Why don't more FPS games feel like you are part of a war?
- Thread starter IamSofaKingRaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's just hard to incorporate so many elements of realism with limited technology (graphical and such) while keeping the game fun. Sure, it'd be awesome to have a battle with thousands of fellow soldiers online or offline, but that just isn't possible right now on current systems. Hang on a second... it totally is!
Okay, I cheated a bit. It's not on consoles and requires a machine with fairly high-powered PC to run, but still, that fits the bill. Although online battle will never be like that, though.
Okay, I cheated a bit. It's not on consoles and requires a machine with fairly high-powered PC to run, but still, that fits the bill. Although online battle will never be like that, though.
I'm going to assume that you mean, "Why do most first person shooter games that, while claiming I'm one soldier in a massive army, always feel like I'm the only person fighting the entire enemy army?" If that's what you mean, I completely agree with you.
How come I have to be the ONLY one who can pick up the rocket launcher and take out the helicopter? How come I'm the only one that can save Private Ryan? How come every enemy zeroes in on me the moment my head pokes out? How come, if I'm part of the massive invading/defending force, I'm always sent with only two other people (who normally die within moments) to secure a vital objective that is no where NEAR the main battle? How come I'm the only soldier on my side that can hit ANYTHING? Yeah, I know what you mean.
Sadly, the only time I ever didn't feel like this is when I play MW2 SpecOps with someone on Hardened. Just hard enough that we have to work together, but not hard enough to the point where we're yelling at one another. There were also a few moments in Medal of Honor European Assault that captured that feeling, but they were few.
How come I have to be the ONLY one who can pick up the rocket launcher and take out the helicopter? How come I'm the only one that can save Private Ryan? How come every enemy zeroes in on me the moment my head pokes out? How come, if I'm part of the massive invading/defending force, I'm always sent with only two other people (who normally die within moments) to secure a vital objective that is no where NEAR the main battle? How come I'm the only soldier on my side that can hit ANYTHING? Yeah, I know what you mean.
Sadly, the only time I ever didn't feel like this is when I play MW2 SpecOps with someone on Hardened. Just hard enough that we have to work together, but not hard enough to the point where we're yelling at one another. There were also a few moments in Medal of Honor European Assault that captured that feeling, but they were few.
Because a considerable amount of FPS's are still about the lone Spacemarine/Supersoldier/Colonel Badass that guns down many, many aliens/ terrorists/evildoers and they don't need some fucking support. They got magical recharging health goddamnit!
There are none that I know of IDK why all the big multiplayer games are on the ps3 but I've heard and seen good things from BAttlefield Bad Company 2.Nouw said:
As far as online play goes, the AA (America's Army) series is really the only one I've played that gets this right because:
The matches aren't deathmatches (it's not kill till you get X points)
When you die during a round, you die, which results in a refreshing lack of running and gunning
If you don't work with your team, you will probably lose
All the other games I've played had online play that was more like splitscreen with bots.
The matches aren't deathmatches (it's not kill till you get X points)
When you die during a round, you die, which results in a refreshing lack of running and gunning
If you don't work with your team, you will probably lose
All the other games I've played had online play that was more like splitscreen with bots.
Shooters don't feel like war because many of them are too controlled and low risk.
--too controlled--
A usual online shooter match consists basically of each team killing members of the opposing team. Sure, there could be variation with capture the flag, territories, etc. but everything screams "sports match with guns". I'm no war expert, but I can guess with actual war anything is to be expected (a close friend dies, a surprise air strike, etc), and online shooters simply do not introduce the random element to gameplay (at least very convincingly anyway).
--low risk--
As I've mentioned, in an actual war, you can lose a very close friend, and while this is something major in real life, the "feelings" you experience do not exactly translate well to a game. If a close friend dies in a game, he simply respawns and the only feeling you can conjure up is why the hell isn't he back with the group. There's also the lack of fear of one's own death, which is pretty self explanatory (you die, respawn, and don't need a letter sent to your family).
