Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Graphic Novelist Calls For Better Game Violence

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the anyone-who-can't-take-a-few-rockets-is-a-pansy dept.

Games 465

eldavojohn writes "Landry Walker (alternative comics creator of X-Ray Studios) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence. While he acknowledges the world probably isn't ready for it, he wishes that getting shot in a video game was a bit more like getting shot in real life. From his piece: '... that's my problem with video game violence. Bullets are something we shrug off. Point blank fire with a machine gun is something that a tiny bit of flexible body armor and 20 seconds sitting on a magic invisibility inducing gargoyle can cure. Time and time again, I've heard people claim that they want to see a greater degree of realism in video games. But that's a lie. We don't want realism. We want fantasy. We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns. We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch. We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause.' What say you, reader? Would this bring a new level of impossibility to video games or would there be a way to balance this out?"

cancel ×

465 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

themanwiththestick (668706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580416)

FP

Re:FP (1)

Sparton (1358159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580470)

And here I was, thinking "oh, nobody's posted yet, maybe I can open with something interesting".

Shouldn't have wasted time hitting the damn refresh button.

Re:FP (0, Offtopic)

themanwiththestick (668706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580504)

Sorry - I've been reading slashdot for about 8 years and never managed to get a first post. I saw my opportunity and took it!

Re:FP (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580528)

And for that you deserve to burn in the lowest of hells for all eternity.

Re:FP (2, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580836)

And for that you deserve to burn in the lowest of hells for all eternity.

Digg?

Re:FP (3, Insightful)

LordofEntropy (250334) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580534)

Wow, couldn't pass up the opportunity to contribute nothing before someone else did? Be proud!

Simulating combat realistically makes for a short playing experience. Catch one bullet in the leg and then what happens? Do you have to start over? Do you bleed out if you don't immediately get medical attention? If you get medical attention then do you "play" recovering in the hospital and dealing with the police reports? Let's have a physical therapy "mini-game" as well; spend a few months doing some exercises and walking around with a crutch.

Having the screen go red and having to find cover until I recover so I continue mowing down the opposition with joyful glee sounds much more appealing to me.

Re:FP (2, Informative)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580634)

I think Counter-Strike had it down pretty well. Quite easy to die, and then you have to wait out the rest of the round until everyone else is dead. If the round time is long enough, it encourages you to play as if it's more "real", as there is a real downside to dying.

Re:FP (5, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580716)

What CS did was encourage everybody to camp. It just didn't make sense to move anywhere because you'd be one hit killed by some AWP-wielding camping lamer who would win by being the guy that moved the least.

If you're going to have realistic combat effects, you need to balance that by also simulating how hard it is to actually aim weapons with any precision even standing still, let alone while moving. America's Army did that sort of where you have to hold your breath to get your sight to stop wandering. You know what that is? Tedious and annoying. The GP got it right, what's next? Reports and physical therapy simulation? 'Realistic' games are for a special breed of lamer. If you want that much realism, go to a recruiting center and enlist, or enroll in a police academy, or at least get off your damn couch, go to a shooting range and put some real munitions down range. Games are for fun, if you want realism, the door to life is over there.

Re:FP (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580802)

Yup if Modern Warfare 2 was realistic, nobody would play it past the opening battle. one shot and you're dead... Screw this game, I'm gonna play something else.

Re:FP (1)

growingtedium (1545623) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580594)

Oddly enough - I read FP as "first person", which as opposed to FPS, is basically what we're left with once bullets become deadly. An astute comment.

He is correct. (5, Insightful)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580424)

Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games.

Re:He is correct. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580518)

Reality isn't fun.

Yeah it is, once you get good at it, level up some of your abilities, stop worrying about screwing up, and start building or making things happen the way you want them to.

There are tons of different ways to have fun playing in reality. Maybe you're just a n00b.

Re:He is correct. (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580686)

There are tons of different ways to have fun playing in reality

I'm sure there are, but a lot of them do involve immersing yourself in some kind of virtual world. That includes movies, paintball, some board games, and a lot of other things.

Re:He is correct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580720)

Doesn't anyone read any more?!

Re:He is correct. (1)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580884)

Yes, but many choose to do so with virtual paper [wikipedia.org] .

Re:He is correct. (1)

Cyberwasteland (1467347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580890)

Just another virtual world.

Re:He is correct. (5, Funny)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580816)

Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games.

There's this thing called "sex". I highly recommend trying it. It can be awkward at the beginning, but once you find a suitable partner I'm confident you'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.

There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into "the mood", which at times is very challenging. "Protection" is also important, otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes.

Re:He is correct. (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580830)

I agree, I personally do not like realistic war-games. The Battlefield & Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me. Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day.

Re:He is correct. (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580832)

"Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games."

I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design. I also think the person in the article is taking random internet comments about "wanting more realism" in games way too seriously, I think most people want good art and immersion and they call that art and animation "realism". i.e. when a character animates badly we associate it with a "lack of realism" rather then a lack of good art direction, since I'd venture to say MOST video game characters animate in very unrealistic ways anyway (in terms of physics) but "LOOK REAL" in that they seem natural.

We only want to borrow the best parts from the real world. More realistic violence/damage models would be insanely boring, in fact the more photo realistic games get the less I am enthralled by them. The great thing about games is that the developers can take artistic license and don't have audience expectations of "being realistic". Games should not try to copy the movie industry so heavily, I'm can't be the only one worried about games that are getting too close to hollywood in terms of trying to make characters photorealistic (mass effect I'm looking at you) and more hollywoody.

