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!

Crytek Dev On Fun vs. Realism In Game Guns

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the rocket-jumping-is-as-real-as-it-needs-to-be dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 324

An anonymous reader tips a post from Pascal Eggert, a gun enthusiast and Crytek developer, who sheds some light on how weaponry in modern shooters is designed. Quoting: "Guns in games are like guns in movies: it is all about looks, sounds and clichés. Just like in the movies, games have established a certain perception of weapons in the mind of the public and just like in movies games get almost everything wrong. ... The fact is that we are not trying to simulate reality but are creating products to provide entertainment. ... if you want to replicate the looks of something you need to at least see it, but using it is even better. You should hold a gun in your hands, fire it and reload it to understand what does what — and at that point you will realize, there is nothing on it that does not have a function — because guns are tools for professionals. Lot of weapon designers in the game industry get that wrong. They think of guns like products for consumers or magic devices that kill people at a distance when really it's just a simple and elegant mechanism that propels little pieces of metal. Unfortunately 3D artists often only get access to the photos that Google Image Search comes up with if you enter 'future assault rifle' or, even worse, pictures from other games and movies that also got it wrong. This may explain a lot of common visual mistakes in games, especially since guns are mostly photographed from the side and egoshooters show weapons from the first person view." This article is drawn from his personal experience in the game industry. The images shown are Pascal's personal work and are not related to his work at Crytek.

cancel ×

324 comments

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

Maybe... (3, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987424)

Crytek can look at making their games fun first...

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987456)

Crytek can look at making their games run fast...

Corrected that for you.

Re:Maybe... (2, Insightful)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987462)

I'd say both.....there's no point in playing a "fast tech demo"......if I wanted to do that...I'd actually play Doom 3.

Re:Maybe... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988202)

Doom, now there's a poster boy for realistic firearms if ever I saw one. Now excuse me as I use my BFG to hunt gophers.

Re:Maybe... (5, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987544)

I don't "get" the hate for Crysis. I've played the original Crysis through three times and Warhead twice, and have always found it highly enjoyable. Many of the levels are quite open, allowing for a number of different approaches (so different playthroughs can feel radically different). The nanosuit system is slick and allows for a lot of variation in how you fight (though I suspect a lot of people never get past just using armour-mode and playing in a very traditional fps style) and the AI is reasonable enough. Ok, it's not flawless; the plot is pretty stupid (though that goes for almost all fpses), the "float around in the alien ship" section goes on for too long and the Warhead expansion is maybe a touch on the short side (though while it lasts, it does tend to emphasise the better aspects of the first game), but despite being several years old, I'd say it holds up well against more recent fpses - while still looking better than them.

I think what I like most about Crysis is that it's a PC game that actually feels like it's making use of the hardware. Don't get me wrong, I like my PS3 and 360, but it does frustrate me that almost anything I play on the PC has been limited for cross-platform compatibility with console hardware that's more than 4 years old. I remember in the latter days of old console cycles, such as the SNES/Genesis cycle, the PC was putting out the kind of gaming experiences and the kind of visuals that made console gamers' jaws drop in astonishment. Crysis is the only PC game I've seen that has come close to replicating that for the current generation.

Re:Maybe... (-1, Troll)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987802)

It's boring, just like your post...

Re:Maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32987848)

No, his post is not boring at all. Yours is.

Re:Maybe... (5, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987874)

Anybody who only used the armour mode on the nanosuit needs to reinstall the game and play through again. As a different class of player.

I love Crysis because it is at least three different FPS games rolled into one. You play in the standard armour mode, you head in, kill some bad guys, win the day. You play in stealth and pick off opponents from far away, then slip away into the shadows to attack from another position. You mix it up with speed and strength to charge in and beat the living hell out of something. I've never played a game with such dynamic alterations to gameplay without having to stop, quit, and change class. You're a HW Guy, a Sniper, and a Scout all at once.

If you've completed it and fancy some awesome God-like carnage, edit the ini file to make suit recharging almost instant, clips hold 999 ammo, and run speed twice as fast. Super sweet.

Re:Maybe... (2, Informative)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987942)

Agreed. I like Crysis because of its overall polish and the flexibility allowed in terms of how problems can be solved. It doesn't hurt that the eye candy is ALSO rather stunning if your rig has the hardware to handle it. So I'm willing to accept less "realistic" gunplay for better overall realism and more engaging environment.

If you want 100% realistic gunplay, get off your ass, give the sofa a rest, and visit a rifle range.

Re:Maybe... (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988002)

I sure agree, Crysis is an excellent game by many standards. Most games are nowadays "Source Engine" based and acquirable via Steam, they feel all roughly the same (even if the scenario, textures, models are different) and the engine itself is not all that polished despite it's many years (it feels like Quake 1 based and mostly rewritten but keeping the same bases - because, it actually is). It doesn't mean games like half life aren't fun and good - they quite damn are, but the engine polish is not there.

Crytek (the engine) on the other hand is extremely polished. Playing it feels like sitting in a super refined sport car. Everything works well and smooth even when you're pushing it. Movement is perfect and so on. No sound glitches. Proper aim. Even better than Quake 3/Live movement which is pretty good in my eyes.

While the scenario isn't especially original and the game is rather short, I enjoyed playing it and re-playing it just because the engine is so damn good.

Sure, for XBox 360 shooters fans, you probably don't actually realize what's perfect movement. It's not achievable with a game pad. Not even talking about FPS ported from console to PC with horrible game-pad feeling while using the mouse.

The new Crysis will come out and I'm pretty sure it will be good as well engine-wise, at least on PC since the console version has to accommodate with the controllers and lower power (but I hope and suppose they didn't screw that up, some console FPS are still very decent to play it's just not in the same league control wise). Now if they could come out with an environment and scenario that is actually as awesome as the engine it would make a great game, and not just a game for enthusiasts like me.

For example, Duke Nukem forever on Crytek would be so awesome ! oh wait, can't make those DNF jokes anymore can I...

Realistic Guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987434)

How about realistic stories and dialogues first? Crytek?

Re:Realistic Guns? (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987630)

Why? Crysis isn't about story and dialogue, is it?

Captain obvious (3, Interesting)

Tukz (664339) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987442)

Is anyone really surprised by this?
And further more, who asked for an explanation?

It's quite obvious the rocket launcher from UT isn't real. I never once thought a "rocket launcher" was that easy to handle.
I never expect weaponry in games to be life-like, depending on the game.

Certain games require certain realism, but I also know, too much realism would kill the fun.

Re:Captain obvious (4, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987584)

I thought it was a mildly interesting read.. it seems the author has two main complaints...

