FPS (first person shooter) realism - is it really that important?

[sandyd]

For me, I have actually never encountered an FPS that is actually realistic at all.
Ill be using BF:BC2 and COD:MW2 as examples..

So heres the issues I have about most FPSs

1. The inability for your computer teamates to die.
Surely, they do sometimes die at certain points, they are totally invulnerable to any type of attack before that point. Typically speaking, you can hide behind one of your teammates during a shootout, and wait for them to kill all the bad guys. You will suffer no injuries, and will be able to collect all the weapons that the bad guys dropped when you run out from behind the teammate (I did this during the Cliffhanger mission exit, when leaving the Russian facility, just before getting on the snowmobiles). At least, in Battlefield, you will get slightly injured if someone fires at the teammate.

2. Healing Ability.
There is really no way I should have lived after an RPG hit 1m away from me, but here I am, crouching behind the wall waiting for the few seconds it takes for me to recover. Unless im dressed like a Juggernaut (and I shouldn't be cause Juggernauts are really slow, and I can still run pretty fast), I should be pretty much blown into bits by now. There is also no way that I can recover that fast unless I am Issacs (Tyrant version) from Resident Evil : Extinction.

3. Ability to Destroy stuff.
Really, there is no reason to make stuff destroyable. Making everything destroyable makes the game more fun, more realistic, and allows for more tactics to be used. Believe it or not, I spent 20 minutes on the roof of a building in Battlefield while RPGs were being flung at me. Most of them hit the sides of the building. When I finally decided to leap off the roof, the building was not missing 2 walls. It was still standing, when it should have collapsed and deposited me to ground level. The enemy should also be able to destroy more stuff (this was kinda ok in battlefield), especially the stuff your hiding behind. The stuff your hiding behind should not turn into a weapon proof shield that will protect you from everything

4. Enemy Aim
I hate to say this, but for some reason, in most FPSs, heavy weapons (i.e. helicopter minigun, RPGs, machine guns) are ALWAYS aimed at the player. always. It might be better if they might shoot some of my teammates as well as me, instead of only targeting me when theirs like 10 other teammates running around. It seems as if Ive got some big red "X" or logo on me saying "shoot me".

5. Weapon Fire and Handling.
Firing a weapon in a FPS is one of the most unrealistic things I have ever seen. The gun simply jiggles round a bit while your firing, and thats about the amount of recoil your going to get. If I can mow down 7 people at once without releasing the trigger to re-aim, the recoil is way to off. Secondly, changing/picking up weapons/and refilling ammo is also highly unrealistic. It only takes 2-4 seconds for me to drop the weapon im holding, pick the new one up, and start firing.

[-grubby]

Nope. I don't really like games that go overboard on trying to be realistic. TF2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Fortress_2) is an example of a game that is purposely over the top.

[ubunterooster]

Nope. I don't really like games that go overboard on trying to be realistic. TF2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Fortress_2) is an example of a game that is purposely over the top.
+1: I like reality separated; the last time I played a realistic game, my brain went into panic

[undecim]

I think it's kind of like the "uncanny valley" that prevents artificial intelligence from being largely successful. Basically, the uncanny valley refers to the point where AI is almost, but not quite like a human, and it freaks people out, because people can tell that they are machines, but they are too human (imagine a graph where the X axis is the believablilty of an AI, and the Y is the average opinion of it. This would make a valley, which is where the term comes from)

As of yet, we don't have computers powerful enough to make these games realistic enough graphically, nor the complete understanding to make them realistic conceptually. I think in this case, it's more of a plateau than a valley, but it has a similar affect: Unless you can make a game almost perfectly realistic, it's not worth your time to make it as realistic as possible.

And no matter what you do, gamers will find systematic methods to give themselves and edge that wouldn't happen IRL. That's just the way most gamers think, and that itself make the game unrealistic.

Although progress on graphics is definitely a plus, the gameplay will always be unrealistic. And until we have machines that can put us into the same trance-like state that lucid dreamers experience while leaving the gamer's eyes open to see a retina resolution display that fills the entire field of vision, (I give it 20 years) there's no point to making games more realistic than they already are.

[Linye]

Being unrealistic is part of the fun factor.