If a shooter wants to feel more like war, it need to have events that are simply out of the control of any player playing (random air strikes, random mine placement, random wildlife attacks, etc). There should also be a great sense of loss whenever you or a friend dies- such as losing a great deal of progress or something else of high value.
But I should stop here. Random events in game are, sadly, limited by a programmers paycheck or willingness to work on a game, and often turn out rather gimmicky at best. As far as a profound loss for dying... well lets just say many gamers are not ready to give up hard-earned progress for "atmosphere" and "emotional attachment".
--too controlled--
A usual online shooter match consists basically of each team killing members of the opposing team. Sure, there could be variation with capture the flag, territories, etc. but everything screams "sports match with guns". I'm no war expert, but I can guess with actual war anything is to be expected (a close friend dies, a surprise air strike, etc), and online shooters simply do not introduce the random element to gameplay (at least very convincingly anyway).
--low risk--
As I've mentioned, in an actual war, you can lose a very close friend, and while this is something major in real life, the "feelings" you experience do not exactly translate well to a game. If a close friend dies in a game, he simply respawns and the only feeling you can conjure up is why the hell isn't he back with the group. There's also the lack of fear of one's own death, which is pretty self explanatory (you die, respawn, and don't need a letter sent to your family).
If a shooter wants to feel more like war, it need to have events that are simply out of the control of any player playing (random air strikes, random mine placement, random wildlife attacks, etc). There should also be a great sense of loss whenever you or a friend dies- such as losing a great deal of progress or something else of high value.
But I should stop here. Random events in game are, sadly, limited by a programmers paycheck or willingness to work on a game, and often turn out rather gimmicky at best. As far as a profound loss for dying... well lets just say many gamers are not ready to give up hard-earned progress for "atmosphere" and "emotional attachment".
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 does well online. One gametype has you destroying an objective and as you do so it opens up other parts of the map, as well as the vehicles and such required to push on. You cant take enemy's all by your lonesome (especially on hardcore), and the expanding map gives the illusion of changing battle lines that are impacted by your actions. Factor in the "join a squad" schtick and it gives a true sense of being a small, yet integral, part of a bigger picture. Plus the classes really compliment each other. I can't count the times i've had my ass saved by a sniper picking off an MG position, a medic's defibrilator, an engineer blowing up a tank that had been soundly spanking me, or even an assault trooper mowing down a line of baddies.
TL/DR: Battlefield 2 is what you're looking for...but not in single player, that still sucks.
TL/DR: Battlefield 2 is what you're looking for...but not in single player, that still sucks.
The Man's got a point.Aby_Z said:
If we made a realistic shooter we would have an actual battle, comrades that die, your characters emotions and gameplay being effected by it. And your npc buddies actually can kill someone! But of course my ideas are yet to be recognized.
Because they wouldn't be popular if they did. Ultra-realistic FPS is a niche market. Most people don't want to play incredibly slow paced, overly detailed, boring, complicated and depressing video games.
Real war is boring. Firefights last for hours in the real world. The majority of video gamers wouldn't want to sit through that - and who can blame them?
Real war is boring. Firefights last for hours in the real world. The majority of video gamers wouldn't want to sit through that - and who can blame them?
man i will die if actuall fps nowadays become like this, i would die a happy man!Tattaglia said:
I think it's the setting. In Killzone 2 you're fighting the most realistic of enemies (arguably), or perhaps I should say the most human. With the Chimera from Resistance and the Covenant from Halo, you feel disconnected in a way because it isn't a world of your own. When you fight something more human, I think it is easier to feel like it's happening.
This in part. The reality of modern ground combat is one of confusion. You fire often without knowing where your enemy is with any precision. You maneuver without really knowing what's around a corner. Any of my experience in combat was just a bunch of smoke and gunfire. You put rounds in the direction you think someone might be and listen to your team leader and hope for the best. If there were a game that presented warfare as confusing and actually managed to make the player feel mortal fear, then perhaps it would feel like a war.sliverwings1123 said:
i just wanted to point out that in halo your the last spartin the last hope your ment to feel like if you die the whole war ends and humens lose atleist thats what i belive still i mostly agree with what your sayingSelectivelyEvil13 said: