One thing that always struck me was how quickly you can change mags in games. I didn't realise that until I started airsofting, but in general it takes more than 2 seconds to remove your empty, put it in a dump pouch, take the next one out and put it in the gun. Now if you weren't going to keep your old mag that would be fine, but from what I hear from the guys in the forces I know, if you came back to base without any mags then you'd get a severe bollocking.
Overall though I don't see the point in trying to make games "realistic", it helps if it looks good and is at least accurate (M4 reload animation in CSS I'm looking at you >:( ) but I want to have fun, not be frustrated because I can only complete the game by being lucky.
I mean, how many times have you caught a cold, malaria or even got diarrhoea in a game? Yeah, it sounds unpleasant I know, but these are things that are regular occurrences on the battlefield.
why do I have the feeling that I've read this sentence before ? Is it even possible or is it only a 'Déjà Vu' à la Matrix ?
Originally Posted by Cobalt One thing that always struck me was how quickly you can change mags in games. I didn't realise that until I started airsofting, but in general it takes more than 2 seconds to remove your empty, put it in a dump pouch, take the next one out and put it in the gun. Now if you weren't going to keep your old mag that would be fine, but from what I hear from the guys in the forces I know, if you came back to base without any mags then you'd get a severe bollocking.
What I do is chuck the one I have taken out and shove it down my smock(jacket) to refill later. so you don't have to mess around with putting it back in the ammo pouch(which is a pain in the arse). Oh and it is faster if the is a round in the chamber so you don't have to release the working parts just swap the mag. that speeds things up a bit.
Personaly I do not want the games to be to realistic. It would simply be a to frightful. I have no experience from army or wars but I remember playing Soldier of Fortune when I was younger. It was really a horrible feeling from all the blood and body parts. I am not that sensitive, atleaset not more. But it was something about how you could humiliate and abuse the bodies.
To make it abit categoriesed:
*The Shocking with lots of blood and shocking scenes
*More pvp focused as (cs,ut and quake)
*We also have the in between that is somehow abit more realistic (cod, bf)
I have allways liked CS. But I see it more as a sport then a wargame. I have been playing CoD4 the last week and I think it has a good mix between the pvp and "reality feeling" to what fps games are.
For me it's still just a game. And I do not belive the developers "can" implement alot of the things you listed in your article. The gamers would never accept some of the changes. Atleast not in pvp combats. In a single player it wouldn't be to hard to implement a few of your proposed events. Your weapon beeing jammed forcing you to hide while trying to make it work. Slipery stones would be a not to hard thing to implemen either with some sort of minor injury.
But the overall gamers want flow and easy acting. Still how realistic is it to run around with "WASD" and reloading with "R"?
Making games to realistic would show alot but I am not sure if alot of ppl would play them.
The main issue in the games would still be the "life" you have. I still haven't seen a good way to solve this issue. CS life might be handy and atleast you dont go back to beeing fully healthy and running after some 5 sec as in CoD. Still a numbers in % or whatever is abit "booring".
Only time will tell where we end up with those games. Still I do not want to experience the real deal. I'm happy with "just" having some fun with my mates.
Well.. afte being in the army.. and trying to think about bringing realism to games.. i find it like IMPOSSIBLE.
Basically it starts with the AIM! Even a blind person can aim with a DOT (Laser), using audio-aid tho... different tones at "altitude?" and "longitude?"
But when i recall my first day on the firing range... geez i hit everything but the freakin target. Iron sights can be a pain.. Oh.. and then.. G3 .. nice recoil... and using the mickey mouse ear-protection.. where you really can't hear a thing.. well lets say.. you dont want the shaft giving you a clout around the earhole.. seen quite nasty bruises because the shaft wasn't properly hmmm pressed against the shoulder etc. now try bring all this into a game. And while i'm at ear-protection.. i swear i will never fire a gun without in my whole life! but again... in games... you can hear the enemy miles away walking on stone,wood,metal,glass or even grass.. i take it that after 20 rounds.. you will hear nuffin... abart from some ringing that is nowadays implemented into some games like R6 after gorkin into a Flashbang. My point being.. : There is just too much to take into concideration, that it could be really fixed into a game. Depending on how reallistic you want the game to be... there are quite a few out that are really good.. and authentic with some flaws of course..
and main thing why war is crap: People Die!
Ever had a bird strike in the engine of an F-35 Lightning II?
nope but i have had a bird hit my little prop plane on landing once, blood and feathers everywhere. then the odd chance every now and then some dumb seagull gets eaten by the jet of a plane im on. Although i have seen a military aircraft catch fire.
Very good article, exceedingly good. I think that the most realistic game i have played is Insurgency Beta for Steam. no crosshair, no health bar, no ammo counter, no map, nothing.
You would have to be a complete fool not to recognise that FPS gaming is far removed from actual real life combat. Personally I think developers should keep the level of "realism" as it is. Games are suppose to be entertainment. Ironically, if games were made more realistic I imagine there would be enough ammunition for the anti-gaming lobby to start there own large scale war on gamers.
Read headlines "Hardcore gamer gets Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from gaming".
