Long Rant on Problems with Implementing Realism in FPS Games

[vampireuk]

Well done you have shot guns, most people would find a completely realistic game boring however because it would be completely unbalanced.

[Cheimison]

Originally Posted by vampireuk

Well done you have shot guns, most people would find a completely realistic game boring however because it would be completely unbalanced.

Well, assault rifles would rule the day. They're the most versatile weapon on the battle field. For position defense MGs and Snipers would be definitly the thing. I don't really see any 'balance' issue. That's how it works in real life. True, SMGs would be worthless and combat would consist of either dying a lot or hiding a lot. So?

[vampireuk]

Real life in games is boring, it takes the fun out of it, for a game to be fun you need balance. Not just the ability to wipe out everybody in your path.

[Cheimison]

Originally Posted by vampireuk

Real life in games is boring, it takes the fun out of it, for a game to be fun you need balance. Not just the ability to wipe out everybody in your path.

I disagree, on two points.
First of all you are going into the whole Gamist Vs. Simulationist argument. There is no 'right' answer, they are two play styles. In the vein of pen and paper RPGs much has been written on this subject. The problems mainly come because stupid game designers try to mix these incompatible styles.

And someone could just as easily wipe me out as I could wipe them out in such a game.

[vampireuk]

People like you asking for more realism ruined Desert Combat for several releases. The Iraqi side was made pathetically weak while the Coalition team was given better weaponry and vehicles with every single update. It got to the point where if you joined a server there would be 17 people on the Coalition team and around 5 on the Iraqi team.

I recall one update where the Coalition got a aircraft carrier, a new armoured vehicle and a littlebird helicopter. The Iraqis got a technical. Realism ruins most games.

[Cheimison]

Originally Posted by vampireuk

People like you asking for more realism ruined Desert Combat for several releases. The Iraqi side was made pathetically weak while the Coalition team was given better weaponry and vehicles with every single update. It got to the point where if you joined a server there would be 17 people on the Coalition team and around 5 on the Iraqi team.

I recall one update where the Coalition got a aircraft carrier, a new armoured vehicle and a littlebird helicopter. The Iraqis got a technical. Realism ruins most games.

Well, that's pretty much what happened in Real Life (tm).
****ty third world countries get owned like Hell in a stand up fight. That's a problem with the game concept, not realism in games.
If no one wants to play the Iraqis they should just have AI iraqis like the bad guys in Flashpoint.

I wouldn't fight for either of those groups, but if I had a choice I'd definitly go Coalition instead of Iraqi.

[vampireuk]

Which is the entire problem, people would rather have the shiny new vehicles that the coaliton has. Thankfully they finally balanced the game out so that the Iraqi team can match the Coalition team with vehicles and equipment.

[Cheimison]

Originally Posted by vampireuk

Which is the entire problem, people would rather have the shiny new vehicles that the coaliton has. Thankfully they finally balanced the game out so that the Iraqi team can match the Coalition team with vehicles and equipment.

Okay, but the Iraqis were defeated (removed as an active military presence) both times with almost ludicrous ease.
Realism constricts your game options, but that's part and parcel of 'realism'. A sci-fi game is going to have sci-fi elements. If you want to have a realistic shooter with team balance you're going to have to pick two groups that are relatively equipped, not Nazi Germany Vs. Ethiopia.

Although I'd love a game of Spanish Vs. Aztecs.

[vampireuk]

OK I give you a challenge, get hold of battlefield 1942 and download Desert Combat. I'll play as the Coalition and you play as the Iraqis. Now I'm already a highly skilled DC player and after say 30 minutes of me raping you with the Apache gunship tell me if you like realism or not

Regardless of wether the Iraqis lost the war or not the game has to be balanced to allow both teams of players to have fun, not just run over the other team with no challenge at all.

Edit: this is why balanced games are so fun...



I took out the entire blue team in one round

[Cheimison]

Originally Posted by vampireuk

OK I give you a challenge, get hold of battlefield 1942 and download Desert Combat. I'll play as the Coalition and you play as the Iraqis. Now I'm already a highly skilled DC player and after say 30 minutes of me raping you with the Apache gunship tell me if you like realism or not

That's why you don't make games based on that premise?
Have the Allies Vs. Germany, or France Vs. Britain or something that makes sense. Why would you choose a scenario where one team has no chance to win?

[vampireuk]

Well judging from your posts about this I have a bit of advice for you, turn the difficulty setting to "easy" I'm sure you will enjoy it much more then