PDA

View Full Version : Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games


Pages : [1] 2

Cheimison
09-27-04, 08:25 PM
A lot of people are probably aware that the levels in even the 'large-scale' games, like BF 1942, could be accurately most of the way across with a 9mm pistol. Some of you might also realise that miniguns actually spin up to full cyclic rate in less than half a second, and that the interim firing rate is in the thousands of rounds per minute - hardly a 'lag' that we see in most video games bearing the weapon.

So, I'm wondering, is someone ever going to make a game with realistic ballistic performance, or does the fact that realistic ballistics makes infantry into hamburger going to hamper such a game?

Some Real Life (TM) facts about fairly common battlefield weapons:
Average MMG (7.62x51mm) has an effective firing rate of 50-200rpm, requires a barrel change every few hundred rounds (unless it's being fired very slowly) and has an effective sighting range of over a mile, with an effective kill range of about two miles.
Average HMG (.50BMG, 30-06) works pretty much as described above, except for a generally lower fire rate, an effective lethality range of about 4-7 kilometers, and it will blow through buildings while retaining enough force to destroy cars. Some versions (the M2 MG for example) are specially sighted for sniping, and outperform most sniper rifles in this function.
A minigun fires a 'cone' of lead that is essentially impossible to evade or survive. The secret to infantry survival is to not get shot at by miniguns. Vietnamese soldiers refused to ambush any Vulcan escorted supply train, as it was pure suicide.
30mm belt-feld fully automatic grenade launchers, with an effective range of over 400 meters.

All of these weapons make infantry basically dogmeat. They'd turn any sieging action into what sieges actually are: hour, or day long, rushes until the assaulting force gives up or the defending force runs out of ammo. Modern solutions to this are obvious: stop trying to use infantry. They use heavy armour, bombing runs, howitzers and other massive shelling attacks to destroy 90% of the enemy soldiers, weapons and supplies before the infantry even considers going near it. This, of course, would be rather awkward in a first-person shooter which has no choice but to be an infantry game. Even games with vehicles, like BF1942 or Joint Operations, don't take into account the fact that those strikes occur en masse - you send entire divisions of tanks, not one or two tanks. A tank by itself is a deadly machine, but any jackass infantryman with an RPG can stop the show real quick. By attacking in phases (pre-strike with missiles, shellings and bombs; move in by armoured corps; observation and siege by snipers, HMGs and armour) the coordinated strikes preventing the enemy from attacking back (it's hard to line up a Stinger missile when some jackass is trying to blow your nuts off with a .50BMG).

Of course, the infantry invasion/siege would be next, but infantry aren't just slogging it out. They still have dozens of armoured vehicles, machineguns, grenade launchers and can often call in helicopter support, air strikes, shellings etc.

All in all this makes realism incompatible with FPS war games - FPS games are infantry, and infantry would be dogmeat if they actually tried to rush an enemy base like they constantly do in video games. Even if we some time had 1000 player games in the future so dozens of tanks and copters are going about, that would just again reflect how irrelevant individual guys with guns are in a battle.

S.I.N
09-27-04, 08:43 PM
(omg) Join the military and stop playing video games.:rofl

-=DVS=-
09-27-04, 08:44 PM
Your right , real wars are realy no fun , and we woun't have such simulator for personal use anytime soon , what we could get minor improvements , like good physic engine , realistik body damage with blood for nice effect :drooling: , maybe more realism on common weapons , like shooting thro thin walls and such , and finaly beutifull interactive enviroments we all want eye candy :D

Cheimison
09-27-04, 10:22 PM
Pesonally I've always liked steps toward realistic weaponry. Stop giving human beings miniguns, for one thing. But I'd like to be able to snipe at someone over a mile away, and hit them accurately, and kill them instantly. I know lots of players hate snipers. Then eat the dirt, because .338 is a bitch.
I'd like to be able to accurately shoot at someone 500m away with an M16 - he moves, so I don't neccesarily have to hit him. But I should hit whatever is between my sights, instead of the arbitrary, silly 'spray' that we get in video games.
And I want to aim with iron sights, damn it. No crosshair, no center-screen focus. Just some ******* iron sights.
And when I shoot a guy in Level 3 Ballistic armour with an AK-47, he should die. Body armour is worthless against rifles.
Oh, and I want to be able to blow **** up. Walls, bunkers, the ground, trees. And I want to be able to shoot a door to pieces.

