Ben-DutkaThese days, everyone seems to be looking for more realism and authenticity in their video games. But how much is too much? When does reality simply become too complicated for the average person?
We could use racing simulators as a "for instance" – the vast majority of gamers have no idea how impossible an actual simulator would be if they've never been behind the wheel on a racetrack – but in this case, let's talk about military shooters. As you probably might expect, a whole lot of training is required for most all of the characters we impersonate in a virtual realm. Therefore, if such games got too realistic, would we be able to handle it? Secondly, would it even be fun ? For more on the subject, you need to check out what Medal of Honor executive producer Greg Goodrich says; according to VG247 summarizing his recent blog post, there is indeed such a thing as "too much realism." During the development of the game, Goodrich said they'd start to input too many intricate details and the "experience quickly deteriorated." Here, check this out:
"Here is an example. For one of our sniping encounters, focused on the art of sending a very personal message at an extreme range, we started by first selecting the optic. We then chose the rings, reticle and turret configuration for this particular optic. We ultimately decided upon a variable 5.5-22×50 with a Mil-Dot reticle and 1/10 Mil-Radian turrets.
The fine details of angular Mils can be confusing, but basically Mil-Dots serve two purposes, range estimation and trajectory correction. The horizontal and vertical marks (or dots) on the reticle are used for range estimation and the vertical marks are used for bullet drop compensation. A well trained shooter will also use the horizontal marks to compensate for bullet drift due to wind.
One Mil angle is approximately 3.6 inches at 100 yards. A 6 foot tall man is 72 inches. At 100 yards he would appear to be 20 Mils tall. At 1000 yards, he would be 2 Mils tall. To determine the distance to a target of known size: (Distance in yards) = 1000 / 36 x (Object size in inches) / Mils.
To determine the size of a target at a known distance: (Object size in inches) = 36 / 1000 x (Distance in yards) x Mils. Knowing these relationships, in conjunction with the external ballistics of a loaded projectile, a trained shooter can dial in his glass pretty quickly and make an effective shot."
Yeah, what do you think now? Still want the ultimate in realistic combat? Can you even do the necessary math involved? How much time would it take, and how much would it affect the gameplay? And in the end, what are your chances of real success? All good questions.
Related Game(s): Medal of Honor
I like the serious games but i also need a break from them. That's why i still play the ratchet and clank's of the industry. Looking forward to mod nation racers soon 🙂
I completely disagree with him (the dev).
That sounds awesome. But it will be tedious to do that in a game, and that's why the hard part can be done for you, for example, you need to shoot a target from a building, when you enter the room you need to snipe from, your team mate (or whoever) will say, 'you need to have your mil-dot here and here,' all you do then is aim and shoot (ie, the fun parts).
It sounds well good to me. People who can't handle should put the 'driving assists' on (repeatedly press r1 and it aims and kills by headshot for you).
Er…if it's all done for you, there goes the authenticity. That's his point. It probably WILL be done for you in the game but as you say, if it wasn't, it wouldn't really be fun.
True, but rarely does a game tell you those details. Let's take MW1 for example, when you're sniping in that building (shooting ZKV), it does not tell you to use the mil-dots. I reckon if it did, it would be a lot more authentic. But it would be impossible for a untrained sniper to utilise them, and therefore the parts that you couldn't possible do (unless taught in game) should be done for you, the fact that your charcter is actually practising real procedure is the important part.
@Ophidian
I understand what you are suggesting but it doesn't sound fun. Kind of the reason I'm left scratching my head when people hate on Cod but like the realistic weight of KZ2. Realism can only go so far until it negatively compensates on the fun factor.
How can you not figure out that kind of math in your head? C'mon!
Well that explains why I suck at Gran Turismo.
blagh, i don't care about any of that stuff. Just make the game fun.
This is one case in which a "combat simulator" is just a stupid idea. While it would be interesting to have so much depth, it is useless and of course you would die every five seconds because well you can't take a barrage of bullets, hide behind a crate, then expect to get better.
the most realistic game i've heard critics praise was red orchestra ostfront 41-45.
although they said it was great. it was too realistic and not fun.
i've played it and it was fun, because im a person who likes a game that takes skill.
with this generation of hand holding video games, too realistic might get a negative response, but then again, Look at Demon Souls
Realism is all fine & good up to a point.
But where the game gets too tedious to the point it's no long fun but a chore, then I think they've gone a bit too far with their realism.
But to me, the real & bigger danger coming from a game would be that maybe some of their realistic weapons of the future could telegraph to our real enemies, on plans we're thinking of & doing.
That would be ok, for a war simulator.
Just like the way his lungs will be realistic, so should be his environment. You shouldn't be needed to go from one city to another on foot!
Sorry, tripled posted. 🙁
Last edited by OPHIDIAN on 4/15/2010 5:39:52 PM
That would be ok, for a war simulator.