1. the design of guns being unrealistic
He argues that 'future gun'-designs should be evolutions based on current gun designs, aiming to address problems with those current designs and integrating that into the 'future gun' design.
On one hand, that makes sense. On the other, look at the P90 - that doesn't look anywhere near the typical AK-47 or or M16. If you've never seen one before, you might think it -is- a 'future gun'. So obviously as long as the designers design a gun that could theoretically work, all bets are off as to what it actually looks like.
Not to mention that this only really applies to guns shooting bullets anyway - and even there you've got things like the MetalStorm that operate radically different from conventional guns.

2. the use of the guns being unrealistic
Recoil would tend to ruin the 'fun' of most games. A sniper rifle that gets you near-zero accuracy (floating barrel) when on the run / flying through the air would force those people to camp - and although that's exactly what snipers do, camping tends to be frowned upon in gaming
However, as another commenter posted below, it couldn't hurt to have reload mechanisms work as they do in real life -if- you're using a real life gun design in the first place. They also argued about the sound effects, though.. I've shot a few guns - I'll take the game/'Hollywood' sound effects anytime as far as entertainment goes.

Re:Captain obvious (4, Interesting)

Tukz (664339) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987640)

1.

If game designers have to take an realistic approach to future weapon designs, what are they doing designing games? They should design weapons.

2.

Regarding the reload issue, one of my peeves in "realistic shooters" is when you reload your gun, you don't loose the ammo in the magazine. It's just added to your current ammo. There is a FEW games out there that handles this differently, but majority doesn't care about magazine count, it's all about ammo count.
And I agree with you on the sound issue. Have you ever heard a M96? It sounds strangely familiar to the blinker in my car.

Re:Captain obvious (2, Interesting)

iainl (136759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987996)

Re: your second point, that's because games are usually about fun. And fun usually means removing all the dull bits unless they're strictly necessary to game balance or overall pacing. Because hanging on to the partially-used clips to redistribute them into a smaller number of fully-used ones later during a lull in fighting is an exact analogy to various RPG games that insist on you rearranging your irregularly-shaped loot in a jigsaw-stylee to fit in your inventory when you get the chance; boring stuff that should be automated.

And, indeed, the few times it _has_ been implemented in games it frequently comes alongside such contradictory nonsense as either compensating by letting you carry umpty-thrumpty clips around 'just in case', and indeed suggesting that while a half-full clip isn't something you've got room to carry, 7 other weapon slots, including rocket launchers and the like are fine.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988012)

All I am saying is, when you reload, you toss the clip, but the ammo stays in your inventory.

When you reload, your character should toss the clip, WITH remaining ammo in it.

A few "realistic" games I've played, did this. And I like it.

Of course, this should only be valid for "realistic" games, "combat emulators" and other games in that genre. A regular FPS shouldn't adopt this.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988118)

If you want that level of realism you might not toss the half-used clip just because you think you might need a full clip soon. You'd just swap it out for future reuse.

For most people, even if they think they want realism they wouldn't actually like realism.

There are only a few people who would use a flight simulator to fly from Singapore to London and actually take the 13+ hours nonstop to do it...

Same goes for realistic military stuff. You might get dropped off an hour or so away from the original planned point.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988122)

Alien Swarm (now free on Steam) does this.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988194)

Alien Swarm was free before Valve made it ;)

Re:Captain obvious (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988370)

No, because you had to buy UT 2k4, while now it's a proper standalone free game.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988034)

1. you are implying that games can never have realistic weapons, that's kinda dumb. There's a big difference between knowing how a weapon works, sound and look, and actually making your own weapon.

2. it's pretty annoying when you waste the ammo by reloading. game devs aren't so dumb to think real life ammo add up when you reload you know... it's just a game play issue.

In the end it's all about compromising between realistic feeling and enjoyable game play, which is I believe what the Crysis dev wanted to say.
Crysis is not a realistic feeling game by any means, but having a few more realism touches in the weaponry would make it better in my opinion.

Certainly, and i completely agree on that one, proper sound would not change gameplay and make weapons a lot more realistic

Re:Captain obvious (1)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988070)

If game designers have to take an realistic approach to future weapon designs, what are they doing designing games? They should design weapons.

If game designers have to take an realistic approach to level design, what are they doing designing games? They should design buildings.

Making a futuristic piece of technology look plausible takes different skills than inventing it. Plus, there's the off chance that they enjoy making games more than making guns.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988100)

That free game on Steam, Alien Swarm, disappears remaining ammo in your previous clip when you reload.

There ought to be some science in sci-fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32988116)

Fantasy weapons are for fantasy games.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987694)

On the other, look at the P90 - that doesn't look anywhere near the typical AK-47 or or M16. If you've never seen one before, you might think it -is- a 'future gun'.

To me it looks like someone took a submachine gun and went all ergonomic on it.

It's just like a Canon 350D compared to an F1.

Re:Captain obvious (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988324)

Camping is a perfectly sensible tactic if you're defending. Anyone who complains about that is just bitter that they might actually have to use tactics to win.

Camping to me is only really a problem when someone on an attacking team is ignoring the main objective and just going for kills. If you just want to score kills, go play a deathmatch game, morons.

Actually... (5, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987634)

Actually, as someone who's had at least the basic infantry training (our main role was to shoot down aircraft) it seems to me like it is indeed very very easy to handle. Ever since some guy tied a bow to a plank, weapons have been point and click basically.

And I imagine we'll probably find some parchments where the old guard argues that command line weapons were better, and how you should give lusers an IQ test before letting them anywhere near a weapon. ;) Actually, that is only half joke. A pope actually treated the crossbow as some kind of WMD and prohibited its use against fellow Christians. But I digress.

Anyway, a non-guided anti-tank rocket launcher like the one in most games is the epitome of easy to use. You don't even have to compensate for distance as much as with an assault rifle. The only thing that's unlike the game is basically that you should be sure there's nothing behind you, and shooting most rocket launchers in a room is an awfully bad idea. When the rocket comes out the front end, a jet of flame comes out the back end, see? You don't even have much recoil to deal with, since the hot gas just goes out the back end instead of pushing against something. Truly point and click, really.

Now guided ones that can take down a low flying helicopter may need a tad more training, but the basic principle is the same.

As for the other point, while I'll concede the general point that too much realism kills the fun, there is a difference between lack of realism because you understand exactly why it would be less fun, and lack of realism because you have no clue how a weapon works. The latter can be unrealistic without gaining any fun, or even being less fun.