Dont get me wrong I liked mass effect, it's just they don't need to keep upping the realism there's a point you cross where everything becomes the same and boring. I like it when artist can do different styles for games. I liked the art style in Need for speed nitro for instance, and thought it was great and it was a shame the core of the game itself wasn't better.

I'll take my God of War and Bayonetta before "more realsitic" graphics.

Re:He is correct. (1)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580930)

So I was going to make a funny and/or sarcastic comment regarding your comment

More realistic violence/damage models would be insanely boring, in fact the more photo realistic games get the less I am enthralled by them.

and how you would probably prefer Combat [wikipedia.org] to today's wargames.

Then I realized that I probably spent more time playing Combat with my brother way back when then I do playing many of today's photorealistic games(although my current obsession with Bioshock could be considered unhealthy by some).

Congrats. You responded to my comment without even hitting the reply. I hope you are happy. Now where did I put that Atari...

Re:He is correct. (1)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580892)

But more reality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

For instance, I prefer playing realistic racing simulators to more arcade style ones like NFS. Of course, full reality would be having to live with the damages to a car, or physical damage to yourself in a car crash. Obviously, we don't want realism to go that far...but to a point, realism can add to games. Even if it makes it more challenging.

"Realistic", eh? (3, Interesting)

Sparton (1358159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580438)

I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).

With the whole rise of casual gamer shenanigans going on, making games realistically punishing isn't lucrative in the slightest. Even the most successful hardcore/brutally evil game that has come out recently, Demon's Souls, has a lot of unrealistic elements in it (such as excessive hit points, predictable AI, magic, etc).

Re:"Realistic", eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580452)

Game realism with regards to dying from wounds and no respawn is truly not fun. Especially if you spend more time being dead than actually playing the game.

Counterstrike as an example, is probably about the limit for which fun can be said to be had with the relatively short rounds of gameplay.

Spending more than a few minutes dead and unable to play the game because you stuck your head around a corner at the wrong moment and got it blown off in one shot just sucks.

Re:"Realistic", eh? (3, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580590)

Game realism with regards to dying from wounds and no respawn is truly not fun. Especially if you spend more time being dead than actually playing the game.

Counterstrike as an example, is probably about the limit for which fun can be said to be had with the relatively short rounds of gameplay.

I found Counterstrike quite awful, exactly because it was so unrealistic. It's life on fast-forward. A firefight at ridiculous speeds. I much preferred the more mellow pace of America's Army. And leg wounds really cripple you there. Another feature which I quite appreciated as lay there bleeding on the ground.

I'm not a fan on shooters or RL armies, but for a piece of military propaganda, AA was a pretty decent game.

Just wait until Modern Warfare 3! (4, Funny)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580972)

You obviously haven't heard the awesome reviews of the next game. [theonion.com] .

Also, I'm surprised that nobody else has linked that yet, considering the topic. (Note: link goes to onion video, sound required)

Re:"Realistic", eh? (2, Informative)

arachnoprobe (945081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580480)

If you want realistic shooters, try Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon series. Weapon effects and impacts are realistic as it comes, graphics could be more state-of-the-art.

Re:"Realistic", eh? (3, Interesting)

loutr (626763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580502)

I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases

Canard PC [canardpc.com] (French PC gaming magazine) recently published an article written by a professional soldier about ARMA II, which is regarded as one of the most realistic shooters available. His conclusions were that ARMA was (very) far from being realistic, but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war. So no, I don't think realistic shooters exist, and for good reasons.

Re:"Realistic", eh? (1)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580562)

His conclusions were that ARMA was (very) far from being realistic, but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war.

haha. If there were two words that I'd use to describe ARMA II they'd be "boring" and "tedious"...

Re:"Realistic", eh? (1)

NouberNou (1105915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580568)

ArmaA2 + ACE Mod is pretty realistic.

It also depends on how you play ArmA2 and who you play against. The campaign is not going to be the best source of realism, its meant to be a story. If you get player on player battles going and you go against a well versed group of players that know how to use the realism to their advantage then you wont stand a chance.

Re:"Realistic", eh? (1)

NaughtyNimitz (763264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580618)

I agree completely!

Although the ACE2 mod is still in beta (2) , it adds a lot of reality to the combat simulator:
- carrying items has an impact on your performance (e.g. you can have a rucksack filled with extra ammo, but it will weigh you down)
- night combat (IR-goggles, IR-strobe lights, flares, chemlights,...)
- defensive measures (sandbags, portable crewed weaponry, new AAA equipment...)
- offensive measures (better ranging-methods, HuntIR camera, Chemical warfare,..)

The closest experience i had , before Ace2, is Project Reality for BF2. (But i think PR is coming to ARMA2 too)

Re:"Realistic", eh? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580702)

Operation Flashpoint was another good one. I'd say it's still number one on my games "experiences" list to this day..

real life would be boring (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580440)

A n00b gets shot at the beginning of the game. That means he would be out for the remainder of the game. Would you play a game where the playtime is about 1 minute for every 30 or so? I know I wouldn't.

And also it would be boring as hell. Very rarely do you have situations where you are shooting all the time.

Re:real life would be boring (3, Funny)

raynet (51803) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580698)

A more realistic game would uninstall itself after you die for the first time and force you to buy a new copy of the game unless you happened to select a religion that believes in reincarnation.

Re:real life would be boring (1)

Jamu (852752) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580906)

Just look at how unpopular Counter-Strike was...

Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game". (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580448)

There are a few titles that try to give the combat experience in a realistic way. Theres always room for more realism, but these games are much more real than your typical shotter.

