"Realistic" Shooters - Bullshit

[Sephychu]

Another one I hate is AIs having no regard for their own lives. If it might kill you, they will attempt it, regardless of your ability to kill them.

Even more annoying is when it is totally impossible to kill these enemies before they get to you, meaning that you have a completely random chance every time you fight them, whether their so-called AIs will randomly decide to charge you, a la Mass Effect. (You might say it was unrealistic, but I'd disagree with you. The only thing that differs it from reality is Element Zero, everything else is pretty consistent with science, and the vague fact that Element Zero exists shouldn't make people that dumb.)

 

[Zeriercahl]

In CoD2 Modern Warfare, you can take one of those M40(or some #) machine guns, shoot, run, shoot, jump, climb up a ladder, run, shoot, melee, etc...

My army friends say that gun weighs more than 40 pounds, and the recoil is "crazy." A quote: "This is the kind of gun you mount or stabalize on the ground with."

 

[archvile93]

I'll take fun over realistic anyday. That's why I hated GRAW so much.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Realism in games is rather pointless, isn't it? Escapism and all. Most of the time I'll agree that the more realistic the graphics and physics of a game are, the easier it is to immerse myself, but I can definitely admit that a game that breaks this mold is in no way bad.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

Of course they're not realistic, they're VIDEO GAMES.

 

[monkey_man]

this is why i play tf2. fck realism up the *rse.
also knive in somegames is dead. but 3 pistol headshots is bandaid,

 

[Jark212]

Rainbow Six: Vegas series is as realistic as I like to get. Vegas 2 is one of my favorite shooters, I wish I didn't trade it in...

 

[Chrinik]

I get your point, I hate that too. Games are branded as "realistic" when they aren´t, because they are not simulators, because game journalists might not have been in the armed forces of their country, or normal journalists just don´t know what the fuck "realistic first person shooter" actually means.
But sometimes, sometimes there is this ONE Developer, who takes a completely unrealistic but balancing aspect of shooters and MAKES it realistic.
Que Brothers in Arms, Hells Highway.
The older BIA games had nonregenerating health that, depending on dificulty, got replenished at checkpoints. THAT WAS IT...
The newest used regenerating health, but the very keen eye only noticed one thing. You never got hit, your screen just turned more reddish.
This was not to show that you just took a dozen Mauser rounds into your Chest and need to shrugg it off behind cover, no, this showed you of HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO BEING HIT!
It was a "Danger meter" so to speak...it didn´t show you that you took damage, it showed you the POTENTIAL of taking damage, by having your ass be out of cover and fired upon, if it was red too long, one bullet found it´s mark and game over...
This effectively bipassed the "How can my character survive 100 bullets?" question, and implied "One bullet is all it takes" realism, but still being playable and balanced.

I like "realistic" playing experiences in my shooters, because, let´s face it, getting shot in real life is not fun, even if it does hit your SAPI, it still fucking hurts.
BOTH kinds of games have reasons to exists...MW2 style for people who wanna feel like Rambo and single handedly save the world by killing millions of enemies with their ultra low recoil .50 caliber sniperrifles and 7.62mm battlerifles, and then there are the people who want to crawl in the mud, take orders, take carefull aim because they have to account for gravity or even not fire at all if the situation does not actually call for a shot...
I like both, in healthy doses, but the people who screem "REALISM IS NOT FUN!" also think that realism means you die every fucking second from some stray bullet...you know, as if noone survived WW1 and 2...

Or take the guys who play racing or flying sims? You cannot get realistic enough for them, and one misbreak and you lose 5 positions you fought so hard for. "Where is the fun in that?" some ask...
Well, some people get fun out of a CHALLENGE by actually being able to negate all those realistic factors and still own the enemy...

You can also make a game realistic but still fun to play and balanced, by just hiding or covering the unrealistic aspects very good, as I´ve mentioned above, that made BIAs regenerating health system much more realistic then Modern Warfares, while effectively being the same.

 

[drummond13]

They mean "realistic" in setting as opposed to space marines and such.

Seriously, dude, calm down.

 

[ShenCS]

An element of strong realism helps the willing suspension of disbelief, hence why games are marketed as such. They're meant to be more absorbing but ultimately still an enjoyable game (the latter part meaning some acceptable breaks from reality are needed). They aren't saying "this is exactly what life is like". You'd tire of a game where the enemies are male hookers firing exploding cakes out of their asses while you are a worm bitten by a radioactive ladybug using a doughnut as a weapon.
At least, I think you would...
Hmm.

