Graphic Novelist Calls For Better Game Violence 465
eldavojohn writes "Landry Walker (alternative comics creator of X-Ray Studios) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence. While he acknowledges the world probably isn't ready for it, he wishes that getting shot in a video game was a bit more like getting shot in real life. From his piece: '... that's my problem with video game violence. Bullets are something we shrug off. Point blank fire with a machine gun is something that a tiny bit of flexible body armor and 20 seconds sitting on a magic invisibility inducing gargoyle can cure. Time and time again, I've heard people claim that they want to see a greater degree of realism in video games. But that's a lie. We don't want realism. We want fantasy. We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns. We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch. We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause.' What say you, reader? Would this bring a new level of impossibility to video games or would there be a way to balance this out?"
He is correct. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games.
Re:He is correct. (Score:5, Funny)
Reality isn't fun.
Yeah it is, once you get good at it, level up some of your abilities, stop worrying about screwing up, and start building or making things happen the way you want them to.
There are tons of different ways to have fun playing in reality. Maybe you're just a n00b.
Re: (Score:2)
There are tons of different ways to have fun playing in reality
I'm sure there are, but a lot of them do involve immersing yourself in some kind of virtual world. That includes movies, paintball, some board games, and a lot of other things.
Re:He is correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
But a lot more don't.
You could go white water rafting, learn an instrument, build a solar car, ride your bike down to the lake, make pot brownies, put up some shelves, skydive, teach a kid how to use Linux, study a new language and literature, go dancing, meet a girl.
I could go on, but I've got my hsing yi class at 8 am and I have to drive my daughter to school first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I could go on, but I've got my hsing yi class at 8 am and I have to drive my daughter to school first.
School? On Tuesday, December 29th?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that gives you automatic access to level 4 Country and Western
Re:He is correct. (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet, BOTH kinds of music.
Re:He is correct. (Score:5, Funny)
Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games.
There's this thing called "sex". I highly recommend trying it. It can be awkward at the beginning, but once you find a suitable partner I'm confident you'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.
There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into "the mood", which at times is very challenging. "Protection" is also important, otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes.
Re:He is correct. (Score:5, Funny)
There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into "the mood", which at times is very challenging. "Protection" is also important, otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes."
Never heard of it, is that some kind of MMO where you spend most of your time grinding for cash and rep rewards? From what I've been researching on the Internets, you ultimately only have one mount to use. Also these spawned processes you speak of also have chances on spawning new unwanted processes that could come back to me if the child process doesn't handle things properly.
Re:He is correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not around here, you don't.
Slashdot is all about DIY.
Re:That's denigrating to my sex partner! (Score:4, Funny)
My right hand is suck and tired
That was a typographical penis---I mean error.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, I personally do not like realistic war-games. The Battlefield & Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me. Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day.
Re:He is correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking about that. If they really wanted to make it more realistic, the first time your character got killed, the screen would go black, your computer would crash and you wouldn't be able to restart it.
Re:He is correct. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want realism, there's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no continues tho...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Cold_War_Crisis [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA:_Armed_Assault [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMA_2 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games."
I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design. I also think the person in the article is taking random internet comments about "wanting more realism" in games way too seriously, I think most people want good art and immersion and they call that art and animation "realism". i.e. when a character animates badly we associate it with a "lack of realism" rather then a lack of good
Re: (Score:2)
More realistic violence/damage models would be insanely boring, in fact the more photo realistic games get the less I am enthralled by them.
and how you would probably prefer Combat [wikipedia.org] to today's wargames.
Then I realized that I probably spent more time playing Combat with my brother way back when then I do playing many of today's photorealistic games(although my current obsession with Bioshock could be considered unhealthy by some).
Congrats. You responded to my comment without even hitting the reply. I hope you are happy. Now where did I put that Atari...
Re: (Score:2)
But more reality isn't necessarily a bad thing.
For instance, I prefer playing realistic racing simulators to more arcade style ones like NFS. Of course, full reality would be having to live with the damages to a car, or physical damage to yourself in a car crash. Obviously, we don't want realism to go that far...but to a point, realism can add to games. Even if it makes it more challenging.
