Why don't more FPS games feel like you are part of a war?

[Marine Mike]

It seems like most gamers have little idea of what actual war typically is... There is an old saying that war is 90% monotonous boredom and 10% bowel-evacuating terror. A game where you are waiting around for 90% of the gameplay time would not sell very well, neither would a game where engagements can last between 5 seconds and 4 hours and you may still never see an enemy combatant.

 

[Athlumney]

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.

Am I the only one who thinks the red and green tracers in that battle look like laser shots?

The main reason you don't feel like it's a massive war going on is that you are only in a small section of the conflict. As long as we are only in that small section it will always feel like theres no massive conflict.

 

[Mr. Mike]

I don't think the OP's really asking for a hyper-realistic FPS where it's a long, drawn out conflict and you get hit once and you're dead. I think he's trying to say that he's tired of all these "one man army" titles. It's more that feeling of being a part of a squad or battalion as opposed to being the leader or even a lone-wolf.

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.

I wouldn't say it's so much the relate-able enemies as it is the grit and carnage and the other team-mates. Say you're defending a point. You're covering one way the enemy can come, and your AI allies are covering another couple of paths. You're just a small part of the picture. Whereas a "one man army" title would have you running back and forth defending all these approaches, the kind of game the OP is asking for would have competent AI allies holding other directions.

 

[IxionIndustries]

Wanna play as if your in a war?
Buy one of these:

Have fun with your future headaches.

 

[cahtush]

day of defeat source gives a bit of that feeling i guess

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

It's hard reproducing human emotions of Conflict for a video game.

I don't mean that deep. I meant why don't games make me feel that there are others that are fighting just as hard as I am and that I'm not the only one tying to save humanity. Playing games like Halo and Gears and Resistance you fid only a handfull of people fighting hundreds of enemies whreas in Killzone for the most part you and many other soldiers are fighting the enemy. The last time I felt that was other than Killzone 2 was playing a medal of honor game for the ps2.

I understand that exactly. Killzone 2 has the same effect on me, it's just so chaotic with a dynamic world that leaves the player thrown into a chaotic mess. I find that the problem in games like Halo is that the campaign is a conflict of "There is a war for humanity" and "You're our Keeanu Reeves." I felt that the campaign suffered especially in the later two games because this enormous struggle for humanity's survival is presented, yet it never feels as though anyone but you (Master Chief) is doing their part in saving the freaking world. While I can understand in more individual missions where you have to, but more often than not I felt like I was literally the only one putting a dent in the enemies as more and more allies dropped off. This further isolates the player so it perpetuates that sense of "I'm the one." The perfect example is the attack on New Mombassa as it never felt as though there was that much going on, despite the fact that Earth just go invaded.

Call of Duty and the like suffer in a similar fashion. Why is Private Johnson the only soldier somehow capable of planting the C4 as enemies continually spawn? While it is necessary to give the player a role, why is everyone else in a game a complete derelict handed a gun? To show off their death animations as they run about while you somehow destroy an entire platoon?

I think with more technological capabilities, there are more tricks and just general enemies/allies to create a better experience of a larger battle rather than a few guys shooting each other led by the demi-god/player. Having more onscreen soldiers alone creates a much better sense that you are small part of a bigger picture.

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 saying

Nah but in Halos backstory they say humans colonized many planets but one guy holds all humanity in his hands? WTF? I would like to see more marines out there fighting with me. It makes the Halo games less epic to me because I'm the only one that cares about saving the universe.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

...that is the greatest thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

It seems like most gamers have little idea of what actual war typically is... There is an old saying that war is 90% monotonous boredom and 10% bowel-evacuating terror. A game where you are waiting around for 90% of the gameplay time would not sell very well, neither would a game where engagements can last between 5 seconds and 4 hours and you may still never see an enemy combatant.

What I meant was I'd like to see more shooters have you have to work together with multiple AI to fight waves of enemies. Most games put 1-3 people out to go defend the world and everyone else sits back and reads the paper. Killzone 2 is the only next gen game that has done that for me. (haven't played battlefield yet)And yes, I do know that you can't actually experience all the emotions that come with real battle through a video game.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

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 saying

In the various Halos, especially 1 you are not sent into such huge encounters and I agree, it does feel like you're the last hope and is quite appropriate. I just found larger conflicts to be rather distracting because it felt like a large "area" with lots enemies to fight, but no real humanity. Even with the larger amount of NPCs in a given area in Halo 3, the problem stems from your allies having the IQ of a soggy breadstick.