Ok, I get it. Hes out to make a point, he probably know the existence of these games. But is a moot point, only people that want that exact experience buy and play these games. Most other people want different degrees of realism.
From high realism to e-sport:
- ????
- ArmA
- Red Orchestra
- Battlefield 1942
- Modern War 2 and Batman: Arkham Asylum
- Counter-strike
- Quake 3 / Warsow
- ????

Point: people that want realism in games already are playing realism games.
Point: people that want more realism in games play "realism mods" in realism games.
Stament: most people seems to like some fantasy and realism mixed for most fun.
Stament: some people seems to like "electronic sport" games, like Quake3 or Warsow
Stament: people that make staments about realism, and play games like B:AA that have life regen ala "MW2" sould play different games...

Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game" (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580462)

So, where does America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/ [americasarmy.com] ) fit into your list?

Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game" (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580530)

No idea, I have not played it.
Anyway my list is wrong. Batman is less real than counter-strike. In batman there are magic life regen.

Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game" (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580558)

wow, really, you haven't heard of Codemasters' master piece Operation Flashpoint? The default setting is "get shot and you die".

Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game" (1)

Bob_Sheep (988029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580660)

Yeah Operation Flashpoint must be one of the most evil games ever, but certainly pretty realistic, and the AI would actually hide in bushes and snipe you. It was however pretty annoying thinking you had killed everyone only to discover that there had been some guy hiding in a bush a couple hundred metres away and that you were now dead. ArmA is the spiritual successor to Op Flashpoint.

Eh Arma2 is the sequel to OF (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580968)

Well sort of anyway, but Arma2 is the same kind of game.

Simple solution (3, Interesting)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580450)

I want an accessory that is worn on your torso (as a vest) and delivers a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar. That would teach stealth tactics better than anything.

Re:Simple solution (3, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580474)

A taser. Incorporate a taser to the mouse and keyboard.

Or better yet, taser underwear.

Then you'll have the perfect stealth, the epic silence of absolutely nobody playing.

Re:Simple solution (3, Insightful)

Sparton (1358159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580490)

They exist. [tngames.com]

That said, they're not wide spread because, like most gaming peripherals, they're not a standard and don't actually add to your ability to succeed.

That and I guess that most people that play games aren't into the whole "learn through pain of failure" thing (or at least literally).

Reality is either boring or deadly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580454)

If I'm going to play a game, I want fun and excitement without any real threat of getting killed or suffering pain.
Without those things, games will never be 'real'.
I'm not troubled by that in the slightest.

By the way, Hollywood (a generic way of referring to almost all TV and Movies) doesn't portray reality, even when they claim to.
Oh, and professional wrestling is fake also...
  (Slashdotters know that, but you'd be amazed how many people don't have a clue...)

Re:Reality is either boring or deadly (2, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580646)

If I'm going to play a game, I want fun and excitement without any real threat of getting killed or suffering pain.

Ah, but what counts as "fun and excitement" for you? For me, the risk of failure is part of the excitement. The challenge of minimizing that risk is part of the fun.

When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.

Real life scenario (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580810)

When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.

Recent occurrence. You stop in a burger joint just in time to be caught up in the middle of a drug deal gone bad. A stray bullet pierces your skin and lodges itself between your C2 and C3 vertebrae.


When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.

Do you really want experience the joys of spending your remaining days without the use of your limbs and your very survival dependent on those maintaining your life support?
 

Re:Real life scenario (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580908)

Do you really want experience the joys of spending your remaining days without the use of your limbs and your very survival dependent on those maintaining your life support?

Gives a whole new (and scary) meaning to those fucking "Mash X to Not Die!" events...

Reality is not funny. (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580458)

This reminds me of the old discussions about realism in pen&paper RPGs.

We got a medievalist on our group, let him prepare a short demonstration game and quickly confirmed that it was, essentially, annoying.

He wants more real violence? There's no need to create a game for that, mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.

It's one of those arguments that end as soon as someone actually does the little effort of trying the argued point.

GTA: 5? (1)

ksemlerK (610016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580460)

For the next GTA release, I suggest not only realistic physics, but realistic body injury, healing processes, and legal consequences. Including getting stopped for speeding or eratic driving, or hit and runs. Felony stop if you get above 2 stars, and banned for a day of "real world" time, because you're in jail. If you kill a man and get caught, you lose the game. Doesn't sound like a game I would be interested in. "alternate reality" v. "Real world reproduction" borders a very fine line concerning game enjoyment.

Re:GTA: 5? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580492)

The first realism mod for GTA would kill the game, taking into account all new cars auto close all doors when surpassing about 30km/h.

The game would be returned after trying to bypass dozen cars' security system, getting caught in the spot, sent to jail and forced to perform favors on the officer or suffer permanent injuries.

Re:GTA: 5? (1)

ksemlerK (610016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580540)

You just proved my point.

Re:GTA: 5? (1)

Dalambertian (963810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580678)

I think you may be looking for Red Dead Redemption's fame and honor system. It's also called Grand Theft Stagecoach.

Re:GTA: 5? (1)

ksemlerK (610016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580700)

Naw, if that were resembling reality, you would have a 50/50 chance of getting a fatal body/face shot w/ a side-by-side shotgun at PBR. It would all depend upon the will of the stagecoaches's front passenger whom is carrying the weapon and providing protection for the persons/cargo in transport.

Hell, if GTA even resembled reality, you would stand a good chance of missing half of your head if you attempted a car-jacking.