Re:He is correct. (Score:5, Funny)
Im not so sure about that. Ive been beta testing Life 2010 for a while now. Some highlights:
1. Get born.
2. Realize that school really just teaches you to work within a system and provides structure as your parents have no idea what else to do with you.
3. Realize your parents dont know what they are doing and many of the things they expose you to are wrong or at least unhealthy (religion, quack medicines, conspiracy theories, political biases).
4. Have some first embarrassing and demoralizing attempts at mating.
5. Goto college, go in debt, to hopefully learn something and maybe land a job that pays entry-level wages.
6. Advance in life a bit, fail a few times, consider suicide and marriage a few times.
7. Avoid drafts, wars, and extreme ideologies. Worry about getting diseases or dying in a car crash.
8. Complain about things - especially the government. Being factual is optional and somewhat frowned upon.
9. Have you own children - goto step 1 or continue to retirement.
"Realistic", eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).
With the whole rise of casual gamer shenanigans going on, making games realistically punishing isn't lucrative in the slightest. Even the most successful hardcore/brutally evil game that has come out recently, Demon's Souls, has a lot of unrealistic elements in it (such as excessive hit points, predictable AI, magic, etc).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Realistic", eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases
Canard PC [canardpc.com] (French PC gaming magazine) recently published an article written by a professional soldier about ARMA II, which is regarded as one of the most realistic shooters available. His conclusions were that ARMA was (very) far from being realistic, but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war. So no, I don't think realistic shooters exist, and for good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Operation Flashpoint was another good one. I'd say it's still number one on my games "experiences" list to this day..
Re:"Realistic", eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Game realism with regards to dying from wounds and no respawn is truly not fun. Especially if you spend more time being dead than actually playing the game.
Counterstrike as an example, is probably about the limit for which fun can be said to be had with the relatively short rounds of gameplay.
I found Counterstrike quite awful, exactly because it was so unrealistic. It's life on fast-forward. A firefight at ridiculous speeds. I much preferred the more mellow pace of America's Army. And leg wounds really cripple you there. Another feature which I quite appreciated as lay there bleeding on the ground.
I'm not a fan on shooters or RL armies, but for a piece of military propaganda, AA was a pretty decent game.
Just wait until Modern Warfare 3! (Score:5, Funny)
Also, I'm surprised that nobody else has linked that yet, considering the topic. (Note: link goes to onion video, sound required)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:real life would be boring (Score:4, Funny)
A more realistic game would uninstall itself after you die for the first time and force you to buy a new copy of the game unless you happened to select a religion that believes in reincarnation.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game". (Score:2)
There are a few titles that try to give the combat experience in a realistic way. Theres always room for more realism, but these games are much more real than your typical shotter.
Ok, I get it. Hes out to make a point, he probably know the existence of these games. But is a moot point, only people that want that exact experience buy and play these games. Most other people want different degrees of realism.
From high realism to e-sport:
- ????
- ArmA
- Red Orchestra
- Battlefield 1942
- Modern War 2 and Batman: A
Re: (Score:2)
So, where does America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/ [americasarmy.com]) fit into your list?
Re: (Score:2)
No idea, I have not played it.
Anyway my list is wrong. Batman is less real than counter-strike. In batman there are magic life regen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
wow, really, you haven't heard of Codemasters' master piece Operation Flashpoint? The default setting is "get shot and you die".
Eh Arma2 is the sequel to OF (Score:2)
Well sort of anyway, but Arma2 is the same kind of game.
Re: (Score:2)
I love OF. But the same people has moved to ArmA.
Anyway, theres much more room for realism. People don't die just because are shot, or get unconscient. I would model a real game with a type of adrenalin simulation, so If you get a wound in combat, in a non letal area, you are crippled (aim, vision, speed.. ) but you can still combat, but If you stop and relax, the crippling become severe .A more real game could use some biometrics sensors on your body, so if you are scared, the character is scared too (and
Simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
I want an accessory that is worn on your torso (as a vest) and delivers a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar. That would teach stealth tactics better than anything.
