nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   Gaming Central (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=37605)

Cheimison 09-27-04 07:25 PM

Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
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 07:43 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
(omg) Join the military and stop playing video games.:rofl

-=DVS=- 09-27-04 07:44 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
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 09:22 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
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 10:13 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
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 10:21 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NightFire
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 10:35 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
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 10:44 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GamingLordX
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 10:49 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
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 09-27-04 11:04 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge
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.

Quote:

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 09-27-04 11:15 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
So in other words you think games should be more like the History Channel. :rolleyes2

Mr. Hunt 09-27-04 11:19 PM

Re: Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games
 
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.