Heck, probably the most baffling weapon-related example comes from the post-NGE SWG, where one quest gives you a sniper scope for a sword. No, literally. I can't even imagine what they were thinking, what were they smoking, and what's the phone number of their dealer so I can get some of that good shit too ;) And I can't even start to imagine why that would be more fun than a more believable (i.e., realistic) attachment like a mastercrafted grip or pommel.

Or take the meme that assault rifles kick so hard that you spray bullets in a 30 degree cone, or make that 45 degrees if it's an AK-47 or SAW. Such a weapon would be fracking useless. I once calculated that if a real SAW had the spread from counter-strike it would be useless even for suppression at its rated effective range, because you'd need to fire many many full belts and more ammo than a squad carries, to even put one bullet in the same square metre as the guy you're shooting at. Sorry, that won't make me keep my head down. I'll take that kind of chances.

And anyway trained soldier (most games pretend you're one) wouldn't spray lead like that. Except maybe if he's shooting from the hip while dancing the Macarena ;)

And the AK-47 is actually a very manageable weapon, although the larger calibre tells the average clueless gamer nerd who never shot one "OMG, higher calibre must kick like a mule." The key there is that it really was designed as a mid-range weapon, in the same line of thinking as the German MP-43/STG-44 (the first assault rifle) it was trying to imitate. It has a shorter cartridge case and shoots a larger but slower bullet, which means you're not really putting more impulse in the bullet. It's also why its effectiveness takes a nose dive beyond 300 metres: the slow bullet needs a too curved trajectory to hit the target and increases the chance to estimate wrong and shoot over or too short. But even then (A) it's 300m, not the distances on the average game map, and (B) it's the ballistic problem described before, not some kind of spraying lead in all directions.

At any rate, exactly what fun does that inaccuracy bring? Games have been balanced just fine and had interesting weapons even in the "stone age" when guns were hitscan weapons. And games like WoW still are such a bad offshoot of hitscan that you can even see the projectile curving and even zig-zaging to its target, and sold more copies than a lot of the "but it's realistic!!" (if you don't know how guns work, that is) idiocies. _Someone_ must like that.

Re:Actually... (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987702)

I was going to the extreme and using the Unreal Tournament rocket launcher as an example.

Ever played UT? That thing can load several rockets in the bay and fire them in a swirly fashion. Like a twisted pair...of rockets!

Oh, and let's not mention the amount of rockets you can carry and the reload time..

Regarding the recoil you mention, anyone who had any kind of military training, would know you don't "spray" any thing. You fire in bursts, unless you are firing for support, which is just to keep the enemy from firing at you.

Most rifles aren't that hard to handle, if you just fire em in bursts. The problem with this in gaming, is that in a lot of games, people are still a threat even after getting hit once or twice. If I got hit by a AK47, M96, M4 or what ever, I certainly wouldn't turn around 180 and fire 3 shots and run along fine and dandy. No, I would most likely fall to the ground and be somewhat incapacitated.
Which is why people tend to do more spraying.

Re:Actually... (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987748)

I'm using the term "spraying" because in most games that's really what you end up doing even if you fire 3-4 round bursts. The second round already leaves some ten degrees off, which frankly is bogus. Heck, in some games (e.g., Vampire Bloodlines) by the third round you're already looking at the freaking ceiling. In a lot even the first round will go somewhere in a wide circle (e.g., start a soldier in Alpha Protocol and go into _aimed_ mode with that starter tranquilizer pistol and see what a huge angle get painted as your "crosshair") and, really, spraying is what you _will_ do if you want to hit anything beyond point blank range.

Re:Actually... (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987772)

Also, dunno, I'm answering to the ease of use point because that's what you mentioned. The behaviour of rockets or quantity of ammo carried is indeed funny, but a whole other topic than ease of use. A real rocket launcher would not shoot swirly bunches of missiles, but it would be easy enough to use that even a child could do it.

Re:Actually... (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987794)

And I agree, a standard rocket launcher, a common LAW for example (well known from many games), is indeed point and click.

Re:Actually... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987902)

A pope actually treated the crossbow as some kind of WMD and prohibited its use against fellow Christians.

That was because a crossbow was the first weapon that was cheap, able to be used with a minimum of training, and capable of killing a fully armoured warrior.

Fully armoured warriors in those days tended to be the nobility. It used to be (generally) that the only people who could kill nobles, were nobles (even pikemen were regularly frowned upon for that reason). The crossbow was the first really democratic weapon.

Re:Actually... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988054)

I once calculated that if a real SAW had the spread from counter-strike it would be useless even for suppression at its rated effective range, because you'd need to fire many many full belts and more ammo than a squad carries, to even put one bullet in the same square metre as the guy you're shooting at. Sorry, that won't make me keep my head down. I'll take that kind of chances.

Most games I've played get this more or less right. Some have taken it to ridiculous extremes, such as in the Tactical Ops mod for Unreal Tournament, where the bullet tracking is based on actual ballistics patterns. You SHOULD be more able to hold a FAMAS on target than an AK-47.

At any rate, exactly what fun does that inaccuracy bring?

It prevents kills which are too quick and easy.

Re:Actually... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988226)

Actually, Lusers with low IQs aren't really a problem, it's Lusers with low IQs and a gun near other people and things of value that become a serious problem. As long as you're not stupid enough to point the barrel at yourself, there's not a whole lot you can do that's going to hurt you, but a hell of a lot that can be done to accidentally harm others.

Re:Captain obvious (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987740)

Rocket jumps would not have existed it if realism was simulated. We built a unique style of play because of those, in Quake I :-)

Re:Captain obvious (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988308)

>Rocket jumps would not have existed it if realism was simulated. We built a unique style of play because of those, in Quake I :-)

And how awesome was it ? I miss rocket-jumping - there were quite a few places where knowing how to do it could sway the game one way or the other. My all-time favorite Q2 map was the space-station. Low-gravity, huge jumps and lots of momentum - if you could keep from banging into the walls a rocket jump could send you clear to the other end of a hall while blowing the hell out of anybody running along it.

Effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987446)

I don't think firing a real gun is particuarly fun. Aim, recoil, reload, inherent danger... A gun is a tool, not a toy. Games are a toy. Besides, the mechanism is bound to be different, mousebound crosshair, point and click. That's kinda fun, but in real life, perhaps not so much.

Re:Effort (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987652)

A gun is a tool, not a toy. Games are a toy.

Yet games focus a lot more on guns than on all other tools put together.

Re:Effort (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987682)

Except for a certain guy with a crowbar fetish.