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Funny)
A taser. Incorporate a taser to the mouse and keyboard.
Or better yet, taser underwear.
Then you'll have the perfect stealth, the epic silence of absolutely nobody playing.
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
They exist. [tngames.com]
That said, they're not wide spread because, like most gaming peripherals, they're not a standard and don't actually add to your ability to succeed.
That and I guess that most people that play games aren't into the whole "learn through pain of failure" thing (or at least literally).
Reality is not funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of the old discussions about realism in pen&paper RPGs.
We got a medievalist on our group, let him prepare a short demonstration game and quickly confirmed that it was, essentially, annoying.
He wants more real violence? There's no need to create a game for that, mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.
It's one of those arguments that end as soon as someone actually does the little effort of trying the argued point.
Re:Reality is not funny. (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of the old discussions about realism in pen&paper RPGs.
It can work as a system incorporated into RPGs. There is a James Bond RPG that uses a damage system with about five stages to it, from uninjured, through moderate wounds, to outright killed. Depending on the weapon used, you may take one additional level of damage (say, by being hit with a rock), to five (rocket to the head). Your general effectivenes drops as your damage accrues, and the likelihood of scarring increases, making you a less effective spy in later missions.
Of course, there are advantages to paper-based gaming; the GM may alter the game accordingly to help players saddled with too many problems to be effective. If a computer game could effectively substitute for a human GM, then I might be more easily persuaded to try a game with such a realistic damage system.
Americas Army (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Americas Army (Score:5, Informative)
All the medics in that game can do is to stop you bleeding -- not even heal you at all. It makes you stop *losing* health (though sometimes you'll stop bleeding on your own, depending on the wound), and I think it restores a bit of your mobility. It's been years since I last played it, though, so the details are hazy. I do remember if you took more than about one or two bullets, you were almost certainly dead, though. Made for interesting strategy requirements at times.
There have been others too (Score:2)
One that comes to mind that I used to play is Action Quake 2. It was a bit more forgiving than America's Army, but not much. A shot to the head from any weapon and you were done for the round. This was years ago. As the "Quake 2" part indicates, it was a mode for the Quake 2 engine.
So games like this exist, and have existed for some time. However they are in the minority. Why? Well two reasons:
1) Only some people find this kind of thing fun. Some people want realism like that. More people don't. As such the
There is a game where you die realistically easily (Score:2, Funny)
Bushido Blade (Score:5, Informative)
Let me quote Eurogamer on the 1997 Playstation game Bushido Blade:
Bushido Blade works like this: If somebody scores a glancing blow on you, you're slowed. If somebody hits your arm, you fight on one-handed. If somebody hits your leg, you go down to one knee. If somebody hits you hard, anywhere at all, there is a horrible crunch or spurt of blood and you die.
Eurogamer's retrospective [eurogamer.net] says it all. Imagine if it had caught on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bushido Blade (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, most people were more interested in playing Tekken and Mortal Kombat with their fireballs and snap-your-neck-to-take-away-20%-of-your-health type moves. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that, but Bushido Blade showed that the simplicity of realism can give developers room for real substance in the gameplay.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be taken further. Hideo Kojima started dropping ideas about a "raw game" to journos about a year later. His idea was that the game would self-destruct when your character died, simulating the fact that you don't get a second attempt if you die in real life. Steel Battalion implimented a similar concept - if your character is killed because you failed to eject from a wankered mech, then it deletes your save games.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
...Walker was highly critical on the realism of Road Runner cartoons, claiming that both Coyote thought processes and the laws of physics were grossly misrepresented.
Typical mistake... (Score:3, Interesting)
Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.
Especially when it is "mind jerk" where you use realism to make game harder to play - it feels and sounds awesome because person who suggests it also imagines himself pwning in that game and getting to top of things using his innate "realistic combat skills".
It is somewhat similar to, say, people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot. You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side. Because otherwise, theese mechanics suck.
In some rare idealistic cases, people want challenge to be added to game (and of course, imagine themselves besting challenge while being awesome enough to get style points). That is, however, not something you automatically get if you make game harder and leargning curve steeper that eve.
Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long. You do not keep playing game you suck at, and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking.
Re: (Score:2)
Harder is not the same as more realistic injuries. America's Army has reasonably realistic injuries. A single bullet can kill or cripple you. Yet the game is pretty easy to play. I found it a lot easier than Counter Strike, where everybody's insane running speed made it hard to figure out what the hell was going on. That kind of speed is probably fun if you're a master FPSer with lightning reflexes, but for a newbie it's not.
more better violence (Score:3, Interesting)
Say you shoot someone in the general torso area, you obviously miss the spine since he doesn't ragdoll and you take cover as he returns fire. When you pop out of cover the target is nowhere to be seen. When you find him he's on the ground aspirating blood and generally bleeding out. Or when you finish a firefight there is not silence but lots of poor fuckers screaming from their pain as they bleed out. If nothing else that might make you want to take the more stealthy route or make sure you aim better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say you shoot someone in the general torso area, you obviously miss the spine since he doesn't ragdoll and you take cover as he returns fire. When you pop out of cover the target is nowhere to be seen. When you find him he's on the ground aspirating blood and generally bleeding out. Or when you finish a firefight there is not silence but lots of poor fuckers screaming from their pain as they bleed out. If nothing else that might make you want to take the more stealthy route or make sure you aim better.
This would be awesome. It might almost get me to try a FPS for once.
Right (Score:5, Insightful)
So why are games like Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six series and so on available? They're there because people DO want realism, they want one-shot kills where stupid rambo behavior action will get you killed. Sure they're not for everyone, but for people who want a challenge, they exist.
This novelist asks for something that already exist.
That ain't realism (Score:3, Interesting)
Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six aren't realism. The game mechanics are slightly more realistic, but that is it.
Realism would mean you play once for 10 minutes, get shot, possibly through no fault of your own, and are permanently out of the game because in that game you are dead. No one wants that. Reality sucks. War is not fun. Sometimes skill counts but just as often dumb luck or being born on the right side does. War's not meant to be fun. Playing warrior is.
The last game I've played (Score:2)
The last time I played a computer game was in 95, and after that, I lost passion for games. That was called, fairly enough, Virtual World. It's a game where you sit in a cage modeled like a car, and you drove it in the mining tunnel on Mars. Obviously, the car is not really moving, but it had enough hydraulic system to simulate certain action to give some realism, like a flight simulator. It was expensive to play, $15 per 15 minutes. It's a multi-player game in which you tried to shoot each other while raci
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's nothing. When I was younger we played Poker. It was a strange game where, if you lost, you could lose real money.
Losing often enough could end with you losing your wife, kids and house; leaving you on a homeless shelter for the rest of your life. After that, all other games seemed too unrealistic, so I stopped playing.
They say there's a funnier game community going on in certain countries of Africa. In those, when your character gets hit by a bullet, you receive a bullet wound yourself. I might consi
Slight undermined (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible. I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.
For example:
- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed. I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me. Over 90% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing...
- Day of Defeat: started off awesome, then slowly went downhill, but never to the same extent as CS. Players who thought they were 'l33t' at CS got massacred when they joined DoD games.
- Team Fortress / TF2: feels like you're using nerfbats at first, but there's lots of instant-deaths, more then you'd expect, which makes up for it. (snipers, spies, crits, etc...)
- Left 4 Dead 1 & 2: I love the way that one bullet from most guns will kill a dozen zombies in a row. Not only that, but Valve made the guns in #2 better, not worse! Someone at Valve is clearly learning!
Contrast these games with the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, or the like. In those games, three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough. It's like using nerfbats. What's worse, Tribes basically had no hitscan [wikipedia.org] weapons, so at range, you couldn't even hit anything moving, and even if you did get a lucky shot in, it would do no significant damage.
I've found that the games with accurate, lethal weapons result in very different game play. People jump around like rabbits less, stick to cover more, crouch, avoid open spaces, etc... Basically, they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life. It's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush. Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension. Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From someone who actually writes one of these games you're complaining about...
