As realistic as modern-day military FPSes like to think they are, they still pale in comparison to lots of today’s war movies (not to mention actual war). So what are these games getting wrong?
The fact that the casual shooter fans will not enjoy the "realistic" aspects of a real warzone. Guns shoot up in the air the longer you hold the trigger, they dont stay steady. People do not pop out in the open, they are constantly hiding anyway possible. A majority of real life missions consist of stealth, exploring, and doing things other than shoot people. Look at the Seal Team 6 mission, they hardly fired at anyone the entire mission....
And by no means am i saying these players are bad or suck. I am one of them. I rather play a current shooter than something realistic that isn't fun at all.
You don't want to play this? http://www.youtube.com/watc... You got to be kidding me if you say no.
I personally want realism and tactical gameplay in my games. Although I do enjoy the non tactical approach to some games.
Look at Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising...the game could be good and it had its perks. However getting shot AT ALL made your character get injured. A majority of the missions were traveling and strategizing your way in. It wasn't really that arcadish. Was it cool that it was realistic? Yeah, but it wasn't fun to me. I rather jump into BF or COD and just run around like Im Superman with a gun, its fun. If they could make "realistic" fun then im game, but ive yet to see it (in my opinion)
Just to add firing an assault rifle on full auto would drain the clip in a few seconds and you would not bleed on your face and then magically recover your forehead/arms/foot. @assassyn If he doesn't I do. Although I'd like to know what a willage is?
The point of a game is to have fun. You don't add realism to gameplay or else there would be no point in playing the game. You'd die once and be banished from MP forever (lol) You get shot and can't play MP for a month because your character has to heal Everyone would camp so they don't get shot Realism doesn't really have a real impact on gaming. Some elements like character models and animations are considered, but as for gameplay, it should be left out.
Realism and gameplay can be balanced. The first Operation Flashpoint was indicative of this. But most people didn't like it. Granted, there were some issues that needed to be worked out there, but the truth is that it would attract only dedicated gamers, as people who didn't have the fortitude to be patient precise wouldn't play. I don't mean to say EVERY game should be like this, only that it's not impossible for it to be both realistic and fun.
arma II is a nice sim that I find fun to play... Until I get shot in the face once and have to start over...
"The point of a game is to have fun." No. That is incorrect. The point of a game is to have an experience. That experience should deliver more than just one emotion. We should feel sadness, fear, stress, happiness, anger, regret, the whole gamut of emotions we feel when we watch movies or read books. Most games are just attempting to reproduce the one emotion, and failing to realise that the audience want more than just the elation of shooting faces and making explosions. Sadly realism is a tool in the developers toolbox that just isn't being used properly any more.
To incorporate real life you should get shot once and then your game would automatically self destruct because you're dead.
Reading this makes sad that no publisher had the balls to pick up "6 days in fallujah". It would have been the game that really challenged the whole "dumb military shooter" perception we have now.
the fact that death isn't all that fatal in these games is the most unrealistic thing in these games. but then i'd imagine these games wouldn't be any fun if you only had one life. and you have to remember it's a game, not a documentary or a military training simulation, frankly i don't think there could be a worse tool for training soldiers than an fps like call of duty, unless they used it as an example of all the wrong things to do. in a real war running and jumping around a battlefield would be a good way to get dead, real quick.
he just hasn't played ARMA or Project Reality Mod for BF2. I agree on MOH though, the Singleplayer Campaign was pretty true to life.
Operation flashpoint series (kind of meh now), and arma series main focus is realism along of course with the entertainment. All the games mentioned in this article are arcade in their delivery and never tout being realistic shooters. This article is like talking about fighter planes when the subject is paper airplanes. GRAW is simply a game that focuses on advanced technology that exists and/or will exists in the near future. There is no realism in something that does not exists. So it should fall in the category with halo as a fictional world not yet made reality.
IMO, no video game will ever be able to capture the true realism of an actual life experience. You may be able to get snippets of emotions from a video game. But I don't care how 'real' a game looks or plays, if you don't have to actually deal with the consequences of your actions or situation then you will never become truly emotionally involved. But the real question is, do you want a game to be that real? Sure we like to escape our reality sometimes and lose ourselves in a video game once in a while, but I don't want to come away from it emotionally drained or pumped up. It'll be like using it as a drug to make yourself feel better (or worse).
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.