Re:Effort (5, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987676)

    You know, you're quite right. People play games because they are games. People play with guns because ... ok, we don't play with guns. Anyone who's been to a shooting range knows that it's a very serious place. If it's not, that's an excellent time to leave quickly because someone's going to get hurt.

    There was a show on not too long ago, where they took a kid out to an outdoor shooting range. The only people there were the kid, his mother, the instructor, and the video crew (off camera, of course).

    He was a brave hero in the video games, blasting away at all the enemies. At the shooting range, he was terrified of the guns. They left his full reaction out of the initial cut, but put it in later in the show. He wasn't just terrified. He was crying his eyes out.

    I took a 13 year old to the shooting range. He'd been playing FPS games for quite a while. He was sure he wanted to join the military when he turned 18. He wanted his parents to buy him real guns, so he could go to the range with them. I spent about 3 hours with him, tearing down my weapons, cleaning them, and reassembling them. I explained every part of them, so he knew the names and functions, and how they worked together. Then we were off to the shooting range.

    The range we went to had two sections, a pistol, and a rifle range. We agreed that I would demonstrate proper firing techniques, and then instruct him while he fired. We went to the rifle area first. The only other person in the rifle range was firing a Kel-Tec PLR-16 [kel-tec-cnc.com] (.223 pistol). We were using my Springfield 03A3 [wikipedia.org] . For those who haven't used one, it's a cannon. :) Without shoulder padding, I'm limited to about 30 shots per arm (I shoot ambidextrously). It has no padding on the stock, and a vicious recoil. I had him stand a few feet behind me, and observe what I was doing. I fired the first shot, and brought the target back to show him what I did. While the target was coming back to me, I turned around, and he had gone from standing behind me, to hiding in the corner.

    Mind you, this kid wasn't timid. It was the sudden reality of "the things that go pop in the games are really dangerous" came flooding into his world. I spent a while trying to get him to take even a single shot with it. That didn't happen.

    We moved over to the pistol range. I had brought my Ruger P97DC [google.com] . It's a nice weapon. .45 ACP, fairly light, easy recoil. I fired a single shot. This time, he didn't go running all the way to the corner, but he did back up several feet. I demonstrated proper use of it for him, put a fresh magazine in. To show it was ready, I fired 3 shots from the new magazine, and then made it safe and put it down. I then began instructing him. I got him to pick it up, and he even got his finger onto the trigger, but never pulled the trigger. He was terrified.

    Now, what kind of lunatic would give a 13 year old with no shooting experience a loaded weapon? Not me. I didn't tell him, but the last "loaded" magazine I put in only had 3 rounds in it. After my last shot, I hit the slide release (the slide stays back when the magazine is empty). I just told him it was ready. I'd been telling him for years "Every weapon is a loaded weapon." I'm sure anyone who's been around firearms has heard that one. I told him again, and then demonstrated that it was empty by dry firing it. I told him, even though I knew it wouldn't fire, it was still to be treated as a loaded weapon. Since he wouldn't fire what he believed to be a loaded weapon, he wasn't ready to actually do it.

    It's not an age thing though. My father had me shooting when I was about 8 years old. The first weapon I ever used was a Colt 1911. By the time I was 13, I had fired a decent collection of weapons, and had free reign to use a .22 for target practice pretty much any time I wanted. The larger weapons were for special occasions, since the ammunition is more expensive.

    FPS are games. The weapons in them are games. The enemies are characters in games. The scenarios in games are just games. There's no mistaking reality for games, despite what anti-violence people say. Let the fantasy run in the games. It's fantasy. They're not making accurate real world simulation. If they were, they'd need to teach real world tactics, with intelligent AI squad members, and intelligent AI enemies. If the player gets killed, end the game. No respawning. No restarting the level. When you die, it's the end of the game. I know, that's too hard. Well, *THAT* would be an accurate simulation.

Re:Effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32988230)

Sounds familiar - I got dragged into the army for a year [1], and got some basic rifle instruction with the H&K G3. Dragging the thing around for a few weeks and stripping/reassembling it repeatedly did get me fairly used to it, but I still ended up quite shaky after the first shot, to a degree I didn't really expect. It's a full-body experience, so to speak...

On the flipside, I now really want to find somewhere where I can rent one and try it again - I haven't fired anything (much less something as serious as the G3) for eight years, and would like to refresh my memory. :)

[1] Norway still has a draft system, but at least you have to apply to stay after the compulsory first year or go on international missions. I ended up in a nice enough office job after the first month of basic introduction, got relocated from Lillehammer to Oslo, and left my G3 to the next pack of recruits.

Re:Effort (4, Insightful)

supercrisp (936036) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988402)

Don't you have a .22 you could start the guy out on, or was it more fun to intimidate him with the high-recoil stuff?

Re:Effort (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987906)

So why do people go to shooting ranges? They seem to enjoy it. I've fired a shotgun a few times. And yes, safety was very important and something I tok very seriously. I still thought it was fun.

Other peopel have fun driving, parachuting, climbing - all of these activities are potentially dangerous, so safety is extremely important but that doesn't need to make it less fun.

More of this kind of complaint please. (5, Insightful)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987470)

I like that this is being talked about. I was playing Modern Warfare 2 recently and ended up with an FN-FAL. This was great news as far as I was concerned as this is the rifle I first trained on during my own brief military stint. Of course come the last round being fired the character slowly changed magazine and recocked the rifle. Now this isn't some cheap British SLR, this is supposed to be an FN-FAL. Even cursory investigation would tell you that changing mags before empty requires no recocking and changing on an empty mag only requires a flick of the bolt-locking device to allow the breach to move forward; only a first load would require recocking.

On top of that the recoil was vastly understated and I can guarantee you that after putting two 7.62mm NATO rounds through someone they will not still be firing or running at you. I'll give you a laugh, the game that always impressed me in terms of rifle sound effects was Army Men on the first Playstation. I had to read a horrible review of the game from a UK magazine stating that the sound effects and shooting mechanics were unrealistic. I read that after returing from a weekend at a firing range and the only game I had ever seen capture a 7.62 or .303 sound to that point was Army Men. And they were just plastic soldiers! Here's some geek in an office who'd only ever played Doom and Duke3D telling a guy straight off the range what was realistic.

Next time a game promises more realism I expect more than just graphics and crazy Dirty Harrry style sound effects. Operation Flashpoint 2 got it right for the most part, firing a sniper rifle mid-air while running and jumping in CounterStrike is nonsense.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987574)

arma II + ace II mod

or if you can stand th old graphics pick the best of the lot: unreal tournament + infiltration mod

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987834)

A reference to infiltration! That old beast has not yet been forgotten. That made my day... thank you.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987622)

Operation Flashpoint 2 got it right for the most part, firing a sniper rifle mid-air while running and jumping in CounterStrike is nonsense.

