Although to be fair, I doubt anyone thinks even the most "realistic" games are anything like the real-life situations they're based on. You'd have to be a total numpty to presume anything otherwise. Obviously the biggest difference between games and real life is the input method, holding a mouse is about as removed from shooting a real gun as it possible. Japping your monitor with a pen is probably closer to the real thing. About the only people who think that games are at all like real life are those who have never played them.
Nice Read! I loved the part on the weapons and agree totally, the is no 'dead mans click' counting round is so hard I have lost count on a range, and have changed mags far to quickly in a fire fight (still had about 20 rounds left).
Health point is something I hate in games and the worst culprit is COD2 where over time you would look like a pin cushion and still manage to survive to save the day. On the other hand CS is the best I have encountered you go down after a couple of hits. But the most realistic game for heath (in a way) is MGS3 where you have broken legs and bullet wounds to contend with, but it get spoiled by being able to do a quick fix in the middle of a raging battle.
But I don't think I would like to play a game that is like the real thing, I would want game that would be fun.
A very interesting article, but we all have to remember that we sacrifice realism for the fun of the game.
As you said yourself, the idea of respawning or healing in-game is ridiculous compared to reality, but it makes for an interesting game.
There are some (what I would expect to be, after reading your article) more realistic games out there - CoD4 Hardcore multiplayer for example, has no HUD, weapon counter, map, radar or any other jiggery pokery. There are also several mods about on CoD4 (if you can find them) that introduce weapon jams and problems.
Another classic series is the Operation Flashpoint/ArmA series, posing for as much realism as possible without being boring.
Another thing I have to ask is that a lot of games pitch you as a special forces soldier, do they have more time to clean and care for their weapon than a normal soldier expected to patrol etc everyday.
An excellent read. Thanks for writing that Fred. I remember having a chat once with an active SWAT officer who had an idea to take FPS games one step further to "realism" would be to overhaul to whole automatic reloading system completely and model it to an extent of how quickly and accurately you can just stick that sucker into the magwell rather than simply a one button action. Even though the closest I'll ever get to "warfare" is Airsoft I still find it frantic sometimes if you can't reload in time. Of course that can never compare to real war.
Speaking of Battlefield and Game Physics... I would love to see their new Frostbite engine in a next-gen multiplayer Battlefield title. A mammoth of a task but... boy that would be great to play. We need to see more gun jamming too... I've only experienced it in America's Army.
Insurgency is a nice free Source engine mod that tries to bend more towards realism... www.insmod.net
It's still got a few bugs and things to iron out (it's still a Beta), but the imminent next release should see a lot of things tidied up.
It started off even more hardcore than it is now... it was basically 'insta-gib' with the weapons, which made life hard, but the guy who fired first in a firefight would get the 'win' if his aim was good. It's been toned down a bit now (limb shots don't kill instantly), but that ethos still holds.
The game also started out with a HUD that was limited to a compass showing a heading to the commanders' chosen objective. I guess it shows that realsim must give way to gameplay that most players got lost on the maps, or didn't realise what they were supposed to do with that heading, and now there's an option to view a map, and (optional) markers overlaid on the screen showing the actual position the troops should head towards.
There always have to be compromises with gameplay, I guess.
Fred, it's a bit of a side issue, but a contentious one perhaps... with games (like Insurgency) set in active real-world warzones, when does a game become insensitive to the actual killing and maiming that is happening every day? I sometimes feel uncomfortable reading requests for 'more gore', 'IED's that can gib' etc etc knowing that it's happening for real to people every day? How do serving and retired soldiers feel about that? Are the troops of the Playstation Generation already able to split games and reality so far apart that they aren't insulted by the be-littling of current tragic events to mere entertainment?
I'm going to go against the grain here and say i thought the article was an exercise in pointing out the plainly obvious; of course developers have to sarifice realism for game play and anyone who thinks games are close to the real thing is an idiot.