Just like the way his lungs will be realistic, so should be his environment. You shouldn't be needed to go from one city to another on foot!
That would be ok, for a war simulator.
Just like the way his lungs will be realistic, so should be his environment. You shouldn't be needed to go from one city to another on foot!
I love realistic games, but I have not come across one that is a FPS yet (though I think Americas Army might be one) So far I have only really seen two types of genres that are pretty much on par with reality, Gran Turiso and Silent Hunter. I personally would welcome a realistic FPS if they every made one.
OMG SOME1 HELP I CAN'T READ IT. WHY IS IT ALL WHITE!! NOOO MY PS3 NEWS!!
I had a similar problem but it seemed to go away when you scrolled to the top
I do think that games can be too realistic in many ways. A game has to be fun, and clearly a game and not something else. Gran Turismo has the potential to go too far and become a dry joyless game, but so far it has retained enough 'game' qualities to avoid the trap of being too real. In the case of an action game it could be too real in the context of the selection of scopes and so forth as described, or it could be too realistic in terms of the depiction of the action.
A fighter based flight simulator can be too realistic in the sense that it's next to impossible to fight a dog fight in a modern fighter, it's almost all done with stand off weapons. Where would the fun be there? In a space fighter simulation, where would the fun be if it took a realistic amount of time to approach a planet, enter orbit and then land on the surface? It could take hours, and space combat would be worse than anything a military spec fighter simulator could offer.
Games need to be games, aspects of simulation are fine, but it's definitely possible to go too far.
In fairness you can overcomplicate any game, be it with realism or pseudo-realism (See: insane amount of variables in Disgaea series)
Very true, but I've played games where all the fun was literally sucked from the game by the attempts at 'realisim' or simulation. Sometimes devs need to remember that a game is a game. It's an entertainment product, not a research or training tool.
Thats the problem I think they face with each passing generation, but all they would have to do is break it down in laymen terms and eventually everyone would understand it. How cool would it be to learn how to shoot a sniper rifle in real life (all things accounted for) from a video game? I also thought this article would be referring to graphic violence being realistically portrayed lol. I believe we won't realize that line until someone crosses it, I'm all for realistic representation in video games just dont f with my fun leave it in there!
Real war is no fun at all!
thanks for the tip. just incase any one was planning to go off to iraq based on COD.
I actually think that would be a pretty cool idea for the most difficult mode in the game. However, I'm pretty sure most people like to enjoy the game they're playing. Therefore, subtract the math from gameplay!
Then again when I think about it, golfing games are very similar to this type of scenario. Golfing involves much more estimation and luck (in videogames) but the idea of lining things up and taking wind resistance/assistance into consideration is sort of the same idea as the sniping example.
exactly! realism has completley destroyed games this gen, its totally removing the fun factor.
i was watching Xplay today and they had a preview of breach and as much as i gripe on about military shooters it actually looks really good for one simple reason.
i hate online only games, but im really looking forward to this because FINALLY! a game that forces you to think and not just cover camp.
they were showing off their destructible environments and it was really impressive!
got a pesky rocket launcher in a building behind heavy armour?
no problem, just whip out a grenade and destroy the foundations causing the whole building to collapse killing the guy.
in stead of using normal cover, you can shoot out bricks in the walls, create small holes in roofs, floors anything you want and use that as cover.
and you can not cover camp in this because EVERYTHING! is destructible, cover camp and your cover will be blown to pieces along with you!
and for the stroke of genius!
its actually very, very, VERY! smart!
if enough enemies are shooting at you, your screen goes blurry and makes it harder for you to fire back.
finally a game thats actually tactical, forces you to fight as a team, and think before you act.
this would be the PERFECT! military game, shame its online only.
if socom 4 takes a look at this, and copys some of the things their doing than thats it GOTY 2011 is already sorted!
if your going to release a game in a saturated genre such as shooters, you really need to set yourself apart from the others and that is exactly what they have done.
now i REALLY! hope six days in fallujah does come out, because its using the same tech!
That's all nice, but it's still a saturated genre of gaming. It's been overdone and over used, but that ones does make you actually have to think. Better sounding then a lot of other FPS games out there.
yeah, but for me thats enough.
its nice to see a developer come out and try to revolutionize the genre instead of follow the sheep and release another clone.
just like splinter cell conviction, im almost finished it now (extremely short game, like MW2 short!) but its done a really good job of revolutionizing the genre and bringing it into the 21st century.
only thing thats really annoying me is allot of the levels force you to do a particular thing, but they make it near impossible to do so.
most of the levels funnel you down straight in front of your enemies, i thought this was a stealth game, i thought you were suppose to flank your enemy, go underneath him or whatever and take them down from behind.
but 90% of the time the game will not let you do that, in the whole level from E3 every single room has windows, poles, wells to hide in so you have 3 or 4 ways to take your enemies out.
but in most of the missions you only have one.
i really wish developers would open up their games and make every level like the level from E3, make it that every single level has multiple ways to finish it.
especially in SPC because you are so freaking weak, literally one shot will kill you!
plus the AI is very smart, they dont come up one at a time they sneak up in groups so even if you do manage to take one or 2 out the others will take you out.