Well, at least it's better than some games that deliberately gimp sniper weapons when not using the scope to avoid players using them for their single-shot firepower.

The average anti-personnel sniper rifle isn't really more powerful than a regular army rifle at the ranges typically seen in games (anti-materiel rifles OTOH) so the extra power makes little sense (especially not in games that practically let you kill enemies with a single shot with most weapons anyway) other than to make sure they can punch through thin walls. This seems especially common with games that are essentially mods of other games, I suspect it's because when they added the sniper weapons they couldn't be bothered rewriting the engine so that they punch through walls, instead they just up the power of the weapon if the engine already allowed weapons powerful enough to shoot through walls.

Then there's the precision issue. While it's true you won't get much precision holding a rifle half-raised or at your hip that doesn't mean you're suddenly unable to hit the broad side of barn either, unfortunately there's more than one game out there that adds randomness to the aim of sniper rifles when not in "aim mode" so when someone bursts into the room you're sniping from, you turn around and fire straight at him only to hit the wall just at the edge of your FOV. If I could hit coke cans with a real rifle at my hip from 20m as a kid I should be able to hit a stationary person at 3m in-game if my virtual rifle is pointing straight at him...

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987742)

I think games should add some randomness to the aim of any weapon in any circumstances. And some games do. Guns are not dead accurate point and click weapons. The tiniest breath, tremble, whatever, can make your aim wander all over the place. For long range accuracy, you need to steady your gun. The quick snap shots in most games are only accurate at really short ranges.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987782)

Oh, I have no problem with a little randomness thrown in to increase realism, it's when the weapon is clearly aimed straight at someone not 5 meters away and the bullet hits somewhere that indicates that it's either magic or that my in-game character is suffering from some kind of spontaneous intermittent muscle spasm that bothers me.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987878)

I don't think you understand the weight of sniper rifles, they're often barrel heavy or at least they feel that way when you are holding them in the last 15% of their overall length. The truth is that I've seen people fire Browning pistols at 10m - people who have significant firearms training - and they will have 20cm groupings. And that's trained personnel, granted maybe not the most expert but certainly more than your typical xbox gamer.

You have to consider that in real life often times the sights on a rifle are bigger than the target through perspective. Simply sticking a magnified scope onto a rifle doesn't magically make it better, even differences in the grain load of a round of ammunition pale in comparison to the effect of poor trigger-finger discipline. How you pull the trigger determines your accuracy hugely. And lets not forget that a wave of 2-3cm at the end of a rifle barrel at 5m from a target is more than the difference of a body's width. Yes you will miss your target if you are firing from the hip.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987962)

I'm not talking about missing the target by a few inches or even a meter, I'm talking about pointing the weapon at an enemy and having the bullets hit somewhere 3-4 meters to the side, and without moving the mouse at all and firing again the bullet will miss the enemy by a meter to the other side. And like I stated, I don't mind a bit of randomness thrown in for realism (and to mess with the "headshot!" crowd who try to learn all the little quirks of the game engine just so they can pull off stunts you could never pull off in real life) but when the bullet hits somewhere that indicates it decided to fly out the side of the rifle that just annoys me...

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (3, Interesting)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988224)

The real problem is that you're given the impression you can hold a rifle still the way you can hold your mouse. I get where you're coming from but it's all part of a bigger problem. I'm not even talking extreme cases where real physics are lost, I'm just talking basics. Try holding a baseball bat in the aiming position after running a few laps, you'll see what I mean.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

Buggz (1187173) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988298)

The feeling of a weapons weight, and the resulting sway because of that and the act of pulling the trigger, is not transferrable to mouse movement. Hence, randomness is thrown in to compensate for perfect aim and the fact that a 50 gram computer mouse resting on a table doesn't induce much unintended movement compared to a 3-5 kg automatic weapon which you have to keep up and steady using both your arms and shoulders.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988110)

Particularly in the situation GP described, where you've just been surprised by someone coming from an unexpected angle.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988244)

Been done, Return to Castle Wolfenstein did that. In fact they did it one better in that if you're using the machine guns as intended, as in short bursts they're pretty accurate, but if you hold down the trigger you lose a lot of the precision.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988252)

And, that one that overheats is a good example of being more accurate and being more fun as in real life you can't expect to unload clip after clip without pause or melting the barrel anyways.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987648)

Even cursory investigation would tell you that changing mags before empty requires no recocking and changing on an empty mag only requires a flick of the bolt-locking device to allow the breach to move forward; only a first load would require recocking.

Still, the fact that they differentiate between the two is a good start, and not common in most FPS's.

Of course come the last round being fired the character slowly changed magazine and recocked the rifle.

Oh come on, the FN FAL (SLR) is the only one in the game that DOESNT reload like that. He (you) take a new magazine and use it to knock the eject mechanism to remove the spent magazine. The FN FAL is the only rifle in the game that does this (despite the AK having a similar eject mechanism, making it possible. In fact, this nonchalant reloading was originally going to be used on the AK, not the FAL).

On top of that the recoil was vastly understated and I can guarantee you that after putting two 7.62mm NATO rounds through someone they will not still be firing or running at you

Which is why I stopped playing regular TDM and started only playing Hardcore. One round from the FAL knocks them down, almost guaranteed.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (2, Informative)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987912)

Oh come on, the FN FAL (SLR) is the only one in the game that DOESNT reload like that. He (you) take a new magazine and use it to knock the eject mechanism to remove the spent magazine. The FN FAL is the only rifle in the game that does this (despite the AK having a similar eject mechanism, making it possible.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. There are two controls by the magazine port, the magazine eject and the bolt hold-open device. Hitting the magazine eject is irrelevant to what I am talking about, it is the hold-open device that you release after you change magazine. The breach-block has been held to the rear and the ejection port is now open to view the open magazine; release the HOD when you affix the new mag and it will charge the breach from the new magazine. Essentially to the onlooker this can be one fluid motion where the magazine is affixed and the rifle appears to automatically ready itself. The AK47 famously does not have a hold-open device, it is famous for the old "Dead Man's Click".

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988238)

@bigtomrodney, moridin I think we're both a bit confused. The part of my comment you quoted there I was simply pointing out that you mention a simple remove and replace action by the "hand", but I point out that, in the game, using the FAL has a special "fun/cheeky/whatever" reload manoeuvre that means he takes a new magazine and uses it to knock out the current one in one swift move. I read somewhere that this little "easter egg", if you like, was originally planned for the AK. Later on I go on to comment the fact that, were the magazine empty, he pulls the bolt all the way back, rather than simply clicking it back into place (I realise my terminology is a bit off, I was never officially taught).

