.), I would say the later for the unique experience. I am exhausted of these WWII clones and ambiguous Middle-Eastern war clones that are popping up so much. I love COD4's gameplay mechanics though as far as fast pacing, bullets killing quick, shooting through walls, ect., but I would rather play something that takes me away from the stresses of reality.
To break it down further, I like shooters like Halo 1 (hate 2 and 3), Killzone 2, Resistance 1, and for third person, Uncharted and Gears of War. All of which I would categorize as more fictional inspired (I guess) than "realistic."
To break it down further, I like shooters like Halo 1 (hate 2 and 3), Killzone 2, Resistance 1, and for third person, Uncharted and Gears of War. All of which I would categorize as more fictional inspired (I guess) than "realistic."
Non realistic. JC2 has gotten me hooked. And I think it's nice because the formula can be mixed up once in a while. Is your game non-realistic because you can tank, because you can parachute while in a tank, because your guns are all weapons taken off of tanks? Compared to being inserted into a chaotic warring situation with a small group of elite soldiers basically every single time.
non-realistic. In a true realistic shooter, one shot kills, and other bs happens. If i wanted a realistic shooter, i'd join the marines.
Un-realistic...but only bit a little.
Depending on my mood I might want something that's based in realism at least a little (my current multiplayer fix is covered with Bad Company 2)...but by that logic I was in the TF2 mood for years, and still am, if only my computer didn't suck or people still played it on 360.
Depending on my mood I might want something that's based in realism at least a little (my current multiplayer fix is covered with Bad Company 2)...but by that logic I was in the TF2 mood for years, and still am, if only my computer didn't suck or people still played it on 360.