Realistic Games




View Poll Results :What do you perfer: Non realistic, Somewhat Realistic, Realistic
Non realistic? 0 0%
Somewhat Realistic? 3 25.00%
Realistic 9 75.00%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
December 26th, 2007  
Cdt Matteo
 
 

Topic: Realistic Games


Many game designers are choosing to make their games as realistic as possible. Take Americas AA Army: True Soldiers (sequel to a very good game), the game designers has paired up the the USA Army to make a game that's realistic to combat (although I have never experienced war (I will in time) it seems to be realistic enough). Good fighting scenarios, interesting maps and real weapons.
Unfortunately, many games which claim to be realistic allow you to get shot a dozen times and then if you wait a little bit your health is back.
Atleast Ghost Recon 2 Advanced Warfighter is cool because if you get shot once, your either dead or waiting (bleeding) until someone heals you.

But other game designers are choosing to make their games non realistic. Take the Battlefield series: For the most part it's a pretty cool game with big maps (lots of fun), realistic weapons (most of the time) and vehicles. Vehicles is what makes it all that funner and all the less realistic. Not every soldier can hop in a tank (or helicopter) alone (what happened to a 4 man tank crew? (well atleast for the Abrams)) and drive/fly it.

So I asked you: What do you perfer? Completely non realistic war games (Team Fortress 2 type games), Somewhat realistic war games (Battlefield series type games, or completely realistic (if their is any but GRAW2 comes close)?

Edit: How would you make games more realistic?
December 27th, 2007  
major liability
 
 
I prefer realistic games in the vein of Hostile Intent and Red Orchestra. They use real ballistic models and require you to use your ironsights to aim, as hipshots are difficult to pull off unless you've got a SMG in close range. One shot to the torso from a rifle will usually put you down.

I believe the more realistic a game is, the better. That way you don't have any one-man-armies dodging bullets and stabbing you. You have to rely on your teammates to survive and think about what you are doing; it's a test of wits as well as reflexes and aim.
December 28th, 2007  
MontyB
 
 
The problem as I see it is that even the "realistic" games lack realism and immersion, I am a fan of the TF2 style of shooter simply because it is quick and as much as I like games along the battlefield lines to me they are no more realistic than the likes of TF2 because no matter what graphics they use game play is still rather sterile.

Lets face it for the most part its red vs blue, the guy you are shooting at is clearly different and distinguishable from your own team.
--
December 28th, 2007  
Supostat
 
 
Of course realistic, however there are lot of limits, what makes it very difficult to create a really realistic game.

For example, realistic game needs very accurate physics - that means different trajectories and penetration capabilities for different weapons/ammo. Highly specific `damage` to objects and soldiers - there again are needed very accurate mathematic models of projectiles and objects, i.e. how objects `react` when they are hit by projectiles. For example again - consequences of HE round, fired in building, will depend from building structure and place where it was hit. So, to calculate all these physics `realistically`, very powerful hardware will be needed.

Other thing is, that realistic game request some other things:
- an accurate subordination of players;
- Logical scenario with some sense (ideal also would be development of scenario - i.e., most of next missions must be depending on results of previous missions).
- System of `injury` must be something like:
a) minor injury: bleeding (can be stopped with assistance of any soldier with use `small medikit` each soldier carries with him), an effect of `shaking hands` and lost ability to run, while still able to shoot. Stopping of the bleeding removes effects of `shaking hands` and `slowness`.
b) major injury: bleeding (can be stopped with assistance of any soldier with use of `small medikit`), lost ability to shoot and stand/walk/run (only crawling is possible). If bleeding is not stopped in X seconds/minutes, character dies. Ability to shoot, walk and run can be regained with `large medikits` (only `medics` have such kits with them and only limited amount. Additional amounts of `medikits` can be stored in bases, vehicles, ammo crates).
c) concussion: a near explosion or major injury can call concussion, a temporal unconsciousness. Only time (X seconds) is needed to get the consciousness back.
- Every soldier can carry only limited weight with him. One sidearm (handgun) and two small firearms are allowed: assault rifle/sniper rifle/SMG and LAW/secondary assault rifle/SMG. In case of MG/SAW, no secondary firearm is allowed. Underbarrel GL's like M-203 goes within the assault rifle it is attached.
- Equipment from dead soldiers can be picked up and used.

Imho the game with most of these things implemented is `Operation Flashpoint`.
December 28th, 2007  
Wolf
 
 
It depends on the mood I'm in.
Sometimes I'd be more willing to play something non-realistic than realistic... And vice versa.

I have yet to find a "perfect", realistic game.
There are a few that come close, but that's all they are.
Reality is a difficult thing to simulate - atleast, these days it is.


Being "realistic", to me, would mean having the players act realistically.
In BF2, for instance, a player can be fearless. They can charge up to enemies without mortal concern, and keep doing it until their "numbers" run dry..... When in reality, once you do something like charging head-on towards an enemy stronghold, you don't respawn back a few seconds later.
January 1st, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
I think they all have their place.
Sometimes I want something realistic, other times something arcadish will help me unwind after a bad day.
January 1st, 2008  
Supostat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
I think they all have their place.
Sometimes I want something realistic, other times something arcadish will help me unwind after a bad day.
I agree... realistic games can sometimes be boring and request a lot of time and attention. While sometimes You just want to run around and shoot everything that moves without lot of thinking.

I think in this case `realistic` is to be discussed regarding military simulator games rather than any shooter.
January 4th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
Want a realistic shooter? Join the Army or Marine Corps and it won't get any more realistic than that. In fact, now's a good time to join if you want realism.
January 4th, 2008  
Supostat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Want a realistic shooter? Join the Army or Marine Corps and it won't get any more realistic than that. In fact, now's a good time to join if you want realism.
Well, but if You are ordered to serve as radar operator, radioman at HQ or technician at airfield? Not lot of shooting, right?
January 13th, 2008  
Marder_LT
 
 
I would prefer as much realistic, as it is tecnically possible. If it is shooter, I want real wounds so that soldier with 1% health could not fire bazooka with high accuracy, I want weapons to shoot realistic so that pistol or machine gun could break and the hero could carry realistic number of weapons (and not 999 panzerfausts + 10 another wapons with 1000 ammo to each; if it is strategy (Panzer general type), I want loyalty so that poorly equiped, but highly fanatic unit could demolish technologiclly superior unit with low morale or possibility to mobilise civilians to defend territory or wage a guerrila warfare.
The more realism, the better the game, I think.
 


Similar Topics
Games As Therapy For Walter Reed's Wounded
Weightlifter disqualified at Asian Games
Truly Asian: Asian Games offer big stage
Fierce Iran War Games Are Really A 'Game' Of Intimidation
IOC approves skicross for 2010 Games