Why do people hate realism in shooters?

[bug_of_war]

Is there any particular reason people hate realism in shooters?

First off, there really isn't any shooter out there that have realistic shooting. Why?

1:Because nearly any gun shot from every weapon can kill a human being/severly wound them to the point where they would lay on the floor not being able to move much.

2:Shotguns and sniper rifles would be instantly over powered. Shotguns would have a MUCH longer range, and in the case of the Battlefield bullet drop, it would take MUCH further distance to cause a military grade sniper rifle bullet to experience drop.

3:Only the fastest firing automatic/semi automatic weapon would be used due to point 1.

4:Weapon modification would be limited AT BEST.

Shooters are fun because there are some tactics. Call of Duty and Medal of Honor for instance forces a player to think how best they play and therefor what the best selection in weapons and modifications. Battlefield has 4 different classes, all of which need to be distributed evenly in order to have a successful team.

Don't get me wrong, Realism≠boring, but in the case of shooters, there needs to be some fantasy.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Because I play games to escape reality, not get muddled in more of it.

Seriously, I work in an oppressive atmosphere at my job, I deal with the bullshit of navigating the "correct" courses for college, and I deal with people who are so stuck in their backwards-ass ways that they won't even acknowledge that there is a future.

So when I want to play a video game, I want to be a god damn super-powered dickhead who can kill everyone and everything with nothing being more powerful than me.

 

[Rariow]

It's not as much "realistic shooters are bad" as "There's been fifty realistic shooters released this week. Can I please play a shooter where I can use my telekinetic powers to fling a guy into a botomless pit now? No, because the last one was released half a year ago? Awww.".

Besides, the so called "realistic shooter" is far from being realistic. I'm pretty sure soldiers in real life don't each take down half an army thanks to their ability to absorb fifty bullets and then be completely fine after huddling in a corner for a couple seconds. The only really realistic shooters are stuff like ARMA or those old "Hidden and Dangerous" games where you drop after a couple shots, and even those take a bit of artistic license.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Clearly you've never played Red Orchestra 1, the old Operation Flashpoint games, or ARMA, because if you did, you would realize that many of the things you said occur in the game. You often fire from 500m away in Arma and Red Orchestra 1 (Not really 2), and mortars and artillery are usually necessary to make gains in ground control some scenarios. You rarely see the person who shot you in these games, even in red orchestra 2 in some scenarios. And while you don't get carried off the field in a stretcher, as I don't see how that would be possible from a gameplay standpoint, you do experience everything else you've said; people play these games so some people must think its fun, just not the majority of people.

Seriously, do you think that the developers of these games make them this way to insult the lives of real soldiers and veterans and exploit their struggles as an attempt to sell more games? You're delirious. Maybe Call of Duty and Battlefield market themselves like that, but then they are not realistic games. To think that they make these games to falsely portray what war for a quick buck is quite a stretch to believe.

No, they do not make these games to insult the lives of real soldiers. They make the games in order to make money off of the lives of real soldiers and real conflicts, which is not so much insulting as it is thoughtless and callous. You miss my point: Reality can never exist within a fictional space, not ever. That is an objective fact. And any pretense to reality is arrogant and manipulative.

I have played Arma II. I understand what you are getting at with the game's mechanics, the more careful and thoughtful play can be more fun, but never refer to it as "realism."

 

[gargantual]

Back in the days of CS.S the distinction was simple. Either you were a more aesthetic, strafing run and gunner, and the tactical distinction was Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon. Not saying that you can't establish a middle ground, but the legacy of CoD does kinda look a little mechanically silly, advertised as a serious visceral military experience, and plays like 1/2 shooter fantasy.

Maybe it's just the coat of paint or the advertisement. Can't have it both ways. If it claims serious, it's gotta play serious. Serious Sam to me is a better balance of real guns and unbelievable but fun monster action.

 

[Alarien]

As someone who was actually in the Army, I can say that I am somewhat averse to "authenticity" in shooters because there is simply:

No. Such. Thing.

Yep, no such thing as authenticity. It doesn't matter how much you try to portray realistic combat situations with realistic behaving weapons and damage (which is basically one shot... if you take one in the leg in combat, you're going to be looking for the medic/exit, not limping forward to gun down your next enemy), in the end, it is not realistic because, as intense as it is for you, it is never real. This means that you are far more prone to do something inanely stupid and, hey, if you fail, you die/respawn/sitout/observe. It's not life, where if you do something like that and die, it really is game over. Hence, you'd be a LOT more cautious in an "authentic" situation.

This bothers me because you'll get games where the dev is going for something "realistic" like, laughably, Battlefield or, more appropriately ARMA, and you will still see people (on the ARMA side), leaving cover without fire support and sprinting through an LDA (linear danger area) or absurdly (on the Battlefield side) leaping out of a moving aircraft only to land on another one and "activate" enter it.

This is not authentic, whether just mildly annoying or wholly absurd, it is still not something you'd do in real life.