How many people want to the play the real UK army simulator where you get to live in sub standard housing, your sent off on a pointless war with faulty or incomplete equipment, (some of which you might have to purchase yourself) to get traumatized, maimed or killed and if anything bad does happen to you they will dump you on the scrap heap with no support or care. Sounds like fun to me!
A good article.....when did the writers get to fire the SA80? I've had the benefit of 16 years military service and fired a lot of weapons in my time. When serving with a multi-national unit, I was issued with a G36 instead of my SA80 (A1) and was astounded at the difference between the two weapons. G36 although slightly longer and more difficult to handle in tight spaces is far more accurate, much easier to clean and I never had one stoppage over countless Range Days in 2 years.
Originally Posted by indigo_prime A good article.....when did the writers get to fire the SA80? I've had the benefit of 16 years military service and fired a lot of weapons in my time. When serving with a multi-national unit, I was issued with a G36 instead of my SA80 (A1) and was astounded at the difference between the two weapons. G36 although slightly longer and more difficult to handle in tight spaces is far more accurate, much easier to clean and I never had one stoppage over countless Range Days in 2 years.
I was in the Officer's Training Corps at university spent quite a bit of time training with the London TA regiment down on Sailsbury plain. I also had five years in the CCF at school (including 6 months as CWO2 and 12 months as CWO1). :)
I spent quite a bit of time firing the SA80 on 25m, 100m and 300m ranges and also used to fire the LSW, GPMG and 9mm Browning as well. When I was in the CCF, we had the L98 'Cadet' GP rifle, which was basically an SA80 with iron sights and no gas parts (cocking handles rock) - I used to teach weapons training with that rifle.
If it wasn't for bit-tech coming along, I probably would have been in the forces - I'd already started my application to join the paras.
Originally Posted by Tim S I spent quite a bit of time firing the SA80 on 25m, 100m and 300m ranges and also used to fire the LSW, GPMG and 9mm Browning as well. When I was in the CCF, we had the L98 'Cadet' GP rifle, which was basically an SA80 with iron sights and no gas parts (cocking handles rock) - I used to teach weapons training with that rifle.
ACFs better :p
And were getting the sa80a1 soon (but just after I leave, is a likely bet).
As with the rest i just want to say what a great article that was and how much i enjoyed the read, a great insight from someone who is as 'qualified' as you can get to make it. Well done :)
Hands up all those who, whilst carrying a rifle, have tripped on a rock and smashed their hands.... *raised hand with badly bruised and swollen index and middle finger* glad I didnt break anything. Great article Fred brought back some good (if painful and embarrasing) memories :)
FTA: "I mean, how many times have you caught a cold, malaria or even got diarrhoea in a game?"
Clearly the author has never played Oregon Trail. ;)
A good read, but I have to agree with some posters about the "duh" angle. Anyone who's watched WWII movies knows that guns jam, people go down from one shot, and ammo always runs out.
There's number of things that could be cool in a game, like getting shot in the arm and being restricted to your sidearm (possibly on your non-dominant hand..) for the rest of the level. Or even 30secs could make it a nice detail.
There are games that jam, call of juarez comes to mind..
And those indestructible firepositions that keep getting new shooters, no matter how many you drop.. This should definately be fixed..
Gears atleast tried to make reloads a bit more challenging, but I wouldnt mind a bit more complex challenge to it.
Comments 1 to 25 of 48
Although to be fair, I doubt anyone thinks even the most "realistic" games are anything like the real-life situations they're based on. You'd have to be a total numpty to presume anything otherwise. Obviously the biggest difference between games and real life is the input method, holding a mouse is about as removed from shooting a real gun as it possible. Japping your monitor with a pen is probably closer to the real thing. About the only people who think that games are at all like real life are those who have never played them.
Health point is something I hate in games and the worst culprit is COD2 where over time you would look like a pin cushion and still manage to survive to save the day. On the other hand CS is the best I have encountered you go down after a couple of hits. But the most realistic game for heath (in a way) is MGS3 where you have broken legs and bullet wounds to contend with, but it get spoiled by being able to do a quick fix in the middle of a raging battle.