As a side note, using the FAL, the mag that is dispelled - regardless of whether you emptied it or not - is seen to still have rounds in it as it flies off.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (3, Insightful)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988140)

He (you) take a new magazine and use it to knock the eject mechanism to remove the spent magazine. The FN FAL is the only rifle in the game that does this (despite the AK having a similar eject mechanism, making it possible. In fact, this nonchalant reloading was originally going to be used on the AK, not the FAL).

Yes, but pretty much every recent shooter I've played has you drop a magazine, seat a magazine, and then pull the charging handle. Which... is dumb.

If I had a round in the chamber, it is entirely unnecessary to work the charging handle at all. Seat the mag, pull the trigger.

If I did not have a round in the chamber, seat the mag and unseat the charging handle from its held open position.

Now, if the game were to have weapon failures, it would be necessary to pull the charging handle. Clear a jam, or because the bolt failed to lock back on an empty magazine, failure to feed/fire/extract/eject. Whatever. I suspect people wouldn't like that because its less fun. But.. where is the fun in the reloading animation being pointlessly long? In fact, it punishes players with less skill to a greater degree than those with high skill. They're more likely to need to reload under fire because they use more bullets to score a kill.

I guess its an incentive to not suck.. but.. it is neither fun nor realistic.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987704)

I haven't played many FPS games, and most that I have played, weren't much fun to me. The original Doom was okay because it was new, but in Counterstrike and most other games, movement is ridiculously fast en jerky, and the way the fight happens isn't exactly convincing.

The only FPS I really enjoyed was America's Army. Movement speeds that I can believe (and they give me some to think about what the hell I'm doing too), you need to aim carefully at hazy silhouettes, and with a powerful scope, your aim wanders all over the place. And if you get shot, you're really hurt. The game itself is more about sneaking, outflanking and finding good cover than about who can fire the most bullets. I liked it.

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988154)

> The original Doom was okay because it was new, but in Counterstrike and most other games, movement is ridiculously fast en jerky,

Movement in Doom was and is way faster than most FPS nowadays. And it was fun that way- arcade-style battles, rockets vs shotguns etc, with players outrunning rockets sometimes...

Re:More of this kind of complaint please. (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988268)

The main problem of realism is that nowadays, weapons are deadly and war is not fun. Shoot someone even in the chest even with a cheap handgun, he is dead or incapacitated. Weapons are not the only thing unrealistic in a game, medical condition also is.

Guns are taking the path of swords : compared to more modern weapons like missiles, mortar, airstrikes, they are less and less efficient and useful in far less cases but we like them. As kids we were given wooden swords and plastic guns so we like our toys. Games are about fun, about fantasies of a grown-up child. I always thought that Quake 3 got it right : shooters are about running, jumping, teleporting, shooting various things at people, respawning fast and living through a very fast-paced game. You don't want realism in a shooter game. If you want to have a realistic depiction of a war zone, have a RPG with shooting scenes, but don't expect realism in a game where you expect to shoot more than ten rounds every minute.

Or EA's stance (1)

Wolvenhaven (1521217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987474)

Being too lazy to model a gun so they only make half of it and then mirror.

Realism is usefull only to a point (4, Insightful)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987478)

Games are, in the end, games. Inmersion is important, but inmersion withouth fun will be... well.. not fun. So in the end videogames are mostly like complicated boardgames with the rules written in programming code.
In a game where having pistols works as very short distance weapons is not fun or usefull, the pistol will work mostly like another rifle.
( Ex: Games modeled after Rock, Paper, Scissors will force rockets as antivehicle weapons, that will not kill a soldier in a direct hit. )

And who cares? some people care... people that know real weapons, like (maybe) soldiers, and people that love weapons and love to read all details. And this affect games, because these people play videogames and is a very vocal group, and can get his point right.

There are lots of games, so generalization is poor here. There are games that aims for high levels of realism, or different levels of realism / gameplay. In one side of the spectrum there are games like Unreal and Modern Warfare 2, subreal products. On the other side there are "combat simulations" like ArmA. In the middle you have games like Battlefield.

Games are not getting wrong anything, games are remodeling weapons for his own purposes. We all know Kings are not forced to move in only 8 different directions, but is usefull for chess to model kings that way (and this don't make chess 'wrong').

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

txoof (553270) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987750)

Like you say, some people play the games for the realism, and the others play for the fun. I personally like games with ridiculously entertaining weapons like Ratchet and Clank. The weapons designers for that game have a great sense of humor and create weapons that do more than just blow things up. They turn your enemies into exploding ducks and shoot wads of slime. Clearly, there's nothing even remotely realistic about those weapons, but I get a chuckle out of them.

If you're going to whinge about the realism of FPS, then you should probably do something about the ridiculous amount of damage a player can take while you're at it. If you're going for realism, one bullet takes you out of the fight and probably kills you. Or, take the realism to the extreme and give the user just one shot to play the game through. If you die, the game self destructs. Now that would be realistic. Stupid, but realistic.

FPS are about diversion, entertainment and the opportunity to live another reality for a short period of time. If you want to develop a title that focuses on physics, tactics and realism, go for it. Cutting down other titles for having unrealistic weapons is just a waste of breath.

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987752)

Games are, in the end, games. Inmersion is important, but inmersion withouth fun will be... well.. not fun.

What exactly is "fun" according to you? Fun is highly subjective. Lots of people like immersion and don't enjoy having their suspension of disbelief broken rudely because some designer thought something needed to be more "fun".

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987852)

And when you go to too real, things just get un fun Real warfware isn't fun. A "realistic" wargame would be one where you rush to get setup and deployed, stand around for weeks waiting for orders, and if you get shot and die you can never play again because you are dead. Perhaps a bit too realistic.

Even in terms of weapons realism it can be bad. Take the Battlefield games, especially the current day Bad Company 2. Well, if that were "realistic" the vehicles the US had would be superior to the Russian ones (the canceled T-95 was designed to content with the M1A2, the T-90 does not). In the real world, the US has better weapons. No surprise, they spend a shitload on them. What's more, the vehicles would be extremely powerful against infantry. If you think a couple of RPG hits will take out an M1A2, think again. They, fairly literally, just mess up the paint. Also, some weapons would simply be better than others. It wouldn't be a tradeoff, there are just guns that are better made than other guns.