[madjr]

i hope they become more realistic, the army is working on it, they want a real virtual boot camp

http://gatorball.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/virtusphere-commando1.jpg

http://dvice.com/pics/VirtuSphere_web_w.jpg

http://defense-update.com/images_new1/jtac_dome.jpg


http://www.impactlab.com/2006/03/18/virtusphere-and-next-generation-virtual-reality/

[j.bell730]

Yeah, I don't see what the big deal is about realism either. I prefer gameplay over realism. Alpha Protocol is one example that got mediocre reviews largely due to the fact that it didn't have better graphics. I love that game though, because there are so many story options.

[Shining Arcanine]

You should try out Project Reality for Battlefield 2. I used to play it and it was a great deal of fun:

http://www.realitymod.com/

It does its best to be as realistic as possible. Unfortunately, I do not believe that multiplayer works on Linux.

[yester64]

I think you need to define realism for a game. Most games are not realistic, but give you a hint of realism, or just paint everything nice and shiny.
The closed realistic game you can have is Americas Army. There you can not just shoot without reloading. You get penalized for not aiding you teammate.
And you really can play as a single person in a teambased squad.

Its a long time for me in the FPS genre, but CoD:MW was nice and shiny, but had some serious issues with recoil.
AA was better in many ways, but had a lot of bugs at the time.
BF is better than CoD because you can have a real squad and work with your teammates.

If it would be really realistic, to blow up walls would be not enough. Buildings need to be leveled etc...
One thing CoD did got right is the ringing sound you hear if you were to close to impact and the parallization you experience in the moment that follow.

But i am not sure if realism is really desired. It come at the cost of playability.
Realism start, when you main character continues to make his journey, although he should be death now.
What i really wish for, is that the story can be altered if something happen, or you actions are different.
I play right now (for the 3.th time) Mass Effect and it does not really matter what answers you choose since the outcome is (at least for the mainstory) the same.

Bottom line for FPS at least is, if you want to experience a more real shooter, try AA. Also Red Orchestra is an option. Reload, aim hard and die young.

[Windows Nerd]

For me, I have actually never encountered an FPS that is actually realistic at all.

4. Enemy Aim
I hate to say this, but for some reason, in most FPSs, heavy weapons (i.e. helicopter minigun, RPGs, machine guns) are ALWAYS aimed at the player. always. It might be better if they might shoot some of my teammates as well as me, instead of only targeting me when theirs like 10 other teammates running around. It seems as if Ive got some big red "X" or logo on me saying "shoot me".

Yes, this is very annoying particulairly when I was trying to do the COD:MW2 Campaign on Veteran.


5. Weapon Fire and Handling.
Firing a weapon in a FPS is one of the most unrealistic things I have ever seen. The gun simply jiggles round a bit while your firing, and thats about the amount of recoil your going to get. If I can mow down 7 people at once without releasing the trigger to re-aim, the recoil is way to off. Secondly, changing/picking up weapons/and refilling ammo is also highly unrealistic. It only takes 2-4 seconds for me to drop the weapon im holding, pick the new one up, and start firing.

Though I disagree about the recoil, the reloading is quite fast as is switching weapons, but I would imagine if you practiced reloading you could cut it down to close that.

I dissagree about recoil, as most new FPS are adressing this aspect of realism: Snipers, shotguns, and even some assult rifles (I can only speak for COD and the new Halo Reach for this example as they are newer) now have recoil as you shoot them. Additionally, in COD when you are shot while shooting your bullets spray all over the place when you are being shot.



Being unrealistic is part of the fun factor.

I agree wholeheartedly with this: though realistic games are with things such as FPS or more immersive styles of gameplay are nice with the amazing graphics, the realistic games are much more fun (try going back and playing some old school N64 or SNES games) and you will see that graphics do not always matter.

Scott

[NightwishFan]

Battlefield 2 is not exactly realistic, but it is a far better game than any Call Of Duty. In fact it would be hard to improve imo.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

You're playing the wrong “realistic” shooters ;)

Two top-notch games that concern themselves with realism (although more immersion with realism as inspiration) are ARMA and Project Reality (a Battlefield 2 mod). Personally, I'm obsessed with Project Reality. They don't put precise realism above all else, and they don't try to capture the whole thing. They understand that would be foolish; it wouldn't be a very fun game that way.

Instead, they focus on areas nobody else seems to: teamwork and scale. To that end, they kick a considerable amount of ***. (And those two areas do way more for the intensity and the immersion than the pointless button mashing in Bad Company and COD).