I feel that Halo's strongest areas are the ones that do not try and emulate such a grand scale because they fail on several key levels. There is not enough atmosphere to convey any sense of alarm in the larger spaces, human allies are picked off so quickly it devolves into one Master Chief vs everybody else anyways, and human allies convey no emotion that is compatible with the situation. The marines are too busy "Yee-haw"ing and making inane jokes to come across as remotely serious, even though they run the risk of taking a shot of molten plasma to the face (and even then they still make a wise crack) during humanity's potential demise. That is why I believe the Master Chief is the saving grace of somber reality in Halo, and is better off solo or with a smaller group like in Halo 1. Fortunately, as you have stated, Master Chief's role is more solitary and the game does not dwell too often on the grand scheme of things, this being prominent in only some areas of Halo 2 and even more in Halo 3.

What I meant was I'd like to see more shooters have you have to work together with multiple AI to fight waves of enemies. Most games put 1-3 people out to go defend the world and everyone else sits back and reads the paper. Killzone 2 is the only next gen game that has done that for me. (haven't played battlefield yet)And yes, I do know that you can't actually experience all the emotions that come with real battle through a video game.

This is precisely what I find in Killzone 2, giving it a great immersive feel because, even though the player still has to carry a lot of responsibility, you have allies who are intelligent enough to actually put a dent in the enemy force. Being a part of something bigger is what makes a video game's war/battle/conflict that much more engaging. There is a proper and more realistic balance between a battlezone's size, the amount of enemies and allies, and the level of atmospheric effects.

With this in mind, I would compare the Killzone 2 approach not to Halo's as they are going for two different things in the end. Halo, as zatzie zombie num666 stated, is not entirely to be a large scale game and falters more specifically in those areas where it tries to be something that it really is not as well suited towards. Instead, I often found Call of Duty to be more guilty of creating a very awkward environment as you were the elite private (wuh?) that can somehow annihilate an entire enemy invasion while your allies just soak up the bullets that would have missed you anyways. They follow you so much that the NPCs literally depend entirely on you to do everything, thus killing the sense of involvement and pursuing a more familiar "Neo" role instead.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

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 saying

In the various Halos, especially 1 you are not sent into such huge encounters and I agree, it does feel like you're the last hope and is quite appropriate. I just found larger conflicts to be rather distracting because it felt like a large "area" with lots enemies to fight, but no real humanity. Even with the larger amount of NPCs in a given area in Halo 3, the problem stems from your allies having the IQ of a soggy breadstick.

I feel that Halo's strongest areas are the ones that do not try and emulate such a grand scale because they fail on several key levels. There is not enough atmosphere to convey any sense of alarm in the larger spaces, human allies are picked off so quickly it devolves into one Master Chief vs everybody else anyways, and human allies convey no emotion that is compatible with the situation. The marines are too busy "Yee-haw"ing and making inane jokes to come across as remotely serious, even though they run the risk of taking a shot of molten plasma to the face (and even then they still make a wise crack) during humanity's potential demise. That is why I believe the Master Chief is the saving grace of somber reality in Halo, and is better off solo or with a smaller group like in Halo 1. Fortunately, as you have stated, Master Chief's role is more solitary and the game does not dwell too often on the grand scheme of things, this being prominent in only some areas of Halo 2 and even more in Halo 3.

What I meant was I'd like to see more shooters have you have to work together with multiple AI to fight waves of enemies. Most games put 1-3 people out to go defend the world and everyone else sits back and reads the paper. Killzone 2 is the only next gen game that has done that for me. (haven't played battlefield yet)And yes, I do know that you can't actually experience all the emotions that come with real battle through a video game.

This is precisely what I find in Killzone 2, giving it a great immersive feel because, even though the player still has to carry a lot of responsibility, you have allies who are intelligent enough to actually put a dent in the enemy force. Being a part of something bigger is what makes a video game's war/battle/conflict that much more engaging. There is a proper and more realistic balance between a battlezone's size, the amount of enemies and allies, and the level of atmospheric effects.

With this in mind, I would compare the Killzone 2 approach not to Halo's as they are going for two different things in the end. Halo, as zatzie zombie num666 stated, is not entirely to be a large scale game and falters more specifically in those areas where it tries to be something that it really is not as well suited towards. Instead, I often found Call of Duty to be more guilty of creating a very awkward environment as you were the elite private (wuh?) that can somehow annihilate an entire enemy invasion while your allies just soak up the bullets that would have missed you anyways. They follow you so much that the NPCs literally depend entirely on you to do everything, thus killing the sense of involvement and pursuing a more familiar "Neo" role instead.

Well in CODs defense (not WaW the Modern warfare games) the threat is at a national level so sending many people to combat the enemy would be unadvisable. halo on the other hand adverises mankinds fight for survival yet they rely heavily on MC to do everything. If they made the NPCs smarter and put more enemies and allies during combat I think the gams owuld make me actually believe that this is indeed the finalm stand and that we are putting all our efforts into surviving.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Battlefield gives you the feel. Let's see, tanks, helicopters, jeeps, boats and heaps of enemies.