Re:GTA: 5? (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580980)

Hey ksemlerK - I think you make a really great point. Why not take it to the extreme? You could have the guy with screaming kids, bills to pay, and even a nagging wife. Shoot - throw in some unemployment and/or chronic diseases for the advanced level.
 
Although it is fun to see what it might be like to carjack a fire engine and tear around town capping tha peeps with an AK, I really have to wonder what lessons that's teaching our already impulsive youth. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big gamer. But some of these "life simulators" are teaching us to practice some very interesting skills.

Americas Army (5, Insightful)

LaLLi (844692) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580476)

Americas Army has always focused on realism. You can't run too fast, you can't jump too high or continously. If you fall too far you'll break a leg and bleed to death. And yes you usually die after the first hit from AK47. It's possible to have a medic bind your wounds, but you won't get to 100% health..you stay slow and weak. I used to play it a lot and loved it. Too bad they stopped making linux ports.

Re:Americas Army (4, Informative)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580580)

All the medics in that game can do is to stop you bleeding -- not even heal you at all. It makes you stop *losing* health (though sometimes you'll stop bleeding on your own, depending on the wound), and I think it restores a bit of your mobility. It's been years since I last played it, though, so the details are hazy. I do remember if you took more than about one or two bullets, you were almost certainly dead, though. Made for interesting strategy requirements at times.

There is a game where you die realistically easily (2, Funny)

mhwombat (1616301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580478)

It's called nethack. The graphics aren't great, but he's said he doesn't mind that.

Re:There is a game where you die realistically eas (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580642)

I know you're joking, but NetHack is IMO on the 'pure fantasy' extreme of the reality spectrum. You enjoy the game because there's no sight/sound/physical action limiting your imagination.

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070622 [userfriendly.org]

Some multiplayer games get close (1)

asquithea (630068) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580486)

TFA says "I want a game that recreates that insane rush of endorphins and adrenaline or whatever it is..."

I reckon you can get pretty close to that with some multiplayer game scenarios. Something simple, like Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, where it's just you and a friend, sneaking over the snow into the enemy base while the battle rages behind you... and the path ahead is mined.

Bushido Blade (4, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580500)

Let me quote Eurogamer on the 1997 Playstation game Bushido Blade:

Bushido Blade works like this: If somebody scores a glancing blow on you, you're slowed. If somebody hits your arm, you fight on one-handed. If somebody hits your leg, you go down to one knee. If somebody hits you hard, anywhere at all, there is a horrible crunch or spurt of blood and you die.

Eurogamer's retrospective [eurogamer.net] says it all. Imagine if it had caught on.

Re:Bushido Blade (2, Informative)

nkh (750837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580616)

I loved Bushido blade, it was a mix between a fighting game and a technical game with a lot of laughs when you killed your friend's character in one second. You also needed a bit of "psychology" to destabilize your friends, like taunting them or not doing anything for 10 seconds wondering who would go first and try something (and that was a very dangerous thing to do in this game, a bit like in the Aikido martial art). It was definitely a good game, but it was too serious for most people of course: no fireballs, no super powers...

Re:Bushido Blade (3, Interesting)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580628)

Bushido Blade was awesome, and it is still among the most, if not the most, realistic deadly fighting game ever made. Its simplicity came from its realism, so the complexity that it had was all related to how you were actually fighting. For instance, which stance you were in, or the way you swing your blade. The realistic simplicity also let it break out into three dimensions, so it was one of the very first fighting games to really allow you to run wherever you wanted (not just the lame side-stepping that fighting games still often use). It's still certainly worth a spin for those of you who (for some reason) still play PS1. Just a simple fight between two players in the bamboo forest is tense. There are only a few (sometimes one) unblocked swings between your character and its death.

Of course, most people were more interested in playing Tekken and Mortal Kombat with their fireballs and snap-your-neck-to-take-away-20%-of-your-health type moves. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that, but Bushido Blade showed that the simplicity of realism can give developers room for real substance in the gameplay.

Re:Bushido Blade (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580798)

It can be taken further. Hideo Kojima started dropping ideas about a "raw game" to journos about a year later. His idea was that the game would self-destruct when your character died, simulating the fact that you don't get a second attempt if you die in real life. Steel Battalion implimented a similar concept - if your character is killed because you failed to eject from a wankered mech, then it deletes your save games.

In related news... (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580538)

...Walker was highly critical on the realism of Road Runner cartoons, claiming that both Coyote thought processes and the laws of physics were grossly misrepresented.

Typical mistake... (2, Interesting)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580544)

Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.

Especially when it is "mind jerk" where you use realism to make game harder to play - it feels and sounds awesome because person who suggests it also imagines himself pwning in that game and getting to top of things using his innate "realistic combat skills".

It is somewhat similar to, say, people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot. You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side. Because otherwise, theese mechanics suck.

In some rare idealistic cases, people want challenge to be added to game (and of course, imagine themselves besting challenge while being awesome enough to get style points). That is, however, not something you automatically get if you make game harder and leargning curve steeper that eve.

Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long. You do not keep playing game you suck at, and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking.

Re:Typical mistake... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580668)

Harder is not the same as more realistic injuries. America's Army has reasonably realistic injuries. A single bullet can kill or cripple you. Yet the game is pretty easy to play. I found it a lot easier than Counter Strike, where everybody's insane running speed made it hard to figure out what the hell was going on. That kind of speed is probably fun if you're a master FPSer with lightning reflexes, but for a newbie it's not.

Re:Typical mistake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580956)

Adding realism would detract from the appeal of the game.