In quake1, a direct rocket shot deals 120 damage, or splashes for 80-90. If you have no armor on, that's an instant kill with a direct hit. If you have red (200/100) armor, yeah, it'll take 3-4 hits, but you have to recall the firing rate on a RL is around one per second, which is a lot faster than in real life as well. I've played those CoD style games with realistic rocket launchers, and it's just not very fun being able to get
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible. I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.
For example:
- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed. I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me. Over 90% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing...
Try Cod4 on Hardcore servers. Usually One bullet is enough for a kill. Funny thing is CS lamers took over "professional gaming" side of things and forced community to play so called ProMod. ProMod turns Cod4 into a CS clone where you need HALF AK47 clip to kill someone ... recoil is reduced, no gun sway, and sniper rifles are 100% accurate. Not to mention it removes all tactical perks. Its like "pro" players cant handle hard game so they made it lamer friendly.
Already done (Score:3, Funny)
Operation Flashpoint (Score:2)
Codemasters master piece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Cold_War_Crisis [wikipedia.org]
winner of:
* PC ZONE Classic Award
* IGN Editors Choice Award
* Simulation Headquarters Best of E3 2001
* Gamespy: Best of 2001 (PC Action)
* Computer Gaming World's Editors Choice Award
* The Adrenaline Vault: Seal of Excellence Award
Re: (Score:2)
Codemasters did not make the first one either. They published it. It was made by BIS, who now made ARMA and ARMA2. I loved Operation Flashpoint, the suspense and fear (and eventual reward) was unlike any other game. ARMA2 seems to be more of the same, but plagued with bugs that make it too annoying to play. Shame.
UrT: An FPS with Improved Realism (Score:5, Interesting)
Urban Terror [urbanterror.net] is a good example of a game that makes an effort to have "realistic" weapon damage effects. In the game—a free, open-source FPS—players square off using modern weapons and equipment. When you spray machine gun fire at your opponents, your accuracy degrades. When you get hit, you start bleeding, and you must bandage your wounds quickly before you bleed out. If you are shot in the leg, your movement speed decreases, and you also take damage to your legs if you fall from heights greater than one story. If you are shot in the arm, your accuracy decreases. Reloading your weapons takes time, and in the middle of combat it is usually more expedient to draw your trusty sidearm, rather than reload.
Unlike most FPSs, where players engage in running gunfights that can last for tens of seconds, the typical Urban Terror engagement is very short; players frequently die before they realize they are under attack. This turns the game into an unending quest for the perfect ambush—attacking with surprise, from behind, almost always ensures victory. Many players tend to be snipers or campers, since the gameplay mechanics make very difficult to "run and gun" effectively. With that being said, it is still possible to power-slide down a hallway, turn, and take out two alert enemies with well-placed bursts—it's just very, very difficult.
Nonetheless, UrT distinguishes itself for its reliance on teamwork. There are almost no plain Deathmatch servers, since UrT Deathmatches simply aren't interesting. Instead, it is all about the team-based gameplay: team-DM, CTF, and bombing run missions. A lone man is easy prey, but squad of two or three players can take and hold an enemy base for some time, provided they know what they're doing. In UrT, working with others is the key to victory, and your ability to score frags can increase exponentially if your team-mates are nearby. If you like teamwork, and don't mind the occasional insta-gib, then you should consider checking out UrT. The game is based on ioquake3 and will run on almost any Windows/Linux/Mac system that's less than ten years old.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds interesting.
Is the player community mature (in spirit, I mean) and intent on team work, or are players more likely to be childish nuisances by repeatedly spawn-killing noobs and such? Is it a pain to get up and running in a non-Ubuntu Linux flavour (say, PCLinux)?
I ask because, years ago when Half Life (1) was in, I was a big fan of Day of Defeat. But then I switched away from Windows, and DoD got bought up and rolled into Steam, and that was more or less the end of that for me. The community th
Don't like the idea (Score:3, Funny)
Realism (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to see any computer-game outside some adventure game that even loosely reflects what violence is like. And the war-games are probably the worst of the bunch. If a military simulator resembled what a soldier has to do in a real war it would play like this.
1: Get up, brush teeth, polish equipment.
2: Drive 10 km on a congested road looking out for bombs.