Hmmm... can anyone recommend me a big scale FPS on the Xbox360. I'd get MAG, but I lack a PS3

By make you feel part of a war, you mean those "Shit just got real" moments that are incredibly insane, friendlies dying, tanks blowing up all around you, crawling to small bits of cover to save yourself. It feels very "oh my god, we're fucked"

Modern Warfare 2 while lacking a good storyline, the part where you walk out to capture some building in washington, was very epic.

 

[ViciousMoon]

If you want a game that really feels like you're part of a real war then you need to play "Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45". I've played many shooters and this is the game that comes closest in conveying a genuine atmosphere of war.

 

[Giest4life]

Because there is no "pain" simulator in the XBox controllers.

Simulating real war, with all it's inconveniences i.e. death, would be really boring? I want the cool weapons, awesome planes, wicked helicopters, and the ability to kill massive amount of humans but without any of the repercussions that come with it.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Well in CODs defense (not WaW the Modern warfare games) the threat is at a national level so sending many people to combat the enemy would be unadvisable. halo on the other hand adverises mankinds fight for survival yet they rely heavily on MC to do everything. If they made the NPCs smarter and put more enemies and allies during combat I think the gams owuld make me actually believe that this is indeed the finalm stand and that we are putting all our efforts into surviving.

I haven't played WaW, but the WWII games that I have played certainly could have used more atmosphere and all sorts of small features to enhance the immersion.

Modern Warfare is very spotty on how it is treated. I agree that in some of the missions, it would not be sensible to have abnormally large sums of troops battling for the local building. Again, it depends a lot on how the various troop levels and atmosphere are used to create an illusion in conflict in the larger battles. COD4 did this very well in a few notable scenarios which also proved to be highly entertaining as you could easily lose yourself. Although I have not finished Modern Warfare 2, a certain nation's invasion digressed into the player taking on the role of super-soldier. If you don't know what I am referring to, I will put a spoiler:

Spoiler

Russia attacking the U.S.

There was one point where it just felt tedious as essentially I alone had to annihilate an entire army and their air support. This particular point in the game felt like one of the mistakes that I've seen in a few parts of Halo: A battlefield that is relatively large and barren, lacking in any technique to give the impression of danger or chaos. To be blunt, how am I supposed to feel any involvement or danger when I am literally running across the battlefield with not a single ally backing me up? After that mission I returned the game after having enough as it destroyed my interest (and patience).

I agree that Halo could have expanded the attacking and defending sides with a more appropriate human AI level above the starch in a potato. Yes, you are humanity's last hope, but if every human was that stupid we truly would be hopeless regardless if MC was an actual demi-god. I do not know why, but the Halo 3 AI seems to be worse than the previous game, making it more of a hindrance to experience when there are larger battles in Halo 3. Regardless, I am excited to see what is in store for reach given its premise of the planet's fall, as well as the advances made in that game, maybe it will feature an improved scope for the battle at hand.

 

[Dango]

In my opinion MAG always feels like you are part of a war.

Oh how I loved that game. Unfortunately ended up trading it in because I had no time to dedicate to it.

But no, not all FPSs should try to make you feel like part of a war, you need variety.

But this is part of why I play RTSs, they have huge variety in terms of scale.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Because you don't play it like a war, you play it like an action movie.
least that's how it goes for me

 

[gamer_parent]

that's because an FPS is a GAME, where entertainment is the key.

As such, there are some inherent assumptions

1. both sides fighting the war must be equal
2. the flow of play must be FUN
3. the context of said war is almost never fully explored

neither of these are inherently true in a war. Wars are not fought in arenas that have been fine tuned to be balanced for a 16v16 match. They are fought in all places, all areas, with all sorts of dirty tactics that can be employed by either side. Basically, it's like people hacking in a game, except everyone's trying to out hack one another.

plus, war is not fun. when people die, they die. they don't respawn. As such, we're not going to have people in a real war rush head first into a firefight without questioning the guy's sanity. That is also why in our current wars, we probably fire close to some ridiculous 20000 or so bullets for every person killed. War is INCREDIBLY risk averse. That means extremely cautious and calculated movements and tactics. Again, not fun. If game devs were to simulate that, every shot could potentially kill or at least take you out of the fight or cripple you, and people spend more time doing really boring shit like NOT SHOOTING EACH OTHER.

the last one speaks entirely to how a war is fought, why it is fought, and the people it effects. Some FPS' out there will explore this by havin missions where you interact with the local citizens. Most do not. The focus is on the combat, not on the effect said war has on the denizens. But look at any war fought on someone's home ground and tell me that these soldiers do not have to worry about the people whose homes they might have destroyed in the conflict.

 

[Aratus]

Cause war isnt fun.