 

[Krantos]

Destructible cover, it's a fantastic idea, however in this day and age it will NEVER look right, at least not without spending an ungodly amount, an example of this would be Battlefield: Bad Company (I don't like the game personally, but that's not the point), being able to level a building with a tank is a good idea, but the problem is the physics and damage done to ALL structures are bad enough to make a 5 year old giggle until they piss themselves, To go into detail would take a very long time, however I'm sure you understand what I mean. A bullet doesn't have that kind of affect against a concrete wall, not even an armor piercing one. A knife will not make a door shatter like glass with a single stab to it's center. Maybe one day this sort of thing will be financially viable and won't look hilariously bad, but that's not today (It WORKS fine, I won't deny that, but it looks hilariously awful).

This is why I'm surprised more games haven't started using the DMM damage engine. After playing the first Force Unleashed, I find any other game's destructible environments laughable.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Haha, it's funny how i agree that Cod4:Modern Warfare has EVERY one of these flaws and yet i will still punch you in the face if you say to me 'it was a bad game.'

OT: To me, when a game is described as realistic by it's developers... it doesn't mean it's 'like real life' so much as it does mean 'NOT Sci-fi or Fantasy.' I think that makes most SENSE or is that just me?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The problem with this angry, angry rant is that these shooters are realistic with respect to the sort of shooters that dominated the market in the 90's and the early part of the last decade. In these games, you could carry an arsenel of weaponry that would shame an entire infantry platoon, shrug off hundreds of rounds like so much rain, fire without regard to accuracy, and move at incredible speeds. Look at a game like quake 3. In that game a player can easily weather a storm of more than a hundred rounds from a machine gun without problems. They can ignore a round several inches in diameter that punches straight through them. They will be expected to take a number of large explosive devices to the face before they so much as flinch. And they do it while running at speeds that can exceed 60 miles an hour and survive falls of a dozen stories or more all while using explosives to jump even higher than their super powered legs (which already allow the player to easily jump their own height plus several feet to spare) allow.

With respect to this sort of game, the modern interpretation of the shooter is incredibly realistic in that it at least acknowledges reality from time to time even if it arbitrarily discards bits that are actually realistic.

And, for the record, there are realistic shooters out there. Operation Flashpoint (the original) and ARMA are notable examples. A single round is all it ever takes to kill you. A wound sustained in a mission will not actually heal.

 

[Altorin]

"Realistic Shooters" is indeed a misnomer, but it's more about the SETTING, rather then the MECHANICS of the game. Realistic means that the games take place in the real world, or something very similar to our real world. People look like people, there are no aliens (there are SOMETIMES zombies, but never in the core game), guns look like real guns and usually even have real gun names.

Destructible cover, it's a fantastic idea, however in this day and age it will NEVER look right, at least not without spending an ungodly amount, an example of this would be Battlefield: Bad Company (I don't like the game personally, but that's not the point), being able to level a building with a tank is a good idea, but the problem is the physics and damage done to ALL structures are bad enough to make a 5 year old giggle until they piss themselves, To go into detail would take a very long time, however I'm sure you understand what I mean. A bullet doesn't have that kind of affect against a concrete wall, not even an armor piercing one. A knife will not make a door shatter like glass with a single stab to it's center. Maybe one day this sort of thing will be financially viable and won't look hilariously bad, but that's not today (It WORKS fine, I won't deny that, but it looks hilariously awful).

The funny thing is, the game on the horizon with the BEST destructible cover is Breach, and it's a 20 dollar XBLA game made by an indie developer.

 

[MrShowerHead]

ArmA 2 with ACE mod - the most realistic FPS experience on any console available to the public. It has no equal. I'm sorry.

Give this guy a medal. He just won this thread.

Seriously, if you guys want a realistic shooter, ArmA II + Ace 2 Mod = Profit

 

[Palademon]

Can't we just stop pretending to have realistic shooters and all demand TimeSplitters?

 

[DeathsHands]

Go play ArmA II + ACE 2.

Aside from that, this is all quite obvious.

 

[Syrus Vikeruce]

If you mean games like Halo then I agree 50%. Due to its popularity I can't say I'm partial to it (that and I'm not a moron to purchase an Xbox 360) but I'll admit I have started to like its Multiplayer if only because it resembles retro Goldeneye.

Hmph. =/

 

[Nutcase]

In CoD2 Modern Warfare, you can take one of those M40(or some #) machine guns, shoot, run, shoot, jump, climb up a ladder, run, shoot, melee, etc...

My army friends say that gun weighs more than 40 pounds, and the recoil is "crazy." A quote: "This is the kind of gun you mount or stabalize on the ground with."

Then your army friends are full of shit. Wikipedia gives 23 pounds as the weight of the M60. 7.62mm NATO is a rifle cartridge and firing it out of a 23-pound weapon means near zero recoil. I have carried a machine gun of similar weight and everything you mention can be done with it if you are fit enough. It's hard to aim while standing, though, because the weight gets to you.