4: Walk to the observation post
5: Spend 8 hours looking out over a field with peasants, trying to figure out if any of them is a resistance fighter.
6: Walk back to the truck
7: Catch your buddy when the sniper shoots him in the hip
8: Spend 3 hours trying to keep pressure on the wound and wait for medivac
9: Listen to your buddy beg for his life while he is medivaced
10: Fire blindly at a few bushes where the sniper might still be
11: Get tinitus when they bomb the bushes and the nearby houses
12: Spend 4 hours sorting out the remains of the families in the houses, trying to figure out if any of them was the sniper
13: Go to truck again, looking out for snipers this time.
14: Drive home, looking out for road bombs.
15: Wash blood from cloths, eat dinner, go to bed.
16: Repeat...
War is not fun. War does not make a good game. Any "realistic" game still removes 99.95% of what it means to be in a war-zone. You don't get bored, watching a field for hours. You don't police bodies. You don't dig through bloody cloths looking for clues if the guy you just shoot was a resistance fighter or a civilian. You don't have to stop everything and arrange a medivac if anybody in your group is hit. You don't have to write letters home to the family, explaining what happened. You rarely have any rules of engagement. It's clear who is an enemy and who is not...
I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Afghanistan the definition of "real war" these days?
Re:Realism (Score:4, Informative)
Pretty much all modern conflicts play out according to this pattern, even if the details and tools might differ a little. Balcan, Vietnam, Korea, Congo, Soviet invasion of Afganistan, US invasion of Afganistan, Operation Just Cause etc.
Conflicts where people line up and shoot each other in large groups in an area without civilians are more or less gone today.
No thanks (Score:3, Funny)
Any sufficiently realistic video game will heal your character via virtual health insurance forms.
Thanks, but I'll take my crowbar any day.
Reality is boring (Score:2, Informative)
Speaking as someone who has built combat simulations for the US Army:
Real combat is boring... it consists of long periods of time where basically nothing happens, mixed with very short periods of combat where a lot happens but the winner of this short period of combat is rarely in doubt.
This game exists (Score:2)
And it's made in flash.
You Only Live Once [kongregate.com]
Balance between fun and realistic (Score:2)
Games can provide realistic damage, but they need to provide -something- that makes the effects less permanent than in real life.
Games of the old provided "multiple lives". You could try again, repeating some of the work. But that's cheap, you live or you die but you won't be anywhere halfway.
Later games provided savegame, you pick a point in time where you can go back no matter how badly it goes. Very cheap again, there is no challenge if you can repeat each step as many times as needed.
There are these gam
Realism? Will probably never come... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of (pseudo-) "realistic" FPS like OFP, ArmA, OFP2, and Arma2. Many people claim they want realism, but for most gamers these simulations are too boring or too hard. Personally, I'm missing real realism as opposed to the fake realism of ArmA 2. I might be mistaken but as far as I know in a real war wounded soldiers sometimes scream like crazy without stopping, and I've also read accounts of WW2 where soldiers were walking around with their guts (literally) in their hands. For real realism my "s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At first, he speaks of we as gamers. Then he speaks of he, the gamer. You, the gamer. They, the gamers. He separates himself from the gamers by saying he doesn't want the fantasy. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realize that plenty of shooters are hard when played as they were meant to be played. The Call of Duty games are very challenging on the hardest modes. So are many games. Many shooters.
But many games are hard for the wrong reasons. Modern Warfare 2, for example, features enemies that kill
Incan Basketball Rules (Score:4, Insightful)
When the ancient Aztecs played basketball, the rules were simple - the first team that made a shot through the basket got to live. The other team was...well...beheaded. Now, if you want to make video games that are realistic, why not go all the way? Have some sort of controller that provides an electric shock or poison if you really die. That will make you think twice about going into that room full of zombies.