Well that would suck. Nobody would want to play on the weaker side, and having to face off against near invincible tanks would be horrible. So the game backs off on it. It is "realistic" in that it looks fairly real, the weapons are based on real weapons, the world it is in is like our own in many ways and so on. However realism is frequently set aside for fun. It isn't trying to accurately simulate a war, it is trying to be a fun game that is loosely based on modern day war devices.

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

ddegirmenci (1644853) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988094)

A "realistic" wargame would be one where you rush to get setup and deployed, stand around for weeks waiting for orders, and if you get shot and die you can never play again because you are dead. Perhaps a bit too realistic.

I'm too lazy to look for the link, but there was a parody of MW2 IIRC, where you would do exactly that: The objectives tab would list "Endure tedious smalltalk." :) And then you would go aside to smoke a cig and then get shot from the side: GAME OVER.

In the real world, the US has better weapons. No surprise, they spend a shitload on them. *snip* It isn't trying to accurately simulate a war, it is trying to be a fun game that is loosely based on modern day war devices.

Exactly. In the real world, wars are not about heroes or soldiers, it's about countries and more. If you want full realism in a game, then you should model the effect of a $5 difference in manufacturing costs on the country's economy and therefore the budget allocated to soldiers' food, ammunition etc. On a larger scale, a tank of a country may be weaker than the others', but a, say, $5000 (I have no idea about costs so this is only for exampling purposes) difference per unit may leave the country much more money to fiddle with, so the case would be "lose a few more tanks, win the war through politics/economy". Imagine this being implemented in a game: would the players controlling those lost tanks be happy with the game? Would anybody prefer to play on the side with weaker tools, despite the fact that that side will be the final victor? I think not.

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

ddegirmenci (1644853) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988106)

Oh, and... This is exactly why I stick to playing grand strategy games (preferably moddables so the geek community will make them as realistic as possible within the game's mechanics) and play FPSs only for fun and nothing else.

Screw FPSs, come play BaboViolent2. That's the real shit.

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987920)

agree. chess is warfare, too. not realistic. game.

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987932)

This question of fun vs immersion or fun vs realism has always been on the table. As a former developer for a game aiming for what a gamer would call extreme realism, I've asked myself these question all the time. One thing I found is that it's extremely something to simulate something you never lived. I fired rifles, but I've never been into combat. I can only assume that it can sometimes be a real pain. How can one simulate this in a game, while still making it enjoyable.

The pistol example you bring up is a good one. Why are pistol mostly useless in games if they don't act like super rifles? Why are they so useless if they have real-life like limitations? On reasons is that the implementation of limitations in games is very selective, mostly in order to maximize the fun factor. Really few people enjoy playing a game where you have difficulty moving around in thigh spaces because your weapon is too bulky. But unless you model real-life limitations like these, the pistols will remain mostly useless. In the end it is a question of balance... you always chose which effects and limitations you implement as, obviously, you can't implement them all.

Aiming for greater realism implies adding harder and more limitations and most gamers don't enjoy limitations. They want to control their environment and not be controlled by it.

In the end, I agree that games are not getting it wrong. They are doing it wrong and that on purpose. Just like movies, game developers understood that real life is not only boring for the masses, but is also often perceived as "unrealistic" by the layman.

Re:Realism is usefull only to a point (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988320)

In COD4, which isn't exactly a master of realism, pistols aren't useless. They're better than snipers and machine guns at close range, because the former have terrible close range aim and fire rate, and the later are so heavy you move much slower, and take too much time to start firing (and take an eternity to reload).

almost everything wrong (4, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987484)

Well take a sound team and film unit to a part of the world with real arms dealers, a wide selection of special forces, Soviet, US, South African bush wars, UK, NATO, and current weapons...
Then set up as needed and test, test, test.
Perhaps build a rig to measure push back and chart the different guns?
That will give you the laws of physics, you will have sound and visuals from every aspect.
This is not the old days of a quick sketch, a low res gui and a royalty-free gun audio license on a cd.
Why is the young digital generation of artists so sheltered should be the only question.
If they are unable to travel and work with real life, time to rethink the staff?
If your an aspiring 'artist' turn of the anime, xbox, sony time wasters and learn to draw in the real world.

Re:almost everything wrong (4, Informative)

fyonn (115426) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987816)

well, racing game designers often go and remeasure the various test tracks, and run the stats of their modelled cars through the manufacturer, why not the same with FPS's? doesn't have to be in a warzone, but these weapons are available to be photographed, measured, tested and modelled.

dave

Re:almost everything wrong (3, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988102)

Why waste money on realism that doesn't contribute to the entertainment value of entertainment products?

Unpossible! (4, Funny)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987492)

You mean to tell me that my BFG 9000 was simply made up, it does not match a real world device?

Re:Unpossible! (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987552)

Shocking isn't it? At least the HL gravity gun was based on solid research.

Re:Unpossible! (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987666)

I dont care what you all day, my KF-7 Soviet is a real gun, I have seen them on TV.

Re:Unpossible! (1)

Destoo (530123) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988360)

Just like monopoly money is designed to look and feel like real money, it's not. It's a game device.
As long as some of the functions are preserved, it served its role.
That BFG 9000 sure dominated.

"And The Science Gets Done and You Make a Neat Gun For the People Who Are Still Alive."
--GLaDOS

Obligatory XKCD (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32987502)

http://xkcd.com/359/

realistic weapons (1)

_o_o-14 (1845308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987642)

"The fact is that we are not trying to simulate reality but are creating products to provide entertainment." So what exactly is the problem? I always was under the impression videogames are products to provide entertainment. If you honestly think weapons have some sort of artistic value you can visit the shooting range.. or join the army.

Re:realistic weapons (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988132)

I always was under the impression videogames are products to provide entertainment.

Yes. I am gratified to see that in the "Realism vs Fun" debate, there's a game developer who comes down on the side of "Fun".

But entertainment takes different forms. Just as there are people who will spend thousands of dollars, dress up in funny clothes, carry heavy equipment into the field, paint themselves with stuff that smells like pee, and sit in a damp blind for hours for the enjoyment of snuffing the life of some woodland critter minding its own business, there are gamers who enjoy "simulation" games to do the same thing, except sitting at your computer.

Me, I like your Burnout Paradise type of game where you get to crash cars and race and none of it is remotely real. Or games where you get to mess with space and time like Singularity or Portal. If I want to shoot a duck, I'll go shoot a duck. I don't need to sit at my computer to pretend to do something. Except here on Slashdot, where I pretend to make sense.