The technology exists, and has existed, and does exist, in different games. Someone just needs to dovetail this stuff already.

NightFire
09-27-04, 11:13 PM
Very interesting thoughts. Maybe one day, they will be implemented.

It's a question of the fun factor. People think, for whatever reason, that repeatedly dying in a game is no fun, and so they wont play that game anymore. This equals less sales for the publisher, which means less money for the developer, thus resulting in bankruptcy, which is bad.

A good way to balance that out would be introduce some sort of standar BERP battle armour, which you would serve instead of health. After all your electricity is gone from being fired at by tanks, bombs, or weapons, you must either get a new battery pack, or take a few bullets and die. Perhaps a solution.

Cheimison
09-27-04, 11:21 PM
It's a question of the fun factor. People think, for whatever reason, that repeatedly dying in a game is no fun, and so they wont play that game anymore.
Clearly they haven't played Day of Defeat!

GamerGuyX
09-27-04, 11:35 PM
Well if you want all this so damn much then go and create your own game company. Hell, if Vin Diesel can anybody could. :bash:

Cheimison
09-27-04, 11:44 PM
Well if you want all this so damn much then go and create your own game company. Hell, if Vin Diesel can anybody could. :bash:
I slacked off on programming about five years ago, I can't model worth a damn. I guess I could always become a capital investor. I might look into it.

Edge
09-27-04, 11:49 PM
Yeah, video games have never really been about being totally 100% "realistic". Partially because the technology to make a TOTALLY interactive battlefield that reacts exactly like you'd expect is far from perfect, and partially because fun always takes precidence over realism. Battlefield 1942 is obviously very arcade oriented, it doesn't act like a simulator. You don't have to turn the key to start vehicles, you don't have to warm up the engine to keep it from stalling, you never run out of gas, etc.. Weapon physics, like vehicle physics, are tweaked for maximum fun and minimal frustration. The idea of a game where you can literally snipe any enemy from across the map with almost any weapon may sound intruiging at first, but it would cause games to seem even MORE like a mindless shooting gallery and people would be turned away and go back to playing Counter-strike or BF1942 almost immediately.

So I'm perfectly happy with games the way they are. Some of my favorite games (most noteably Natural Selection) are based on totally unrealistic scenarios, but I play them because they're fun. I mean seriously, do you honestly think that in 2550 or whenever NS takes place that we would have a automatic rifle that spreads bullets in about a 4 degree radius around where you aim, that an equally numbered group of marines would land on a hostile space station to try to fend off the alien invaders rather than just blow the thing up (or just use a certain band of radiation on the station that's lethal to the aliens), and that even though they don't have the technology to use rocket launcher or sniper rifles they somehow have a sub-sonic cannon that can fire through walls, but ONLY at alien structures, and that the said cannon would be constructed basically out of thin air just because some guy sitting in a chair says it should appear? To be honest, I do find certain aspects of realism to be intruiging (in particular I loved the immersiveness that being in a first-person view and reacting to the world brings, like in Breakdown or hopefully HL2), but even the greatest game in the world isn't going to be played if it isn't fun. Err...did that make sense?

Cheimison
09-28-04, 12:04 AM
The idea of a game where you can literally snipe any enemy from across the map with almost any weapon may sound intruiging at first, but it would cause games to seem even MORE like a mindless shooting gallery and people would be turned away and go back to playing Counter-strike or BF1942 almost immediately.?
The answer to that is: More complex level (hills, valleys, complete buildings you can run around in, rivers, tall grass etc) and levels big enough so that you can't shoot like that. I remember Delta Force something or other had levels big enough where I actually couldn't use the OICW - it just wasn't reliably accurate at a klik. Levels of that size make snipers useful without sacrificing realistic ballistics. The problem with most war games is their levels are pretty small and sparse.