Jeremy Clarkson set himself the challenge on Top Gear to go around the Nurburgring in under 10 minutes. He finally managed 9:59. A professional racing driver managed 9:12 in her first go.

Games are palyed because they are an abstraction.

more better violence (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580546)

I've been wanting more realistic violence since forever. I don't want great big clouds of blood shooting out from someone unless it's called for. I don't want NPC's to fly back when you shoot them. I don't want NPC's to insta-die unless you hit them in the head or central nervous system. But more realistic violence doesn't necessarily imply more realism for the player. The player character can be genetically modified, enhanced by nanotech or whatever handwavy technology you want to use.

Say you shoot someone in the general torso area, you obviously miss the spine since he doesn't ragdoll and you take cover as he returns fire. When you pop out of cover the target is nowhere to be seen. When you find him he's on the ground aspirating blood and generally bleeding out. Or when you finish a firefight there is not silence but lots of poor fuckers screaming from their pain as they bleed out. If nothing else that might make you want to take the more stealthy route or make sure you aim better.

Re:more better violence (2, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580690)

Say you shoot someone in the general torso area, you obviously miss the spine since he doesn't ragdoll and you take cover as he returns fire. When you pop out of cover the target is nowhere to be seen. When you find him he's on the ground aspirating blood and generally bleeding out. Or when you finish a firefight there is not silence but lots of poor fuckers screaming from their pain as they bleed out. If nothing else that might make you want to take the more stealthy route or make sure you aim better.

This would be awesome. It might almost get me to try a FPS for once.

Right (4, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580552)

So why are games like Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six series and so on available? They're there because people DO want realism, they want one-shot kills where stupid rambo behavior action will get you killed. Sure they're not for everyone, but for people who want a challenge, they exist.

This novelist asks for something that already exist.

That ain't realism (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580938)

Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six aren't realism. The game mechanics are slightly more realistic, but that is it.

Realism would mean you play once for 10 minutes, get shot, possibly through no fault of your own, and are permanently out of the game because in that game you are dead. No one wants that. Reality sucks. War is not fun. Sometimes skill counts but just as often dumb luck or being born on the right side does. War's not meant to be fun. Playing warrior is.

The last game I've played (1)

2Bits (167227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580554)

The last time I played a computer game was in 95, and after that, I lost passion for games. That was called, fairly enough, Virtual World. It's a game where you sit in a cage modeled like a car, and you drove it in the mining tunnel on Mars. Obviously, the car is not really moving, but it had enough hydraulic system to simulate certain action to give some realism, like a flight simulator. It was expensive to play, $15 per 15 minutes. It's a multi-player game in which you tried to shoot each other while racing. If you got shot, you heard a bang on your back, and the car shook so hard it gave you dizziness. If you sit with your back on the seat back, it could hurt pretty bad.

I spent a lot money playing that game, and after, I had no passions for other non-realistic games anymore. I always say to my other gamer friends that the game they play are for pimps :)

Slight undermined (1)

EEDAm (808004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580560)

FTFA - a footnote; "*I have no doubt that there are many games available that come closer to achieving a realistic setting than what I describe. I don't care. I'm making sweeping generalizations here. It's what I do." . So the whole-big-thing-point of TFA is arguing that there should be games which are more realistic, then the author acknowledges that actually well gosh you know, there are, but their existence is not relevant because he's only interested in sweeping generalisations. Errr....yep....ok....with you....right....I'm sure there is a finely honed point here somewhere...yep....

Finally! (4, Interesting)

bertok (226922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580564)

I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible. I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.

For example:

- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed. I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me. Over 90% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing...
- Day of Defeat: started off awesome, then slowly went downhill, but never to the same extent as CS. Players who thought they were 'l33t' at CS got massacred when they joined DoD games.
- Team Fortress / TF2: feels like you're using nerfbats at first, but there's lots of instant-deaths, more then you'd expect, which makes up for it. (snipers, spies, crits, etc...)
- Left 4 Dead 1 & 2: I love the way that one bullet from most guns will kill a dozen zombies in a row. Not only that, but Valve made the guns in #2 better, not worse! Someone at Valve is clearly learning!

Contrast these games with the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, or the like. In those games, three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough. It's like using nerfbats. What's worse, Tribes basically had no hitscan [wikipedia.org] weapons, so at range, you couldn't even hit anything moving, and even if you did get a lucky shot in, it would do no significant damage.

I've found that the games with accurate, lethal weapons result in very different game play. People jump around like rabbits less, stick to cover more, crouch, avoid open spaces, etc... Basically, they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life. It's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush. Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension. Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580724)

Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.

*Master Chief facepalms*

Re:Finally! (2, Informative)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580844)

From someone who actually writes one of these games you're complaining about...

In quake1, a direct rocket shot deals 120 damage, or splashes for 80-90. If you have no armor on, that's an instant kill with a direct hit. If you have red (200/100) armor, yeah, it'll take 3-4 hits, but you have to recall the firing rate on a RL is around one per second, which is a lot faster than in real life as well. I've played those CoD style games with realistic rocket launchers, and it's just not very fun being able to get instant killed by someone who has no skill and no need to aim who just fires a panzerfaust in your general direction.

In designing CustomTF, I've gone back and forth on hitscan weapons. In a certain sense, they're too good. It's simply too easy to headshot someone with a sniper rifle in TF from a half mile away. If there's no cover, then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest. Which is boring. So I've tweaked sniper damage a half-dozen times, and basically set it at a point where you can one-shot anyone with less than red armor and full health, and two shots will kill anyone. You can buy (expensive) upgrades to your sniper rifle to be able to one-shot 200/100s, but this might leave you weak yourself on speed or armor, which is kinda the point. Defensively, people can pick up kevlar armor to halve damage from snipers, which helps break up sniper domination of games, but again, it's somewhat expensive.