But I don't think I would like to play a game that is like the real thing, I would want game that would be fun.
qXfwd4_ydLM
or people can blow up barrels and get killed by cones...
ym0BtwmCvoc
As you said yourself, the idea of respawning or healing in-game is ridiculous compared to reality, but it makes for an interesting game.
There are some (what I would expect to be, after reading your article) more realistic games out there - CoD4 Hardcore multiplayer for example, has no HUD, weapon counter, map, radar or any other jiggery pokery. There are also several mods about on CoD4 (if you can find them) that introduce weapon jams and problems.
Another classic series is the Operation Flashpoint/ArmA series, posing for as much realism as possible without being boring.
Another thing I have to ask is that a lot of games pitch you as a special forces soldier, do they have more time to clean and care for their weapon than a normal soldier expected to patrol etc everyday.
Speaking of Battlefield and Game Physics... I would love to see their new Frostbite engine in a next-gen multiplayer Battlefield title. A mammoth of a task but... boy that would be great to play. We need to see more gun jamming too... I've only experienced it in America's Army.
They are the stupidest things I have seen!
Cool though.
It's still got a few bugs and things to iron out (it's still a Beta), but the imminent next release should see a lot of things tidied up.
It started off even more hardcore than it is now... it was basically 'insta-gib' with the weapons, which made life hard, but the guy who fired first in a firefight would get the 'win' if his aim was good. It's been toned down a bit now (limb shots don't kill instantly), but that ethos still holds.
The game also started out with a HUD that was limited to a compass showing a heading to the commanders' chosen objective. I guess it shows that realsim must give way to gameplay that most players got lost on the maps, or didn't realise what they were supposed to do with that heading, and now there's an option to view a map, and (optional) markers overlaid on the screen showing the actual position the troops should head towards.
There always have to be compromises with gameplay, I guess.
Fred, it's a bit of a side issue, but a contentious one perhaps... with games (like Insurgency) set in active real-world warzones, when does a game become insensitive to the actual killing and maiming that is happening every day? I sometimes feel uncomfortable reading requests for 'more gore', 'IED's that can gib' etc etc knowing that it's happening for real to people every day? How do serving and retired soldiers feel about that? Are the troops of the Playstation Generation already able to split games and reality so far apart that they aren't insulted by the be-littling of current tragic events to mere entertainment?
How many people want to the play the real UK army simulator where you get to live in sub standard housing, your sent off on a pointless war with faulty or incomplete equipment, (some of which you might have to purchase yourself) to get traumatized, maimed or killed and if anything bad does happen to you they will dump you on the scrap heap with no support or care. Sounds like fun to me!
I was in the Officer's Training Corps at university spent quite a bit of time training with the London TA regiment down on Sailsbury plain. I also had five years in the CCF at school (including 6 months as CWO2 and 12 months as CWO1). :)
I spent quite a bit of time firing the SA80 on 25m, 100m and 300m ranges and also used to fire the LSW, GPMG and 9mm Browning as well. When I was in the CCF, we had the L98 'Cadet' GP rifle, which was basically an SA80 with iron sights and no gas parts (cocking handles rock) - I used to teach weapons training with that rifle.
If it wasn't for bit-tech coming along, I probably would have been in the forces - I'd already started my application to join the paras.
ACFs better :p
And were getting the sa80a1 soon (but just after I leave, is a likely bet).
It takes something like 45-minutes of swapping acronyms with the navigator to start up and fly a Tornado GR4.
Who wants to do that of an evening :)
Total LOL.
Clearly the author has never played Oregon Trail. ;)
A good read, but I have to agree with some posters about the "duh" angle. Anyone who's watched WWII movies knows that guns jam, people go down from one shot, and ammo always runs out.
There are games that jam, call of juarez comes to mind..
And those indestructible firepositions that keep getting new shooters, no matter how many you drop.. This should definately be fixed..
Gears atleast tried to make reloads a bit more challenging, but I wouldnt mind a bit more complex challenge to it.
To name a few..