On guns in games (4, Interesting)

Borg453b (746808) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987656)

I'm a bit of a war.tech.geek. My favourite subjectmatter is ww2 weapons; and so I get a thrill out of detailed games that portray such creations. I love to see and interact with a detailed pletora of weapons that i recognize. I do, however, get more picky when the weapon systems get "up close and personal". When the game portrays the notion that you control an existing weapon directly, I do expect some of it's characteristics to be reflected in the game.

Immersion & "draft damage": Having been a conscript for 8 months, I've had my perception of small arms altered. I know now that regular infantry man usually engages the enemy with single fire, and that the precision and stopping power afforded by a modern assault rifle is something thats too often is only portrayed by sniper rifles in games. I tire of the inability to take proper aim, and alter the firing mode in many games. Crouching and going prone is also something that's often being shunned by the industry.

We're are, as the article puts it, often left with a hollywood version of weapons. I'm not suggesting that each virtual m16 should come with a virtual cleaning kit, but I would like to see more "portrayed" realism in the handling: that the (deadly) tool can be operated with some of the freedom and functionality that it provides in real life. I realize that this approach is not for all types of games.

I realize that games are abstractions and aspects of realism can be costly and complex to implement in carefully balanced game mechanics; especially if they're intended to provide a competitive space for players.

For gun nuts: I was trained with a Diemaco C7 with an elcan optical sight

P.s: We we're missing a proper ww2 tank movie :/. Most ww2 hollywood tank portrayals pre-"saving private ryan" are horrendous.

Re:On guns in games (2, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987800)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Orchestra:_Combined_Arms [wikipedia.org] did try some of the things you may enjoy.

Re:On guns in games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32988044)

Thank you :)

Looks like something I'd enjoy.

Re:On guns in games (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988408)

We we're missing a proper ww2 tank movie :/. Most ww2 hollywood tank portrayals pre-"saving private ryan" are horrendous.

Dude, Kelly's Heroes...soooo good!

What utter bullshit (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32987680)

"there is nothing on it that does not have a function -- because guns are tools for professionals"

Spoken like a man that has never been inside a gun shop.

Re:What utter bullshit (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987866)

Most of these games try put you in the role of military professionals in combat situations.

You're mistaken in the same way you would mix up professional race cars with riced-up corollas.

Say it isnt so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32987756)

You mean you can't surive a .50 cal sniper rifle to the face?

Lighten up! (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987758)

I don't *expect* a BFG 9000 to be realistic. If it were, it would kill half the fun.

Re:Lighten up! (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988010)

I don't *expect* a BFG 9000 to be realistic.
If it were, it would kill half the fun.

I'm pretty sure that BFG9k would kill *all* the fun, and then some.

Re:Lighten up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32988218)

I don't *expect* a BFG 9000 to be realistic.
If it were, it would kill half the fun.

All of it, actually;)

It has to be said (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#32987988)

The fact is that we are not trying to simulate reality but are creating products to provide entertainment.

      Thank you Captain Obvious. Hollywood, with its disintegrating fruit stands, good looking and extremely slutty women and exploding cars, has known for a long time that reality is pretty boring. In fact, most people LIKE it that way.

because guns are tools for professionals.

      Save that BS for your next NRA meeting. There's nothing professional about most of the people who own/use guns. They are tools for killing. It is their sole purpose. They may be used by professionals (SOME soldiers, SOME law enforcement, SOME private gun owners), but gun ownership does not confer professional status. "Ganstas" and drug traffickers have a lot of guns and use them regularly, and there's nothing professional about that. Nor is there anything professional about the husband who shoots his wife, or the guy who shoots his neighbor. I say this as a responsible gun owner, and I hope I never ever have to be in a situation where I have to think about using it.

Re:It has to be said (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32988334)

They are tools for killing. It is their sole purpose.

Save that BS for your Brady Center mailing list. There are millions of firearms owned and billions of rounds fired annually. Only a tiny fraction are ever even fired at a living creature. Most of them hit paper. Intentionally. And thats all that quite a lot of guns ever do, for the entire life of the owner. Bullseye shooters, event shooters, or just I-like-shooting shooters.

Unless "can be lethal" is your only requirement for declaring something has the "sole purpose" of killing. In which case, you're surrounded by such objects.

Re:It has to be said (3, Interesting)

iPeg (1861838) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988414)

Captain Obvious here :-) hey man, this article was written for gun-nuts who have no clue how games are made. I didn't ask slashdot to post it here, but I can see how they got confused since these are two topics in one. Also, guns are tools, no mater what your personal view on gun control is. This was written from a design point of view and maybe you should read the whole article, because it's on designing sci-fi weapons not an advertisement for buying guns. Cheers mate, keep it up :-)

realism? in MY games?! (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988200)

So, you're telling me that game designers are sacrificing realism to produce entertaining weapons?

Shocking!

Next thing you'll tell me is that there is no secret Black Mesa research facility.

Sure, for some games some degree of realism adds to the enjoyment. STALKER, for example, benefits from having vaguely realistic settings and weapons. But even if you're playing something that's genuinely set in the real world - like one of the Call of Duty games - you're still playing a game. You still have to simplify things down to the point where information can be conveyed quickly and easily with nothing more than a screen and some speakers. You have to be able to interact with the world with a keyboard and mouse. The world needs to be altered and constrained and limited enough to run on a modern computer. And it all has to ultimately be fun to play.

Reply from Pascal Eggert (5, Interesting)

iPeg (1861838) | more than 3 years ago | (#32988336)

Hey guys, first of all, this headline is misleading. I didn't wrote this article as a Crytek Dev, I just happen to work at Crytek and this is my personal opinion. The article was written for gun-nuts to explain to them why guns are often portrayed wrongly in games, not for gamers. Also, since I just joined Crytek I'm not responsible for anything you've seen in our released games. So, remember: This has nothing to do with Crytek. Also, I want to make it very clear that my article was about games that are set in "realistic" environments, like MW, Crysis, CS, BC and so forth. I absolutely agree, that realism is not at all needed in games like UT, Serious Sam etc. The job of the gun-designer in these sort of games is completely different: he has to create an "Icon" or a recognizable shape so the player knows what he is holding without even directly looking at it. Something like the rocket launcher in Q3 or the flak in UT99. This weapon does not need to be designed around internals, but have to have a certain feel for the power and limitations of the weapon. A good "funweapon" is designed around a unique shape, something a kid could doodle on a desk at school. I personally don't like the UT3 Weapons because they are overly detailed and not as recognizable as the original guns. Thanx, iPeg

unreal tournament 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32988354)

Maybe some designer from epic games will read this and stop designing all the guns like barrels and bananas glued together in various ways and painted in random colors!
 

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>