Originally Posted by Bungle You would have to be a complete fool not to recognise that FPS gaming is far removed from actual real life combat. Personally I think developers should keep the level of "realism" as it is. Games are suppose to be entertainment.
Absolutely. Maybe I'm just not like the average gamer, but I would rather leave out all the super realistic details and err on the side of fun. I downloaded the demo for Doom 3 to give it a try (based on the reviews, I wasn't about to go out and buy it). After about 10 minutes I just got frustrated with the whole idea of reloading. I'm battling a horde of alien mutants on another planet. I'm sure I can suspend my belief just a little bit more and go with the idea that I can fire off 200 rounds before I run out of ammo.
Every time I rounded a corner, a bad guy would jump out, I'd fire off 2 rounds, then my guy would take a few seconds to reload his gun while the demon spawn was busy giving my all the generic wounds he could manage.
I still prefer Quake 2 for it's almost-cartoon style of play. Sure, make the environment look as good as you want. Make the chairs bounce around the room when I shoot them. Just don't make me reload!
Thanks for the interesting article. We all know that the games are nothing like reality, but the point of view of a military member was pretty cool to read.
I'd be interested on the authors thoughts on games that are targeted more as simulations, for instance Armed Assault. Obviously, this is still no way near real life but some of the criticisms of games in the article are addressed.
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?
Games that include violence are insensitive in general in my opinion, but mainly to specific people. If you have a relative that was stabbed while being robbed, one of the "kill for points" games will be likely to upset you if it is set in the same environment. As these environments get more realistic they will strike a chord much more clearly with those who have experienced something similar. Even the sides that games portray can be insensitive, how would you feel if your family had been killed in Iraq watching someone play a game where the US forces give the "random arab nation" a damn good thrashing?
Having been in areas of the world devastated by war and having come under fire several times, I can say the feeling of being fired upon can't be matched by anything software created. So in a way my sensitivity to death, injury, risk and danger are a little numbed. This created an interesting situation where serving and ex-serving military personnel; the people who are likely to get more offended by realistic gore-filled simulations, probably are numb enough not to care.
Great article. I actual prefer games which make you want to stay alive and not run in spraying. COD2 was awful with health re-gen and COD4 isn't much better i played online until i got the top level 55 and went back to BF2s Project Reality Mod. ( http://www.realitymod.com/ ) If you play on the right server everyone has to be in squad or the server will kick them after 90 secs and 80% of the people who play the mod use VOIP makes the game experience that little bit more.
I enjoyed reading this. It was a good analysis of the limits of video games.
But I think those limits should stay and be removed for the same reason : people should learn to make the difference between game and reality (thus the reality "gap" left in games), and should also see that what they do in game would be devastating in RL (I'm thinking about Columbine and other shootings).
Originally Posted by g3n3tiX People should learn to make the difference between game and reality (thus the reality "gap" left in games), and should also see that what they do in game would be devastating in RL (I'm thinking about Columbine and other shootings).
People can already get an accurate idea of what real life combat results in everytime they watch the news. All high definition, colour corrected imagery. You can practically taste the brain matter.
I remember reading an article about, (if I can find it I'll post here later) how in computer gaming, the closer we get to photo realism the harder it is for our brains to accept the interaction of a NPC as human, due to us subconsciously being more critical about how they act. Basically we have a inbuilt BS detector.
Good article, although somewhat predictable a little when it comes to 'games aren't real' arguments. Or maybe I just thought too often about this subject before ? ;)
That was a fantastic read, although like others wonder if the author has played Operation Flashpoint or similar, more accurate wind/drop on weapons, much harder to fly (or even take off) jets, hard to do much tricky stuff (or even land) in helicopters without practice, etc etc. map sizing more realistic (take half an hour to run across, a minute or two to fly in a jet, five minutes in a helicopter?)
The game America's Army (I know, propaganda, but still) has some nice realistic features.
For instance, your weapon can really jam. Altough it occurs not much, it can.
Also, you can (but most servers don't) turn off the hud as far as you want. Ammo stays in it's mag, so if you reload each time you have still 15 bullets to go, you end up with all mags half filled.
It comes quite realistic (compared to COD and the like), although the health is still an issue. You can run slower, your aim is worse, but still, you're not out of the battle by a single shot not in your head/neck. You die fast, but not fast enough to be realistic.
As far as I can remember, grenade shrapnel really flies around.
Comments 26 to 48 of 48
Overall though I don't see the point in trying to make games "realistic", it helps if it looks good and is at least accurate (M4 reload animation in CSS I'm looking at you >:( ) but I want to have fun, not be frustrated because I can only complete the game by being lucky.
why do I have the feeling that I've read this sentence before ? Is it even possible or is it only a 'Déjà Vu' à la Matrix ?
What I do is chuck the one I have taken out and shove it down my smock(jacket) to refill later. so you don't have to mess around with putting it back in the ammo pouch(which is a pain in the arse). Oh and it is faster if the is a round in the chamber so you don't have to release the working parts just swap the mag. that speeds things up a bit.
