Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games) Games

Crytek Dev On Fun vs. Realism In Game Guns 324

Posted by Soulskill
from the rocket-jumping-is-as-real-as-it-needs-to-be dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crytek Dev On Fun vs. Realism In Game Guns

Comments Filter:
  • Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sortius_nod (1080919) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:08AM (#32987424) Homepage

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

    • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RogueyWon (735973) * on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:34AM (#32987544) Journal

      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... (Score:5, Informative)

        by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @06:45AM (#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... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@@@cornell...edu> on Thursday July 22, 2010 @09:34AM (#32989054) Homepage

          I loved playing through most of the game using the stealth mode... It's a bit slower but takes more finesse.

          However, the multiplayer design of Crysis was absolute shit. Anyone should've picked up from the DX9-clients-can't-mix-with-DX10-clients that Crytek violated one of the first rules of multiplayer game architecture - DO NOT TRUST THE CLIENT. In Crysis' case, apparently they offloaded world physics calculations to the client, and also trusted the client WAY too much.

          For example, if a client said, "my 9mm pistol does 9999 damage", the server would say, "OK, 9999 damage to your target. Oh look, it's instadead."

          Similarly, if a game client said, "My vehicle is immune to all forms of fire.", the server would happily say, "You got hit with a missile. Oh, you're immune to explosive damage - no damage at all!"

          I played multiplayer for two weeks, the second of which was playing with the INI files figuring out what degree of cheating would not get noticed. (Thanks to the blatant instakillpistol cheaters, there was a LOT of potential for nonobvious cheating, such as the 400HP Toyota truck with a tweaked suspension.) After that I uninstalled the game and haven't played since. Cheating was, of course, unexciting other than the technical challenges of modding the game. Playing legit was pointless because of the ease of cheating.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by ultranova (717540)

            Playing legit was pointless because of the ease of cheating.

            So it has potential as an MBA teaching tool, then?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        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.

      • 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.

        Cr

  • Captain obvious (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tukz (664339) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:12AM (#32987442) Journal

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Animaether (411575) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:39AM (#32987584) Journal

      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Tukz (664339) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:51AM (#32987640) Journal

        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: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by iainl (136759)

          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 tha

          • by Tukz (664339)

            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.

            • by TheLink (130905)
              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
            • Alien Swarm (now free on Steam) does this.

            • Re:Captain obvious (Score:4, Insightful)

              by archangel9 (1499897) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @08:31AM (#32988440)

              A regular FPS shouldn't adopt this.

              correct, mostly because of the large amount of ammo carried in regular FPS games. 700 rounds of 7.62mm, 500x5.56mm, 12 grenades, eight rockets, four medkits, (ad nauseum). I love running at full speed, jumping and strafing whilst carrying 230 lb of ammo, not including weapons, armor and a NAV system.

              If I wanted realism, I would have joined the Corps years ago.

            • by X0563511 (793323)

              If you haven't, you might want to look into ArmA2/OA. Sounds like you'd be interested.

        • 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 s

        • This all depends on your definition on what a realistic shooter actually is. Are you talking about Modern Warfare? Bad Company? Left 4 Dead?

          These are arcade style FPS. Now a game like Arma 2 is what I would consider a realistic shooter.
          When you reload, its based on clips rather than ammo count. Weapons behave and look like their real world counter part and sound effects are accurate. You mainly hear the sound of the bullets breaking the sound barrier.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by mcgrew (92797) *

          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.

          If you loosed the ammo in the magazine, the ammo would fall out!

      • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by somersault (912633)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *
          You're absolutely right. It's been my experience that most people won't complain about that behavior in games which have an attack/defend setup, however. It's only when it happens in deathmatches that people whine (and even then, it's still a perfectly legitimate tactic).
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nabsltd (1313397)

        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

        Deus Ex has both of these built into the gameplay, and that's one of the many reasons it's still considered one of the best FPS of all time.

        Machine guns are almost impossible to control, and pistols recoil fairly realistically. You can acquire improved weapons tech that reduces this. Likewise, until you build skill as a sniper, your sight point moves randomly to simulate muscle tension.

    • Actually... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:50AM (#32987634) Journal

      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.

      • by Tukz (664339)

        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 fr

        • by Moraelin (679338)

          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 ge

        • by Moraelin (679338)

          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.

          • by Tukz (664339)

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

      • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Moraelin (679338)

          Sort of. While a crossbow did allow one to use any untrained peasant, a longbow could do the same thing at the time. Far more important IMHO was the advent of the bodkin tip, essentially a pencil-like narrow metal spike, as opposed to the more traditional triangular or broadhead arrow tips.

          In tests, a bodkin tip has been show to go right through both sides of a chain hauberk (hoodie;)) mounted on a wooden pole, as well as quite a way into the pole. And in historical accounts a point blank shot was described

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          A "weapon of class destruction", if you will...
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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.

      • by hedwards (940851)
        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.
        • by Moraelin (679338)

          Eh, it was a joke about the point-and-click vs command-line flame wars we used to have. About 10 years ago you couldn't have a thread without a group bitching about how point-and-click is truly the spawn of Satan and a sign of the Apocalypse, and only drooling idiots would ever want to use a mouse... even if the topic was Natalie Portman naked and with hot grits ;)

          I was just poking fun at it by positing a debate about point-and-click crossbows vs (non-existent) command-line weapons in ye olde days of the 12

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

      • >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 ou

  • by bigtomrodney (993427) * on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:17AM (#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.
    • by mikael_j (106439)

      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 th

      • by mcvos (645701)

        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.

        • by mikael_j (106439)

          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.

          • 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
            • by mikael_j (106439)

              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 coul

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

        • by hedwards (940851)
          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.
          • by hedwards (940851)
            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.
    • 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

      Whic

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bigtomrodney (993427) *

        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".

        • @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
      • by Moridin42 (219670) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @07:45AM (#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.

    • by mcvos (645701)

      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 wande

      • by TheLink (130905)
        > 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...
    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      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
  • by Tei (520358) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:20AM (#32987478) Journal

    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').

    • by txoof (553270)

      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

    • by mcvos (645701)

      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".

    • 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 (

      • In the real world, the US has better weapons. No surprise, they spend a shitload on them. [...] Nobody would want to play on the weaker side

        I think you answered your own implicit question. Make the weaker side free to play.

    • by geogob (569250)

      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

      • 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).

  • by AHuxley (892839) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:22AM (#32987484) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Unpossible! (Score:5, Funny)

    by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:23AM (#32987492) Journal
    You mean to tell me that my BFG 9000 was simply made up, it does not match a real world device?
  • Obligatory XKCD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:25AM (#32987502)

    http://xkcd.com/359/

  • On guns in games (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Borg453b (746808) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @05:54AM (#32987656) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • "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.

    • by geogob (569250)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hatta (162192)

      There are a lot of professional tools in a gun shop.

  • I don't *expect* a BFG 9000 to be realistic. If it were, it would kill half the fun.
    • by ultrabot (200914)

      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.

  • 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

  • by iPeg (1861838) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @08:17AM (#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

"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it." -- Marvin the paranoid android

Working...