IRL, bullets don't travel at the speed of light, which is part of the problem - from a half mile away, a bullet takes a bit less than a second to reach the target. So I put in a non-hitscan sniper rifle with just a very very fast projectile (~1000 m/s velocity) which costs half as much, but deals the same damage. So people with skill can be rewarded with having more cash for other purchases in the game, and people that get hit by them from a distance don't feel like they've been cheaply killed. Both options are available in the game.

Counterstrike, as you said, is incredibly annoying due to the inaccuracy of the bullets. It's like the bullets fly out sideways from the barrel. You can hold a gun to a guy's head and miss with an entire clip.

Re:Finally! (1)

theIsovist (1348209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580954)

for the record, bullets in real life are not hitscan. also, hitting a moving target is quite a bit harder when you have to take into account things like wind speed and, probably, your inability to aim as well as you think.

Re:Finally! (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580962)

I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible. I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.

For example:

- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed. I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me. Over 90% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing...

Try Cod4 on Hardcore servers. Usually One bullet is enough for a kill. Funny thing is CS lamers took over "professional gaming" side of things and forced community to play so called ProMod. ProMod turns Cod4 into a CS clone where you need HALF AK47 clip to kill someone ... recoil is reduced, no gun sway, and sniper rifles are 100% accurate. Not to mention it removes all tactical perks. Its like "pro" players cant handle hard game so they made it lamer friendly.

Already done (2, Funny)

nkh (750837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580566)

There already are 2 very realistic games that should have been mentioned: Close Range [theonion.com] and Modern Warfare 3 [theonion.com] .

There are a few (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580570)

The earlier Rainbow 6 games, including my fav - Rogue Spear.

You can't even jump in those games and climbing a little ledge seems to take ages. Getting shot is frequently lethal (even if they hit you in the foot or arm) or results in incredibly slow movement until someone finishes you off. Also, no respawning until the end of the round.

I loved those games! You'd feel a lot of stress immediately before the map loaded and then keep a bit of stress throughout the match. It was exciting and fun.

Nowadays it's the military sims mentioned above that keep flying the flag. (I also enjoy "silly" FPS games such as Team Fortress 2 and Mirror's Edge and haven't played a good realistic FPS in a long while.)

Operation Flashpoint (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580572)

Codemasters master piece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Cold_War_Crisis [wikipedia.org]

winner of:

        * PC ZONE Classic Award
        * IGN Editors Choice Award
        * Simulation Headquarters Best of E3 2001
        * Gamespy: Best of 2001 (PC Action)
        * Computer Gaming World's Editors Choice Award
        * The Adrenaline Vault: Seal of Excellence Award
        * ECTS winner
        * The Wargamer: Award of Excellence
        * Gamestar.de Award
        * PC Gamer Awards
        * COMBATSIM.COM: Best Integrated Battlefield Simulation 2001

I can't really comment on the sequel that came out this year.. although Codemasters didn't make it, so it probably sucks.

Re:Operation Flashpoint (1)

robot_lords_of_tokyo (911299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580800)

Codemasters didn't "make" Operation Flashpoint, Bohemia Interactive did. BI has developed the entire series. Codemasters published OFP, they made the box and the manual.

Re:Operation Flashpoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580812)

You should check out Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising

From wikipedia: "Difficulty levels are differentiated not by changes in AI or weapon damage but by the visual information given to players. At the easiest level, standard FPS information is given to the player about weapons, ammo, squad health, compass direction along with cross hairs via a HUD. Additionally the location of enemies who have been spotted by the player's squad is indicated at the lowest level. Higher levels of difficulty remove this information until none is left on screen. Ammunition counts must be remembered as well as the health of the squad. Locations of enemies must be determined by listening to AI squad mates and using other visual cues like the direction they are firing. At high difficulties visual effects become more important, particularly at long range where smoke or dust can help to identify areas which are dangerous. At any difficulty level the player may be killed by a single shot, though according to designers, it is not always the case. The highest difficulty (hardcore) also removes the games checkpoint system entirely meaning death results in starting the entire level again."

Re:Operation Flashpoint (1)

janek78 (861508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580852)

Codemasters did not make the first one either. They published it. It was made by BIS, who now made ARMA and ARMA2. I loved Operation Flashpoint, the suspense and fear (and eventual reward) was unlike any other game. ARMA2 seems to be more of the same, but plagued with bugs that make it too annoying to play. Shame.

UrT: An FPS with Improved Realism (5, Interesting)

Cbs228 (596164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580584)

Urban Terror [urbanterror.net] is a good example of a game that makes an effort to have "realistic" weapon damage effects. In the game—a free, open-source FPS—players square off using modern weapons and equipment. When you spray machine gun fire at your opponents, your accuracy degrades. When you get hit, you start bleeding, and you must bandage your wounds quickly before you bleed out. If you are shot in the leg, your movement speed decreases, and you also take damage to your legs if you fall from heights greater than one story. If you are shot in the arm, your accuracy decreases. Reloading your weapons takes time, and in the middle of combat it is usually more expedient to draw your trusty sidearm, rather than reload.