That said, I don't hate these games, the people who make or play them, and have even jumped in myself occasionally. However, they just aren't my thing primarily. This is partially because of the wave of idiots who actually do equate this to how awesome their "mad skills" would be if it were real (mostly 13 year old boys) and partially because I like to have fun, and... frankly, it's more fun to run around with a giant flamethrower on a cartoony character laughing maniacally or shoot a "bazooka" at the ground to give yourself a high leap.

To each their own...

 

[-Dragmire-]

So I play a variety of shooters, everything from Halo and Battlefield to Red Orchestra and ARMA. Sometimes I prefer some running and gunning, while other times, (Most of the time in my case), I prefer to play a more tactical and challenging game. And whenever I read topics about shooters on other forums, almost every time the word realism is mentioned, someone follows up with, "If you want realism, go join the army!" I don't understand what's so wrong with wanting a bit of realism in shooters. If you don't like realistic shooters, you don't have to play them. They obviously won't be replacing arcade shooters any time soon.

Is there any particular reason people hate realism in shooters?

I don't like realism in shooters. However, that doesn't mean it bad or anything like that, they just cater to different tastes than mine.

The Shooters I've enjoyed tend to feel floaty so you seem to glide across the ground, makes it so running and gunning is a viable tactic. I hate recoil and love bullet spray, it's less tactical but keeps everyone moving. Having no fall damage makes it so there's no real stale mate where both teams can't get by each other because a vertical layout is not a limitation to movement. You can probably see a pattern here.

tactical gameplay vs quick mobile gameplay.

So, to answer your question, I don't like realism in shooters because playing them in the way I am accustomed to is a really fast way to rack up a high death count and I don't find that fun. But like you said, I don't like realistic shooters so I don't play them. Also, I don't consider realism to detract from the value of a game, it merely detracts from the fun I can get out of it.

 

[clippen05]

Is there any particular reason people hate realism in shooters?

First off, there really isn't any shooter out there that have realistic shooting. Why?

1:Because nearly any gun shot from every weapon can kill a human being/severly wound them to the point where they would lay on the floor not being able to move much.

2:Shotguns and sniper rifles would be instantly over powered. Shotguns would have a MUCH longer range, and in the case of the Battlefield bullet drop, it would take MUCH further distance to cause a military grade sniper rifle bullet to experience drop.

3:Only the fastest firing automatic/semi automatic weapon would be used due to point 1.

4:Weapon modification would be limited AT BEST.

Shooters are fun because there are some tactics. Call of Duty and Medal of Honor for instance forces a player to think how best they play and therefore what the best selection in weapons and modifications. Battlefield has 4 different classes, all of which need to be distributed evenly in order to have a successful team.

Both Arma and Red Orchestra have gameplay that can kill you in one shot. Of course sniper rifles and shotguns are overpowered, but each team can only have a limited amount of each to compensate. Both have limited classes for smgs and hmgs aswell and lastly, there is almost no weapon modification. And there are tactics in these games. Moving up in groups and using covering fire from hmgs. Mortars and artillery are used to dislodge staunch defenders. Definitely has tactics; there's probably more tactics involved in fact due to the risk of dieing so easily.

 

[bug_of_war]

Both Arma and Red Orchestra have gameplay that can kill you in one shot. Of course sniper rifles and shotguns are overpowered, but each team can only have a limited amount of each to compensate. Both have limited classes for smgs and hmgs aswell and lastly, there is almost no weapon modification. And there are tactics in these games. Moving up in groups and using covering fire from hmgs. Mortars and artillery are used to dislodge staunch defenders. Definitely has tactics; there's probably more tactics involved in fact due to the risk of dieing so easily.

ARMA isn't so much as a game as it is a simulation, hell the Australian army use it for multiple reasons such as training soldiers, simulating what would happen in certain scenarios etc.

Red Orchestra is a valid point and I concede that in that particular game realism does work, though I do remember writing "Realism≠boring" (though I should have written afterwards "but in the case of 'most' shooters, there needs to be some fantasy).

 

[clippen05]

Well, considering there is no such thing as a realistic FPS I guess you can't complain to much about them.

Seriously, show me the FPS where as a sniper you sit down bored out of your skull for 9 hours waiting for a perfect shot, where your in the middle of the desert riding around looking for IEDs, where one bullet makes you unable to fight and if your lucky you can get back to the hospital, have months of physical therapy and be able to walk again, etc. etc. etc.

Not to say adding some aspects of realism is bad, it can be used to good effect like adding immersion or depth to gameplay.

Red Orchestra
Arma
Operation Flashpoint

To half the thread: The OP was referring to realistic shooters, not "realistic shooters."

Realistic Shooters: Careful progression and long duels, suppressing fire, long ranges quick deaths and slow bleed. Lots of waist high walls.
"Realistic Shooters": Slow progression due to messy fights, AARRR PEEE GEEE, short ranges quick deaths but no consequences to taking 98% damage. Lots of chest high walls.



Playing RO2, I found myself trading rifle fire with a single enemy for surprisingly long amounts of time, each of us trying to judge the range and bullet drop, and occasionally bandage up after a graze. Also, I struggled with framerate issues because my laptop isn't built to run RO2.