The bottom line is that video games are for fun and "practice". You go to a new level of realism and it just gets boring. I love flight simulators, but the ones that are completely realistic are the most boring. Who wants to spend 4 hours in combat air patrol with a 1 in 1000 chance of actually getting to splash a bogie?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't remember the game's name, but I remember an air combat game that went too far on the realism. It wasn't in terms of "Do a patrol where you do nothing." No, there was always something to be done. The problem was that you, as the pilot, did precious little most of the time. Your mission might have you bomb a couple targets. Well ok, your plane had the whole mission route in its computer. You'd have it fly on auto pilot to the destination, it'd give you a countdown until you should signal for bomb rele
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry my friend - you need to touch up on your Aztec history [wikipedia.org]. The name of the game was tlachli, and it indeed did involve the losing team losing more than the game in some cases. It was actually played as a proxy to war between different tribes. From the article:
The association between human sacrifice and the ballgame appears rather late in the archaeological record, no earlier than the Classic era.[49] The association was particularly strong within the Classic Veracruz and the Maya cultures, where the most explicit depictions of human sacrifice can be seen on the ballcourt panels – for example at El Tajin (850-1100 CE)[50] and at Chichen Itza (900-1200 CE) – as well as on the well-known decapitated ballplayer stelae from the Classic Veracruz site of Aparicio (700-900 CE). The Postclassic Maya religious and quasi-historical narrative, the Popol Vuh, also links human sacrifice with the ballgame (see below).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it was both, AC. I think you need to read the article too. The Aztec version of the game was called "ullamaliztli". From the article
The Aztec version of the ballgame is called ullamaliztli[63] and is derived from the word lli "rubber" and the verb llama or "to play ball". The ball itself was called llamaloni and the ballcourt was called a tlachtli [tatti].[64] In the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan the largest ballcourt was called Teotlachco ("in the holy ballcourt") – here several important rituals would take place on the festivals of the month Panquetzaliztli, including the sacrifice of four war captives to the honor of Huitzilopochtli and his herald Paynal.
For the Aztecs the playing of the ballgame also had religious significance, but where the Maya saw the game as a battle between the lords of the underworld and their earthly adversaries, the Aztecs saw it as a battle between the forces of night led by the moon and the stars represented by the goddess Coyolxauhqui and her sons the 400 Huitznahuah, and the sun personified by Huitzilopochtli.[65] But apart from holding important ritual and mythical meaning, the ballgame for the Aztecs was also a sport and a pastime played for fun, although in general the Aztec game was a prerogative of the nobles.[66]
Feh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever play Rainbow Six Vegas 1 or 2 at Realistic difficulty? Try it, then cry as it makes you its bitch.
With better control will come better realism (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't have cake and eat it too (Score:3, Interesting)
I would also love to have more realistic violence in video games, but the thing to realize is that is that it just wouldn't work in current day games, as those games are from their in their very core extremely unrealistic, not just what the violence is concerned. On average you kill like what, 200-300 people in a single play through of a shooter, maybe even more in some games. Reality just doesn't work that way, unless you drop bombs from a plane you just don't get to kill that many people without getting yourself killed, a lot.
I think a sensible way to introduce realistic violence would be to tackle it in a basically non-violent game. See Mirrors Edge for example, that style of game has some huge potential in that area, as its core is not about killing people but about traversing terrain. You don't shoot people, but instead you get shot. Of course the game kind of butchers its own core mechanic by introducing level design that basically forces you to shoot at other people and its extremely terrible at presenting the shooting in a realistic manner (everybody is a clone, small girl survives more bullets then armored police man, etc.), but its a type of game where you could introduce realistic violence and get away with it. In fact it would even make the game better when you for example had a choice between shooting somebody in the leg, along with consequences, instead of just having him rackdoll himself to the ground. I would much prefer it to have the game show realistically that death of the opponent is something that should be avoided, not something that should be done on a casual basis. Another thing the game misses is in-game character interaction, you get kind of a glimpse at it here and there, but you don't really see much of it in the game, which is again kind of a bummer, as realism doesn't start with violence and death, but with having non-violent ways to interact with NPCs.
The one big issue of course remains player death. It is really hard to get away from rapid respawn. You could Sands-Of-Time your way out of it, but even that is just a cheat to avoid consequences of player death. Another issue is that such instant-kill kind of gameplay leads to lots of trial&error gameplay, which doesn't seem to be all that popular with todays audiences.