Unlike most FPSs, where players engage in running gunfights that can last for tens of seconds, the typical Urban Terror engagement is very short; players frequently die before they realize they are under attack. This turns the game into an unending quest for the perfect ambush—attacking with surprise, from behind, almost always ensures victory. Many players tend to be snipers or campers, since the gameplay mechanics make very difficult to "run and gun" effectively. With that being said, it is still possible to power-slide down a hallway, turn, and take out two alert enemies with well-placed bursts—it's just very, very difficult.

Nonetheless, UrT distinguishes itself for its reliance on teamwork. There are almost no plain Deathmatch servers, since UrT Deathmatches simply aren't interesting. Instead, it is all about the team-based gameplay: team-DM, CTF, and bombing run missions. A lone man is easy prey, but squad of two or three players can take and hold an enemy base for some time, provided they know what they're doing. In UrT, working with others is the key to victory, and your ability to score frags can increase exponentially if your team-mates are nearby. If you like teamwork, and don't mind the occasional insta-gib, then you should consider checking out UrT. The game is based on ioquake3 and will run on almost any Windows/Linux/Mac system that's less than ten years old.

Re:UrT: An FPS with Improved Realism (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580750)

That sounds interesting.

Is the player community mature (in spirit, I mean) and intent on team work, or are players more likely to be childish nuisances by repeatedly spawn-killing noobs and such? Is it a pain to get up and running in a non-Ubuntu Linux flavour (say, PCLinux)?

I ask because, years ago when Half Life (1) was in, I was a big fan of Day of Defeat. But then I switched away from Windows, and DoD got bought up and rolled into Steam, and that was more or less the end of that for me. The community then was really great, players were helpful and goal-oriented and the gameplay was relatively realistic; the like of which I haven't been able to find anywhere since.

Don't like the idea (2, Funny)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580596)

I don't like the idea of desensitising my children to realistic violence. If I wanted that I'd just let them watch the news!

Ghost Recon (1)

hkultala (69204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580632)

very good game from 2001-2002.

One bullet usually kills.

Aiming is as slow as reality, no matter how good mouse hand the player has.

Realistic fog whose purpose is not to look nice, but to hinder visibility.

I consider this to be the best first person 3d game ever made.

The sequels were not so good, they were too much action, losing some of the realism, and losing the big maps.

Operation flashpoint is another example. It was also very good, maybe even mode realistic, but the playability was not as good as with ghost recon, so I rank Ghost recon as #1.

I am waiting for someone to create real sequel to Ghost Recon, instead of those Ghost Recon:Advanced warfighter toy shooters which differ nothing from those cs and other toy games.

Obviously.. (1)

Dalambertian (963810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580664)

You can't make most FPSs realistic for the simple reason that they are created for you to die frequently, in order to keep things "exciting". If you want to make a realistic game seem fun, don't use super soldiers as the starting point. For historical reasons, most of those games only allow shooting as the single way to interact with the environment, which is obviously not the case in real life, not even in war. Take Heavy Rain, for instance: story-driven, but player-guided; death is possible, but the game is carefully designed to keep the consequences of your actions interesting. If that's not real enough, you might have to wait awhile before some genius game designer can take a realistic story like the job of a police chief or astronaut and make it interesting. Since most of the big realist developers are stuck on the FPS formula, I'd say it's the indy scene that will have to push the envelope.

Realism (5, Insightful)

pehrs (690959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580684)

I have yet to see any computer-game outside some adventure game that even loosely reflects what violence is like. And the war-games are probably the worst of the bunch. If a military simulator resembled what a soldier has to do in a real war it would play like this.

1: Get up, brush teeth, polish equipment.
2: Drive 10 km on a congested road looking out for bombs.
4: Walk to the observation post
5: Spend 8 hours looking out over a field with peasants, trying to figure out if any of them is a resistance fighter.
6: Walk back to the truck
7: Catch your buddy when the sniper shoots him in the hip
8: Spend 3 hours trying to keep pressure on the wound and wait for medivac
9: Listen to your buddy beg for his life while he is medivaced
10: Fire blindly at a few bushes where the sniper might still be
11: Get tinitus when they bomb the bushes and the nearby houses
12: Spend 4 hours sorting out the remains of the families in the houses, trying to figure out if any of them was the sniper
13: Go to truck again, looking out for snipers this time.
14: Drive home, looking out for road bombs.
15: Wash blood from cloths, eat dinner, go to bed.
16: Repeat...

War is not fun. War does not make a good game. Any "realistic" game still removes 99.95% of what it means to be in a war-zone. You don't get bored, watching a field for hours. You don't police bodies. You don't dig through bloody cloths looking for clues if the guy you just shoot was a resistance fighter or a civilian. You don't have to stop everything and arrange a medivac if anybody in your group is hit. You don't have to write letters home to the family, explaining what happened. You rarely have any rules of engagement. It's clear who is an enemy and who is not...

I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky.

Re:Realism (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580824)

Is Afghanistan the definition of "real war" these days?

No thanks (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580692)

Any sufficiently realistic video game will heal your character via virtual health insurance forms.

Thanks, but I'll take my crowbar any day.

Reality is boring (2, Informative)

BradMajors (995624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580722)

Speaking as someone who has built combat simulations for the US Army:

Real combat is boring... it consists of long periods of time where basically nothing happens, mixed with very short periods of combat where a lot happens but the winner of this short period of combat is rarely in doubt.

The reality of getting shot sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30580758)

Actually getting shot is not fun. The reason it's fun in games is because its NOT real.

This game exists (1)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580764)

And it's made in flash.

