Gaming Gaming in the real world

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/01/16/gaming_in_the_real_world/1

Fred Hunt looks into the world of gaming and compares it to his own experiences in the Armed Forces. He asks some tough rhetorical questions and looks at how "ever more realistic" gaming compares to actual combat?

 

That was a brilliant read, thanks for taking the time to write it Fred!

 

Finally!! an intelligent comparison of real war to a video game. a very good read!

 

Great article, very interesting indeed. Good to see some different angles on things coming in.

 

Very interesting, thank you!

Although to be fair, I doubt anyone thinks even the most "realistic" games are anything like the real-life situations they're based on. You'd have to be a total numpty to presume anything otherwise. Obviously the biggest difference between games and real life is the input method, holding a mouse is about as removed from shooting a real gun as it possible. Japping your monitor with a pen is probably closer to the real thing. About the only people who think that games are at all like real life are those who have never played them.

 

Nice Read! I loved the part on the weapons and agree totally, the is no 'dead mans click' counting round is so hard I have lost count on a range, and have changed mags far to quickly in a fire fight (still had about 20 rounds left).

Health point is something I hate in games and the worst culprit is COD2 where over time you would look like a pin cushion and still manage to survive to save the day. On the other hand CS is the best I have encountered you go down after a couple of hits. But the most realistic game for heath (in a way) is MGS3 where you have broken legs and bullet wounds to contend with, but it get spoiled by being able to do a quick fix in the middle of a raging battle.

But I don't think I would like to play a game that is like the real thing, I would want game that would be fun.

 

Very good article, althought ricochets are coming into games, halo 3 snipers can even kill themselves


or people can blow up barrels and get killed by cones...

 

A very interesting article, but we all have to remember that we sacrifice realism for the fun of the game.

As you said yourself, the idea of respawning or healing in-game is ridiculous compared to reality, but it makes for an interesting game.

There are some (what I would expect to be, after reading your article) more realistic games out there - CoD4 Hardcore multiplayer for example, has no HUD, weapon counter, map, radar or any other jiggery pokery. There are also several mods about on CoD4 (if you can find them) that introduce weapon jams and problems.

Another classic series is the Operation Flashpoint/ArmA series, posing for as much realism as possible without being boring.

Another thing I have to ask is that a lot of games pitch you as a special forces soldier, do they have more time to clean and care for their weapon than a normal soldier expected to patrol etc everyday.

 

An excellent read. Thanks for writing that Fred. I remember having a chat once with an active SWAT officer who had an idea to take FPS games one step further to "realism" would be to overhaul to whole automatic reloading system completely and model it to an extent of how quickly and accurately you can just stick that sucker into the magwell rather than simply a one button action. Even though the closest I'll ever get to "warfare" is Airsoft I still find it frantic sometimes if you can't reload in time. Of course that can never compare to real war.

Speaking of Battlefield and Game Physics... I would love to see their new Frostbite engine in a next-gen multiplayer Battlefield title. A mammoth of a task but... boy that would be great to play. We need to see more gun jamming too... I've only experienced it in America's Army.

 

That second youtube clip is brilliant!

 

They are the stupidest things I have seen!


Cool though.

 

Insurgency is a nice free Source engine mod that tries to bend more towards realism... www.insmod.net
It's still got a few bugs and things to iron out (it's still a Beta), but the imminent next release should see a lot of things tidied up.

It started off even more hardcore than it is now... it was basically 'insta-gib' with the weapons, which made life hard, but the guy who fired first in a firefight would get the 'win' if his aim was good. It's been toned down a bit now (limb shots don't kill instantly), but that ethos still holds.
The game also started out with a HUD that was limited to a compass showing a heading to the commanders' chosen objective. I guess it shows that realsim must give way to gameplay that most players got lost on the maps, or didn't realise what they were supposed to do with that heading, and now there's an option to view a map, and (optional) markers overlaid on the screen showing the actual position the troops should head towards.
There always have to be compromises with gameplay, I guess.


Fred, it's a bit of a side issue, but a contentious one perhaps... with games (like Insurgency) set in active real-world warzones, when does a game become insensitive to the actual killing and maiming that is happening every day? I sometimes feel uncomfortable reading requests for 'more gore', 'IED's that can gib' etc etc knowing that it's happening for real to people every day? How do serving and retired soldiers feel about that? Are the troops of the Playstation Generation already able to split games and reality so far apart that they aren't insulted by the be-littling of current tragic events to mere entertainment?

 

I'm going to go against the grain here and say i thought the article was an exercise in pointing out the plainly obvious; of course developers have to sarifice realism for game play and anyone who thinks games are close to the real thing is an idiot.

How many people want to the play the real UK army simulator where you get to live in sub standard housing, your sent off on a pointless war with faulty or incomplete equipment, (some of which you might have to purchase yourself) to get traumatized, maimed or killed and if anything bad does happen to you they will dump you on the scrap heap with no support or care. Sounds like fun to me!

 

A good article.....when did the writers get to fire the SA80? I've had the benefit of 16 years military service and fired a lot of weapons in my time. When serving with a multi-national unit, I was issued with a G36 instead of my SA80 (A1) and was astounded at the difference between the two weapons. G36 although slightly longer and more difficult to handle in tight spaces is far more accurate, much easier to clean and I never had one stoppage over countless Range Days in 2 years.

 

I was in the Officer's Training Corps at university spent quite a bit of time training with the London TA regiment down on Sailsbury plain. I also had five years in the CCF at school (including 6 months as CWO2 and 12 months as CWO1).

I spent quite a bit of time firing the SA80 on 25m, 100m and 300m ranges and also used to fire the LSW, GPMG and 9mm Browning as well. When I was in the CCF, we had the L98 'Cadet' GP rifle, which was basically an SA80 with iron sights and no gas parts (cocking handles rock) - I used to teach weapons training with that rifle.

If it wasn't for bit-tech coming along, I probably would have been in the forces - I'd already started my application to join the paras.

 

ACFs better

And were getting the sa80a1 soon (but just after I leave, is a likely bet).

 

Anyone else reminded of the 2005 April 1st joke (archived here)? Cleaning guns Cheesecake.

 

Great Article! Well done, enjoyed it thoroughly.

 

As with the rest i just want to say what a great article that was and how much i enjoyed the read, a great insight from someone who is as 'qualified' as you can get to make it. Well done

 

Case in point.

It takes something like 45-minutes of swapping acronyms with the navigator to start up and fly a Tornado GR4.

Who wants to do that of an evening