Personaly I do not want the games to be to realistic. It would simply be a to frightful. I have no experience from army or wars but I remember playing Soldier of Fortune when I was younger. It was really a horrible feeling from all the blood and body parts. I am not that sensitive, atleaset not more. But it was something about how you could humiliate and abuse the bodies.
To make it abit categoriesed:
*The Shocking with lots of blood and shocking scenes
*More pvp focused as (cs,ut and quake)
*We also have the in between that is somehow abit more realistic (cod, bf)
I have allways liked CS. But I see it more as a sport then a wargame. I have been playing CoD4 the last week and I think it has a good mix between the pvp and "reality feeling" to what fps games are.
For me it's still just a game. And I do not belive the developers "can" implement alot of the things you listed in your article. The gamers would never accept some of the changes. Atleast not in pvp combats. In a single player it wouldn't be to hard to implement a few of your proposed events. Your weapon beeing jammed forcing you to hide while trying to make it work. Slipery stones would be a not to hard thing to implemen either with some sort of minor injury.
But the overall gamers want flow and easy acting. Still how realistic is it to run around with "WASD" and reloading with "R"?
Making games to realistic would show alot but I am not sure if alot of ppl would play them.
The main issue in the games would still be the "life" you have. I still haven't seen a good way to solve this issue. CS life might be handy and atleast you dont go back to beeing fully healthy and running after some 5 sec as in CoD. Still a numbers in % or whatever is abit "booring".
Only time will tell where we end up with those games. Still I do not want to experience the real deal. I'm happy with "just" having some fun with my mates.
Basically it starts with the AIM! Even a blind person can aim with a DOT (Laser), using audio-aid tho... different tones at "altitude?" and "longitude?"
But when i recall my first day on the firing range... geez i hit everything but the freakin target. Iron sights can be a pain.. Oh.. and then.. G3 .. nice recoil... and using the mickey mouse ear-protection.. where you really can't hear a thing.. well lets say.. you dont want the shaft giving you a clout around the earhole.. seen quite nasty bruises because the shaft wasn't properly hmmm pressed against the shoulder etc. now try bring all this into a game. And while i'm at ear-protection.. i swear i will never fire a gun without in my whole life! but again... in games... you can hear the enemy miles away walking on stone,wood,metal,glass or even grass.. i take it that after 20 rounds.. you will hear nuffin... abart from some ringing that is nowadays implemented into some games like R6 after gorkin into a Flashbang. My point being.. : There is just too much to take into concideration, that it could be really fixed into a game. Depending on how reallistic you want the game to be... there are quite a few out that are really good.. and authentic with some flaws of course..
and main thing why war is crap: People Die!
but just my opinion.
Very good article, exceedingly good. I think that the most realistic game i have played is Insurgency Beta for Steam. no crosshair, no health bar, no ammo counter, no map, nothing.
Read headlines "Hardcore gamer gets Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from gaming".
Every time I rounded a corner, a bad guy would jump out, I'd fire off 2 rounds, then my guy would take a few seconds to reload his gun while the demon spawn was busy giving my all the generic wounds he could manage.
I still prefer Quake 2 for it's almost-cartoon style of play. Sure, make the environment look as good as you want. Make the chairs bounce around the room when I shoot them. Just don't make me reload!
-monkey
Games that include violence are insensitive in general in my opinion, but mainly to specific people. If you have a relative that was stabbed while being robbed, one of the "kill for points" games will be likely to upset you if it is set in the same environment. As these environments get more realistic they will strike a chord much more clearly with those who have experienced something similar. Even the sides that games portray can be insensitive, how would you feel if your family had been killed in Iraq watching someone play a game where the US forces give the "random arab nation" a damn good thrashing?
Having been in areas of the world devastated by war and having come under fire several times, I can say the feeling of being fired upon can't be matched by anything software created. So in a way my sensitivity to death, injury, risk and danger are a little numbed. This created an interesting situation where serving and ex-serving military personnel; the people who are likely to get more offended by realistic gore-filled simulations, probably are numb enough not to care.
Red Orchestra Ostfront 41-45 ( http://www.redorchestragame.com/ ) is also a good game most cases its one shot and your dead.
kinda like asking the question, if ur good at guitar hero, u think u can play a real guitar? lol
But I think those limits should stay and be removed for the same reason : people should learn to make the difference between game and reality (thus the reality "gap" left in games), and should also see that what they do in game would be devastating in RL (I'm thinking about Columbine and other shootings).
I remember reading an article about, (if I can find it I'll post here later) how in computer gaming, the closer we get to photo realism the harder it is for our brains to accept the interaction of a NPC as human, due to us subconsciously being more critical about how they act. Basically we have a inbuilt BS detector.
Good entertaining reading nonetheless :)
For instance, your weapon can really jam. Altough it occurs not much, it can.
Also, you can (but most servers don't) turn off the hud as far as you want. Ammo stays in it's mag, so if you reload each time you have still 15 bullets to go, you end up with all mags half filled.
It comes quite realistic (compared to COD and the like), although the health is still an issue. You can run slower, your aim is worse, but still, you're not out of the battle by a single shot not in your head/neck. You die fast, but not fast enough to be realistic.
As far as I can remember, grenade shrapnel really flies around.