You Only Live Once [kongregate.com]

Balance between fun and realistic (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580772)

Games can provide realistic damage, but they need to provide -something- that makes the effects less permanent than in real life.
Games of the old provided "multiple lives". You could try again, repeating some of the work. But that's cheap, you live or you die but you won't be anywhere halfway.

Later games provided savegame, you pick a point in time where you can go back no matter how badly it goes. Very cheap again, there is no challenge if you can repeat each step as many times as needed.

There are these games where you have levels of energy and armor, thing is playing at 10% health is no different than playing at 100%, as long as you don't get hit.

Counter-strike and alikes got it nearly right, a kill is really crippling, making you practically lose the game - while the game itself is quite short.

What is really lacking is crippling damage. In CS, you could still run at full speed at 2% health.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has this concept of bleeding, you need to stop and bandage yourself to stop bleeding or your health will drain. Unfortunately, medikits are so common, fast-acting and easy to use, that bleeding becomes moot.

And meanwhile, I remember the game of Gunship 2000 with extreme fondness, as I would return from missions in a heavily damaged helicopter. Autopilot out of commission, the rotor damaged, so it keeps turning, one of motors destroyed so that I need to run the other at overheating level just to keep from falling, electronics damaged, so that I have to depend on analog displays, and "wounded" like that I had to crawl back to base, fending off enemies that tried to take down the easy prey. These were some of the most memorable moments in my gaming past. Of course it was the machine damaged, not the person, but...

I think FPS games could greatly benefit from a realistic damage model. Something where pain is paralyzing, where blood obscures your vision, explosions stun you - not for 3 seconds, but for half a minute maybe. Shock from pain makes you stop and fall, wounded limbs fail to perform. Instead of running smoothly sideways with aiming cross precisely in the center of the screen, have the aiming cross oscillating in the corner of the screen as you try to hold a carabine with one hand, and your leg is wounded.
You can use medikits, but first, using them is an operation of at least a minute or two, then it doesn't magically heal you, it just stops bleeding (which makes things worse), reduces pain to allow better control, allows limited use of limbs that were totally out of use.

Imagine the epicness of a "capture the flag" game as the flag carrier gets severely wounded. Think of a defender of the base who got his both legs shot off, and fights to the last drop of blood, unable to move. Imagine a counter-strike terrorist activating the bomb with his last living breath. A moment of "You go without me", as a team needs to leave a wounded player at a difficult jump point, and he makes his last stand against oncoming horde of enemies.

Of course limping through the game for 16 hours, until the plot grants you mercy of a hospital is no fun. The games with realistic damage model would need to adapt the gameplay style. First, short and sweet sections to allow for -some kind- of respawn. Also, both incentive to keep playing while even heavily wounded, and not forcing a player to wait uselessly for some kind of help/respawn for hours. Some kind of reward for sticking to the same character, even wounded, but with ability to heal (or replace the character with a healthy one, say reinforcements arrive, wounded are sent back to hospital).

Realism? Will probably never come... (2, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580776)

I'm a big fan of (pseudo-) "realistic" FPS like OFP, ArmA, OFP2, and Arma2. Many people claim they want realism, but for most gamers these simulations are too boring or too hard. Personally, I'm missing real realism as opposed to the fake realism of ArmA 2. I might be mistaken but as far as I know in a real war wounded soldiers sometimes scream like crazy without stopping, and I've also read accounts of WW2 where soldiers were walking around with their guts (literally) in their hands. For real realism my "special forces" team mates should occasionally go nuts (if they aren't already). There should also be trigger-happy soldiers that mess up missions, accidentally shoot pregnant women and kids at checkpoints, etc. Very rarely, a civilian could be raped by your fellow teammates and it would be up to you whether you want to participate or inform your CO. In both cases, you'd have to face the consequences. And, of course, don't forget friendly fire and jobs like cleaning the latrines.

If you think I'm being sarcastic, you misunderstand me. I really want this kind of realism in my FPS. But I guess this will never happen, because people would fear that depicting real violence might disturb the emotional balance of some American kids and lead to a lawsuit against the game company. For a start, I'd already be fine if they'd come up with a good story instead of the usual black and white "good vs. evil" bullshit.

We don't want realism? (2, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580786)

"We want fantasy. We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns. We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch. We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause.'" Disagreed strongly. He may want such, you may want such, THEY may want such...but I don't. If I wanted that I'd be playing with God mode on or I'd go for My Little Pony Online. I want challenge. I want realism. I want to have to use some skill and smarts to get the job done, not just mindlessly run around shooting anything that moves.

Bartle Player types (1)

peaceful_bill (661382) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580896)

This conversation seems to be cyclical. Let us remember that people play games for different reasons. We have Bartle Player Types [wikipedia.org] and Nick Yee's player motivations [nickyee.com] to frame this conversation. Some people like ultra-realism, some don't. Different strokes for different folks. I'm a casual TF2 player, where I aim bazooka rockets at my feet so I can jump higher. I guess realism isn't that important to me. I'm also a text-based gamer, and I enjoy playing muds and mushes.

Incan Basketball Rules (3, Insightful)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30580934)

When the ancient Aztecs played basketball, the rules were simple - the first team that made a shot through the basket got to live. The other team was...well...beheaded. Now, if you want to make video games that are realistic, why not go all the way? Have some sort of controller that provides an electric shock or poison if you really die. That will make you think twice about going into that room full of zombies.
 
The bottom line is that video games are for fun and "practice". You go to a new level of realism and it just gets boring. I love flight simulators, but the ones that are completely realistic are the most boring. Who wants to spend 4 hours in combat air patrol with a 1 in 1000 chance of actually getting to splash a bogie?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?