To be honest, I do find certain aspects of realism to be intruiging (in particular I loved the immersiveness that being in a first-person view and reacting to the world brings, like in Breakdown or hopefully HL2), but even the greatest game in the world isn't going to be played if it isn't fun. Err...did that make sense
But there are also people like me who can't stand that crazy bull**** for many, many reasons, first of all that it doesn't make any ******* sense. I can't even watch movies anymore because they're just - retarded (aside from the fact that they're all the same movie with cosmetic adjustments). I like consistency and logic in my media, which is why I prefer HP Lovecraft to RL Stein. If someone likes RL Stein, fine, but it's still a bunch of retarded garbage.

GamerGuyX
09-28-04, 12:15 AM
So in other words you think games should be more like the History Channel. :rolleyes2

Mr. Hunt
09-28-04, 12:19 AM
Here you go... buy Unreal Tournament 2004... download Red Orchestra... and have fun. It uses ironsights and it shoots where the crosshairs aim for the most part.

Thank me later.

Subtestube
09-28-04, 12:28 AM
As a matter of interest, have you tried Joint Ops? It's nowhere near as realistic as what you want, but all the weaps do have Iron sights, you can hit people from absurd distances with a Sniper rifle if you're good enough (leading them a little, accounting for bullet dip & all), and the arenas are HUGE. It's still nothing like what you want, but you might enjoy it a little more than the other games currently on offer.

Fatman
09-28-04, 12:57 AM
One reason for lack of realism is fun factor. Most games are made to please the lowest common denominator, weekend warriors. Just for the sake of seeing how it works, try FlashPoint. SVD can reach out to about 1.2-3k but chances are you'll waste most of your ammo trying to hit anything but a tight squad. LAW/RPG, same thing. Looks awesome in the movies, and in other games, but try hitting T80 from 60-80 meters. Extreme realism will only be in simulators. Look at flight sims, small but dedicated market. Games don't sell well, but there are some extremely realistic sims.

IL2, LOMAC damage model is VERY realistic. Bullet trajectory is calculated all the way through the frame and referenced with blue prints to see if any equipment was damaged internally. Hopefully some day we'll get something like that for FPS sims. Bullet caliber, muzzle velocity distance, windage, etc and finally body damage.

FlashPoint is probably one of the few FPS games that are more sim like than the rest. Hopefully the trend will continue.

Cheimison
09-28-04, 01:08 AM
Flashpoint and America's Army are both pretty realistic in terms of actual weapon physics, although AA tends to play like slow-motion Counter-Strike. I do recall taking down enemies in Flashpoint with an M16 at something like 400m.
And the whole thing isn't neccesarily that I should be able to hit a guy at a mile, just that I should be able to hit what is between my sights. Getting that guy between the sights is up to me.

Cheimison
09-28-04, 02:40 AM
rainbow six 3 is very realistic also...
R6 3 is realistic in terms of damage, but guns are uncannilly inaccurate (although far, far more accuate than in Counter-Strike or the like). This is most likely to compensate for the severly brain-damaged AI who can't navigate doors, find cover or just plain run properly. Also the guns don't blowthrough properly. The Barrett Light Fifty should easily pierce through just about every building in that game, but it is stopped by many walls. I know personally that a .50BMG rifle will blow through a solid brick wall, somewhere I have a video on CD of a friend of mine shooting someone through a wall, and you can see the brains literally explode up over the wall from the force, after the round travelled approx. 550m and pierced 6" or 7" of red brick.

Viral
09-28-04, 03:56 AM
I know personally that a .50BMG rifle will blow through a solid brick wall, somewhere I have a video on CD of a friend of mine shooting someone through a wall, and you can see the brains literally explode up over the wall from the force, after the round travelled approx. 550m and pierced 6" or 7" of red brick.