As an example, they have gone to great lengths to make dying and respawning a significant act. It is not unusual for a player to go through an entire hour long match only respawning a few times. That really adds to the intensity.

Lots of designers are against the idea of medics that can magically heal people in many cases, but I think PR proves it is an absolutely necessary evil! (BF2 didn't really because the medics were a bit too magical). Sure, the healing to full health on the field isn't realistic by itself, but the net effect is to balance out the considerably less realistic scenario where players respawn moments after being killed and shoot their assailants in the back. It keeps you immersed in the game without breaking context, and makes your squad a much more vital asset.

Individuals really stand out in the game. Every player you're up against feels like a significant, tangible opponent. It's pretty awesome.

Now, how did I end up writing about that so seriously?…
Bah, back to flying space ships!

[YuiDaoren]

Isn't realism in a game rather missing the point?

"Immersiveness" is nice, but realism? If I wanted "reality" I'd go outside. Big, scary outside.

[sandyd]

i hope they become more realistic, the army is working on it, they want a real virtual boot camp

http://gatorball.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/virtusphere-commando1.jpg

http://dvice.com/pics/VirtuSphere_web_w.jpg

http://defense-update.com/images_new1/jtac_dome.jpg


http://www.impactlab.com/2006/03/18/virtusphere-and-next-generation-virtual-reality/

I saw that in nixiepixel's e3 vids! looks cool although you do have to roll it.

[Warpnow]

In my opinion both realism and the campaign mode are completely useless. All an FPS needs is good multi-player balance. IE, if there is one gun that destroys everyone? BAD FPS! Guns need to be balanced in the fact that one gun is good against another, but not too much, but there's another gun that kicks the other gun, ect, ect. If the guy has an SMG it might beat someone with a pistol, but hit that guy with a rocket launcher and its over. Get in close with the pistol, though, and the guy with the rocket launcher is going to get killed.

That's my theory, especially as to why HALO was so popular.

[NightwishFan]

Sometimes a realistic focus is cool, like in the old SWAT 3. Awesome game.

[yester64]

Came to my mind and not really related to it.

Anyone playing FPS on console? Better or worse?

Perhaps with the next generation consoles we will see more realistic games (world, textures) in games.
As for mechanics, i don't think much will change.
There is however another aspect of realism. How do you shoot a target. In Battlefield it used to be that the box you need to hit is behind the target. CoD and CS had it before.
So i am not sure what would make more sense, but BF is a harder one to be Owner.

[ubunterooster]

FPS are better on consoles because they are made with specific hardware and software expectations

[McRat]

They need a "gun" instead of a freakin' hand fob. Sorry, pointing a rifle with something that looks like a TV remote is a bit girly. And, when you point the gun off the screen, the screen should pan in that direction.

Why don't they have more "gun" handcontrols today? Certain stores like ToysRus do not carry plastic guns for fear they will be sued if one goes off accidently and kills a baby seal, or other such nonsense.

You really would not want a "realistic" war game anyhow. Never been, but have a lot of friends who were grunts. 99% boredom, and 1% shear terror. You seldom see who is shooting at you, and your score doesn't change when you get a hit.

[dragos240]

The only aspect I would enjoy would be firing an RPG at the base of a house or something, and using it to demolish an opponent.

[NMFTM]

I'm currently playing through the original Unreal and I have to say, the AI is pretty good. Especially considering it came out over 10 years ago.

If you want realism, what about Rainbow 6 Rogue Spear? I played that a lot back in the day and it felt really realistic. Although, never having fired anything except a revolver or been on a counter-terrorism squad, I can't say for sure. For some reason, I remember briefly playing the Raven Shield demo for PS2 and it didn't feel anywhere near as realistic as Rogue Spear.

[yester64]

FPS are better on consoles because they are made with specific hardware and software expectations

Good point. But i meant more the controller vs. keyboard.

[chessnerd]

Whenever I play a racing game, I expect the physics to be bad. I've played racing games before with solid physics and they suck because you can't make impossible turns. You can't make incredible jumps. You can't survive a fall off of a 4 story building. Your car skids around all the time and you can't go 130 MPH in 3 seconds.

Realism is both good and bad in games. However, sometimes I want to be in my cartoon-like game land where anything seems possible. Video games are meant to get you away from reality, not to put you into the same reality you already have.