"only thing thats really annoying me is allot of the levels force you to do a particular thing, but they make it near impossible to do so.
most of the levels funnel you down straight in front of your enemies, i thought this was a stealth game, i thought you were suppose to flank your enemy, go underneath him or whatever and take them down from behind.
but 90% of the time the game will not let you do that, in the whole level from E3 every single room has windows, poles, wells to hide in so you have 3 or 4 ways to take your enemies out.
but in most of the missions you only have one."
sounds pretty "revolutionary"
What's all that math…
In real life, a sniper takes perhaps half a day to very…very…slowly…crawl through the underbrush and eventually get into position. Then, since you can't hear what anyone's saying from 1,000 or 2,000 yards away, you spend perhaps hours observing your target. It doesn't make any sense to spend all that time just to kill a lowly private, so you try to figure out who might have a higher rank by watching for people that other people seem to talk to. Chances are they're issuing orders. So you finally take your shot, then spend the rest of the day, and perhaps well into the night, very…very…slowly…crawling through the underbrush to get out of the area.
No, I don't think anybody would want to play a game like that. I have to laugh out loud at these games where "snipers" are running around in plain sight, maybe 100 – 200 yards from the enemy, blasting away at target after target.
Same with racing games. One little brush against a wall and you're probably out of the race. It would actually be kind of fun if they added stuff like rain, then you could estimate when the track was wet enough that it was time to change to the rain tires. And estimate when it dried off enough to go back to slicks. And if you guessed wrong, it could cost you 10 positions. And of course you'd have to completely alter your driving style to adjust for the changing track conditions. I think that would be an example of realism adding something good to a game.
I think its better to put the gamer in the shoes of realism, but not exactly gives him the real-life expectations. Like how uncharted immerses you on its gunfights yet doesn't delve too much on the un-fun real-life factors like if the bullet got stuck in the clip, weight adjustment and aim ability different on every weapon (because c'mon, who can turn and aim a Gatling gun as easy as a pistol?)
If this new Medal of Honor would actually have you doing that…I think the Military may be buying that game by the millions, lol. Really, that game could help train children to become a warrior so by the time he becomes old enough to get into the military, no training needed. Medal of Honor did it for them, lol. At least in that aspect, anyway, unless it actually incorporates all of the training needed to be a soldier. Oh well, I don't really care, I don't play FPS games and I suck at math, so I definitely wont pick this game up lol.
Oh my gawwwd, what he said was so true! Have you guys tried doing this sniping theory on GTAIV? That game's crazy for it. I'm talking actual sniping for actual moving targets on multiplayer. The guys in Story Mode just stand still.
Can't we just get the options of Noob Friendly or Seasoned Maniac? I know it'll be hard to set up algorithms for that and all, but with a lot of smart thinking I'd say it'll turn out pretty good.
too realistic would be a bitch. what you'd need is you doing the snyping and an AI partner assiting you in saying "lower it down a bit, left a bit, FIRE" and obvi the area you could fire into would be a little more vague, too specific and it would be ghastly.
but you need a sense of realism rather than actual realism. mw2 knifing is a bitch. i could blind fire half a mag into a guy, he takes some damage, he launches in with a knife and instantly kills me. no. just NO. especially commando. wtf.
uncharted on the other hand, online sometimes your just that bit too far to melee someone and im like, if this was a real life situation i would lunge at his ass!
I like a fair amount of realism in a game, but lets be honest…these are video games, it's a form of escape in a safe environs. If they wanted ultra realistic, they could release a FPS title where if you die…so does your game (auto self destruct)…respawn is for the meek.
Well, you could make a game with a mode where if you die, your game save is deleted forcing you to start over again…
Sniper Elite was a pretty fun game for the PS2, they should make another Sniper Elite.
If you want realism than every fps with a sniper rifle in the game is definitely not what you're looking for. Snipers aren't supposed to take out 10+ targets in a 5 minute time span! They're I believe supposed to be recon and to take out important targets. After all in a video game when you snipe more than 1 time most of the time you will get hunted down because they know your location, same goes for snipers in the real world. So yes I enjoy an unrealistic game, sue me!
Horse racing stimulation games which can be played online are on a verge of being almost real. The virtual horse racing is so realistic that you get stuck to them like glue. One such game would be http://www.horseracegame.com/. The horses and the jockeys resemble the real ones.