Why do you have video's of your friends killing people? :retard:

jolle
09-28-04, 04:20 AM
I assume that gamedevs generally try to balance weapons to balance the gameplay in MP, at the expense of realism on the weapons.

Subtestube
09-28-04, 04:44 AM
I could be wrong, but I think the reason weaps aren't perfectly accurate is that it's SO DAMN EASY to aim with a mouse, even at absurd range. Real soldiers wouldn't be close to as accurate as a person with a mouse... unless there were some way to simulate kick... like having the shots scatter a little. Still, I don't know pretty much anything about real guns, so I'll shut up now.

Cheimison
09-28-04, 04:54 AM
Why do you have video's of your friends killing people? :retard:
Army scout-sniper in Iraq.

Also, for reference, check out an actual examples of sniper rifle accuracy:
http://www.datazap.net/sites/mele/sc/tpg1-group.jpg

I could be wrong, but I think the reason weaps aren't perfectly accurate is that it's SO DAMN EASY to aim with a mouse, even at absurd range. Real soldiers wouldn't be close to as accurate as a person with a mouse... unless there were some way to simulate kick... like having the shots scatter a little. Still, I don't know pretty much anything about real guns, so I'll shut up now.
Yes, you need reticule wobble from hearbeat and breathing (which is reduced when you are in a shooting crouch, and greatly reduced when benchfiring or prone-shooting. Basically your gun should 'wander' a bit outside of your control, which wouldn't really matter much at close range but would make long range shots difficult. Also wind, bullet drop etc need to be taken into account, especially for snipers.

Just for the record, bipods do NOT make rifles 'more accurate' or easier to shoot. In fact, they make them awkward because the weight shifts forward and the gun wobbles weirdly after you fire. The function of the tripod is mainly the keep the gun out of the mud and so you don't have to support the whole weight for hours at a time.

vampireuk
09-28-04, 06:42 AM
You sir are captain tactics

Captain Tactics: After watching Full Metal Jacket 20 or 30 times, this fine young lad has learned everything there is to know about urban combat. Not only is he a military genius just waiting to be discovered and recruited by the Federal Bureau of Discovering and Recruiting Military Geniuses, but he is benevolent enough to share his foolproof battle plans with the rest of his team, and even inform all the other players whenever their strategies do not meet with his approval. Lucky them!
Signature move: Saying "rush right", charging off by himself into a hail of enemy gunfire, then repeatedly saying "u stupid lusers didnt rush w/me or id be alive. assholes"
Strategy: Take a shot at him with a pump shotgun from all the way across the map. You can easily dispatch him seconds later when he stops playing to type out a 500-word essay on why shotguns should not be used at long range

:D

Cheimison
09-28-04, 07:10 AM
You sir are captain tactics
:D
I'm more on the order of the guy who argues about the AR-18 muzzle flash.

My main issue is that game makers seem to intentionally refuse to learn about real guns. It's like how Marxists intentionally refuse to learn real economics, any discussion on the matter and anything they do about it is infuriatingly retarded.

And actually, 'across the map' in most games is reasonable shotgun range. Shotguns don't spray out in some ridiculous fashion as depicted in CS or Doom 3.

vampireuk
09-28-04, 07:25 AM
Who cares if the guns are not realistic, they do it to balance the game.

Cheimison
09-28-04, 07:30 AM
Who cares if the guns are not realistic, they do it to balance the game.
Because I want to play a game with realistic guns.
Basically:
I go out and shoot guns. Some mine, mostly other people's. I've fired everything from Mac-10s to sniper rifles. And I enjoy it, and I think "Man, violence is neat without danger". Thus I want a game that simulates the stuff I don't get to do with those guns to human beings.

vampireuk
09-28-04, 07:40 AM
Well done you have shot guns, most people would find a completely realistic game boring however because it would be completely unbalanced.