[ubunterooster]

Good point. But i meant more the controller vs. keyboard.
Likewise, the controller is meant for gaming, while the keyboard for typing...however, it would be nice to get a wiimote just to use it as a mouse.

Each is designed for its own purpose, like the many different distros; no 1 size fits all.

[Windows Nerd]

In my opinion both realism and the campaign mode are completely useless. All an FPS needs is good multi-player balance. IE, if there is one gun that destroys everyone? BAD FPS! Guns need to be balanced in the fact that one gun is good against another, but not too much, but there's another gun that kicks the other gun, ect, ect. If the guy has an SMG it might beat someone with a pistol, but hit that guy with a rocket launcher and its over. Get in close with the pistol, though, and the guy with the rocket launcher is going to get killed.

That's my theory, especially as to why HALO was so popular.

You have it exactly right: Halo was popular because of it's gameplay mechanics. It was different FPS than most because it took more than 2 seconds to kill somebody, and every gun had it's own strengths and weaknesses. Halo wasn't all about who can see each other first and essentially pull the trigger first, but rather about who can aim, strafe, and use the right gun in the right situation.

The only innaccuracy though is that Halo was not as balanced as it could be, though with every new release, as Bungie gained experience with the Halo universe, it did become better; though in every game so far there has been one weapon in multiplayer that does become overused and used for something that the developers didn't intend. Such weapons were the Halo: CE Pistol, and the BR in Halo 2/3: used with the right combination of grenades and aim, you can use the BR in almost any situation, except for closer to point blank where an Assult Rifle might beat the BR user, depending on the skill difference and level of both players. It can be used from that range, effectively, until you get quite far away and you are better off using a sniper, which you cannot spawn with anyways, and you don't always have on the map.

In the next and final game of the Halo games, Halo Reach, the gameplay is much better balanced, though the new-and-improved pistol seemed to be a very widely applicable weapon. But, that gameplay was only in the Beta, and is subject to change.

Halo was my first FPS and is a great game. Though I do play COD from time to time, it's graphics are better than Halo 3 and almost at par of Halo: Reach's, I just cannot stand the flawed gameplay that the multiplayer experience offers me. Though COD4 and COD5 are much better with this issue (or so I hear, I have not actually played either), the camping and flawed gameplay simply irks me to death (Model 1887's, for instance).

Scott

[yester64]

darn, i never played Halo oder Gears of War and i have an xbox. I was just afraid of FPS on a console. :)
I might try it in the future. Right now i play ME2. :popcorn:

[yester64]

Whenever I play a racing game, I expect the physics to be bad. I've played racing games before with solid physics and they suck because you can't make impossible turns. You can't make incredible jumps. You can't survive a fall off of a 4 story building. Your car skids around all the time and you can't go 130 MPH in 3 seconds.

Realism is both good and bad in games. However, sometimes I want to be in my cartoon-like game land where anything seems possible. Video games are meant to get you away from reality, not to put you into the same reality you already have.

I think you nailed it. I think what we will see in the future is more expressions, more facial styles and real hair. But it will be still not real and thats a good thing.

[rabbotz]

surviving 3265437854 bullets but cant step over a 3cm rock.

[kaldor]

Realism? I'll take Quake over CoD any time.

[madnessjack]

Realism? I'll take Quake over CoD any time.
+1

Using the classic Doom vs. Doom 3 as an example- which one was more fun?

In the classic version you could run at the speed of a motor-bike. In Doom 3- yes, it was far more realistic, but better or fun? I dunno.

[TheStroj]

I prefer unrealistic games over realistic ones, because (as many people already said) it's much more fun running around with super speed, using rail guns, climbing walls and so on and so on....

That's why Nexuiz pwns every game on this planet :D - It's simple, gameplay is awasome and full of constant action (server with 20 players with only railgun), weapons are great and it can be played on weak computers.

Oh and I saw in the begining of this thread you mentioned "not enough recoil" - play Battlefield Vietnam - you can't shoot 2 bullets with M60 because the gun gets blown away and after 10 rapid shots you already aim to the sky.

[rabbotz]

wat if mario was a plumbing simulator?

[Johnsie]

Nope, the original Wolfenstien was just great. I think the FPS genre of games has gone on too long and shows a lack of originality in game development. I would only ever think about purchasing yet an other FPS game if it came with the 3d headset etc.