Another way to do realistic violence is of course to make it all story based, like in an adventure game, where its not something the player does, but something done by other people to the player or friends of him. Heavy Rain might have some interesting stuff to show in that area, but if it really works or will be panned as a series of QTEs we have to wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I was, thinking "oh, nobody's posted yet, maybe I can open with something interesting".
Shouldn't have wasted time hitting the damn refresh button.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Digg?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, couldn't pass up the opportunity to contribute nothing before someone else did? Be proud!
Simulating combat realistically makes for a short playing experience. Catch one bullet in the leg and then what happens? Do you have to start over? Do you bleed out if you don't immediately get medical attention? If you get medical attention then do you "play" recovering in the hospital and dealing with the police reports? Let's have a physical therapy "mini-game" as well; spend a few months doing some exercises an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think Counter-Strike had it down pretty well. Quite easy to die, and then you have to wait out the rest of the round until everyone else is dead. If the round time is long enough, it encourages you to play as if it's more "real", as there is a real downside to dying.
Re:FP (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to have realistic combat effects, you need to balance that by also simulating how hard it is to actually aim weapons with any precision even standing still, let alone while moving. America's Army did that sort of where you have to hold your breath to get your sight to stop wandering. You know what that is? Tedious and annoying. The GP got it right, what's next? Reports and physical therapy simulation? 'Realistic' games are for a special breed of lamer. If you want that much realism, go to a recruiting center and enlist, or enroll in a police academy, or at least get off your damn couch, go to a shooting range and put some real munitions down range. Games are for fun, if you want realism, the door to life is over there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup if Modern Warfare 2 was realistic, nobody would play it past the opening battle. one shot and you're dead... Screw this game, I'm gonna play something else.
MW2 (Score:5, Funny)
I just got MW2 this weekend and I played online. It basically is one shot and you're dead.
Well, you must be using a lightweight mech, like the Jenner - and presumably your opponent is using something massive and this "one shot" is fire-linked, with all their weapons... When you're using the lighter stuff you need to take advantage of your mobility - those Timber Wolves are tough but they're not too fast...
Oh, and remember to set up the "torso twist" controls! You're really slowing yourself down if you have to reorient your legs just to fire in a different direction... If you can get one of those Thrustmaster throttles, and one of those joysticks with the hat switch - those are supposed to be very good for MW2.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If America's Army had you hold your breath, then they were violating their own marksmanship rules. You actually fire when you get to the end of your exhale. There's a natural pause there, your lungs aren't all bloated with air (making it impossible to line up your sights), and your pulse is normal.
Re: (Score:2)
The first realism mod for GTA would kill the game, taking into account all new cars auto close all doors when surpassing about 30km/h.
The game would be returned after trying to bypass dozen cars' security system, getting caught in the spot, sent to jail and forced to perform favors on the officer or suffer permanent injuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey ksemlerK - I think you make a really great point. Why not take it to the extreme? You could have the guy with screaming kids, bills to pay, and even a nagging wife. Shoot - throw in some unemployment and/or chronic diseases for the advanced level.
Although it is fun to see what it might be like to carjack a fire engine and tear around town capping tha peeps with an AK, I really have to wonder what lessons that's teaching our already impulsive youth. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big gamer. But
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm going to play a game, I want fun and excitement without any real threat of getting killed or suffering pain.
Ah, but what counts as "fun and excitement" for you? For me, the risk of failure is part of the excitement. The challenge of minimizing that risk is part of the fun.
When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.
Real life scenario (Score:2)
When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.
Recent occurrence. You stop in a burger joint just in time to be caught up in the middle of a drug deal gone bad. A stray bullet pierces your skin and lodges itself between your C2 and C3 vertebrae.
When I play a game, I want to suffer. Real life is easy and pleasant enough already.
Do you really want experience the joys of spending your remaining days without the use of your limbs and your very survival dependent on those mai
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want experience the joys of spending your remaining days without the use of your limbs and your very survival dependent on those maintaining your life support?
Gives a whole new (and scary) meaning to those fucking "Mash X to Not Die!" events...