Thanks for clearing this up. It's kinda sad how people can get confused due to Call of Duty and Battlefield's marketing. They are not what I was referring to at all. Call of Duty, and to a lesser extent Battlefield, are the exact opposite of realistic. Perks, thousands of weapon customizations, pinpoint accuracy, regenerating health, yadaydayda. Not realistic. Sure, they are accurate in portraying the right guns and uniforms maybe, but that's the extent of it. They don't have realistic GAMEPLAY.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

ARMA isn't so much as a game as it is a simulation, hell the Australian army use it for multiple reasons such as training soldiers, simulating what would happen in certain scenarios etc.

Huh? Since when?

As far as I know the Australian Army, like several other militaries, uses Virtual Battle Space (VBS)... VBS 2, iirc. VBS 2 shares the same engine as ArmA (RealVirtuality engine... can't remember the version) but the implementation is very different.

 

[Trueflame]

Because people use games as a means of escapism, and reality is hard and cold and brutal. No one wants to see what actually happens to body parts when they are hit with high velocity bullets, or to comprehend that the guy rushing from point A to point B and being a hero in a military scenario is actually going to be riddled with bullets.

That said, I don't know why people are so particularly antagonistic toward shooters that aim for such realism, when they applaud other games, like Dark Souls, for being extremely challenging, and complain about how gaming as a whole is being dumbed down. So maybe there is some kind of subconscious political angle to it, with sword and sorcery violence getting a pass, but gun violence being unacceptable and uncomfortable if it starts looking too real.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Because nothing makes people more unreasonably furious then what they feel is undeserved success.

 

[Callate]

"Realistic" shooters aren't very. If a game feels like a better experience for having relatively realistic weapon reload times, or bullet trajectories, or a lack of regenerating health, y'know, fine... Such experiences often seem to be sadomasochistic to me, engineered to minimize the amount of actual play time and keep player learning curves as steep as they possibly can, both to stretch out the amount of time before players get bored with their content and to inflate the amount of sneering derision players who got in early can level at the "noobs".

That's not everyone's experience, I'm sure, and yes, there should be room for all kinds of shooters and it's useful to have something resembling historical re-enactments for educational purposes and blah blah blah.

But "realistically" speaking, most real-world conflicts are a few minutes of adrenaline-filled terror along with hours of dread and drudgery. And once you're dead, you aren't dead until the end of the match, you're out of the match, so to speak, period.

I guess I would ultimately say that "realism", big ol' square quotes quite intact, is fine if you want it... But it isn't self-justifying, especially to other game-players. It needs something more compelling to justify what seems to many players to be a kind of excessive grind. If it can't provide that, I don't feel tremendous grief that "realistic" shooters should remain a relatively niche set of offerings.

 

[bug_of_war]

Huh? Since when?

As far as I know the Australian Army, like several other militaries, uses Virtual Battle Space (VBS)... VBS 2, iirc. VBS 2 shares the same engine as ArmA (RealVirtuality engine... can't remember the version) but the implementation is very different.

Since very recently. They still do use Virtual Battle Space and other programs that you listed, but they began using ARMA when it became apparent that certain video games can be used to help real life scenarios (such as the online game that gave people a bunch of cells of different diseases/viruses and basically said, "figure out how to cure this" and people did). It's only been implemented in the last 2-3 years, and is mostly being used at career expos, but it is still used by the military itself. At least that's what I've been told.

 

[thunderbug]

most of the so called "realistic shooters" are about as realistic as star wars.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/aKz4e9O_460sa.gif

 

[Valthonis666]

Everyone tries to build these realistic shooters, and I'm just sitting over here in my corner, silently waiting for an FPS with the same grip on realism that Saints Row 4 has. Then I will be happy.

Also, thats my answer. Realism sucks. Its boring now, especially after all of the CoD and Battlefields and every. other. FPS. with. Realistic Physics / Gameplay / Guns. Its starting to reek now, we've been beating this dead horse so long that the maggots have developed knife fighting capabilities and are beginning to fight back.

 

[Arkaijn]

For me it's because realistic shooters are rarely realistic, when military grade weaponry has the accuracy of a blind llama unless you're full prone and the character you're playing has the physical stamina of an asthmatic turtle, that's when I eject the disc and throw it out my window, preferably during rush hour so I'm completely sure it will be utterly destroyed.

 

[Dogstile]

So I play a variety of shooters, everything from Halo and Battlefield to Red Orchestra and ARMA. Sometimes I prefer some running and gunning, while other times, (Most of the time in my case), I prefer to play a more tactical and challenging game. And whenever I read topics about shooters on other forums, almost every time the word realism is mentioned, someone follows up with, "If you want realism, go join the army!" I don't understand what's so wrong with wanting a bit of realism in shooters. If you don't like realistic shooters, you don't have to play them. They obviously won't be replacing arcade shooters any time soon.

Is there any particular reason people hate realism in shooters?

Because people associate realism with games that spout that they're realistic (cod) but aren't actually realistic.