Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 29 Jun 2010.
I thought he was gonna rant about creativity... apparently not :/
I just re-assigned buttons on my X-Box PC controller...I'm an artist!
I agree that there are games that do not or should not be realistic, afterall Tetris could hardly be considered so and was hugely popular. However, the sense of realism I am referring to is more closely associated with damage, atmosphere and overall scale.
Let's take your Wizards and Elves example from the fantasy genre, we know they don't exist in real life but let's consider adding a sense of realism about it. We know Elves stereotypically tend to use bows and we have bows in real life, yet in those RPG / Fantasy style games (albeit not all) you can make a veritable pin cushion out of your chosen target before it falls down.
Coming back to the modern day, WW2 games give you SMG's that use a whole clip to kill someone, which in anything less than a cartoon / comic book style game in my opinion detracts from the game itself.
Games themselves are lacking creativity and the lack of realism is dumbing things down for players who no longer need to think creatively to get through a game. In a lot of FPS titles it's stock up on ammo and find the med kit, wade in to the guards and keep your finger on the trigger. We as players are not given the opportunity to be rewarded for our own creative game play or encouraged to explore alternative avenues to simply standing toe to toe with our opponents.
If players want to simply run in through the front door or engage opponents head on then there will be times when that is simply what is required, but for designers to offer us alternate creative solutions to solving problems in games and progressing with satisfaction and achievement is seriously lacking and has made me more particular about which games I now purchase.
If a game is simply another clone then I simply won't touch it. No matter the genre if it doesn't bring something fresh and exciting to the table then it's simply not worth purchasing.
For those games that throw realism completely to the wind, they can be fun too and have been over the years, going back to games like pacman, space invaders, asteroids and the aforementioned tetris, they all have their place in gaming history but when was the last time we really saw a new truly creative game?
Yeah I agree.
Creativity is seriously lacking these days, but the controls are not an issue at all. The reason why FPS's use those controls, is simply because that's the best way to do it... Particularly on the PC with WASD and the mouse. There is no better way to control a FPS, and the only way I would change from this method, is if there was some kind of brain interface.
None FPS's however, he has a point. With fighting games for example, it certainly doesn't have to be the Mortal Kombat / Streetfighter way that all games now do.
As for real-world damage, realism is not always best. Different damage scales work for different games. In real life combat, a single bullet to the head or torso will most likely kill you or completely incapacitate you, and a limb shot will significantly reduce your combat capabilities. The reason certain games work by requiring 30 bullets to take someone down is because it is more interesting and more challenging to hit someone thirty times than it is to hit them once. The gun damage scales so that the harder it is to hit someone with a gun, the more damage it does. In real life, if you're out in the open and somebody pops up with an AK-47 and unloads it in your general vicinity, GG. It isn't accurate, but they'll almost certainly land at least one hit on you, which would completely wreck you. If you make it so that it takes a dozen bullets to kill you, then that person needs to actually aim to hit you that many times, and you have an opportunity to take cover or take evasive action while returning fire. it becomes a game determined by who is more accurate and who can manuever their character better, rather than just who lands the first hit. It allows the weapons to provide a high degree of variety, so that the slow-firing or more difficult to aim weapons do better. Again, in real life, a SMG bullet will kill you just as dead as a sniper rifle bullet of similar caliber, but in games it is balanced so that the SMG bullets do far less damage than the sniper rifle bullets, because it is easier to land lucky hits with rapid fire.
If, in a fantasy game, one arrow from an archer Elf would instantly kill you, then why would anyone play a melee character? Obviously, any halfway decent player would be able to hit you with at least ONE arrow before you can run up to them. So they make it require 20 arrows to kill you, so that the playing field is levelled between range and melee characters, and there is variety in the game. If the elf is good enough, he can hit you with 20 arrows before you kill him, and if the melee hero is good enough, he can find a way to get hit less than 20 times before killing you.
Real life isn't fair. But video games can be fair, and that's why we play them.
Of course, I'm referring mainly to multiplayer here. Multiplayer needs unrealistic damage so that it can be balanced.
Single Player, I have always preferred more guerilla style games where you avoid a full-out confrontation most of the time, and kinda sneak around dispatching guards. I like the missions where you lose if they spot you, like a few RTCW ones where you lost if there was gunfire, so you had to run around with a silenced sniper rifle taking out guards without them seeing you. IMO it makes it realistic, because one person would never make a frontal attack on an entire army. The very nature of single player FPS lends itself to you being outnumbered and outgunned, but being a lot more talented than the AI you're fighting, so you avoid taking hits as much as possible. However, multiplayer FPS thrives on even teams and much closer talent levels. Anyone can land hits, so they make the characters a lot tougher so that the players who are good at manuevering to dodge shots and who are very accurate win.
And, to your final question - Portal. 'nuff said.
He chose a terrible example, but he's right.
Most games are about point and shoot. Lately the only shooters that are different is ARMA2, STALKER, and Crysis provided you played it Gunsmith style.
Well this is certainly a good discussion and it's good to read a well thought out reply. Yes technically speaking to hit someone with 30 bullets at range compared to a dozen rounds or even a 3 round burst would be considered as having to be more accurate.
However, you seem to have forgotten that in modern games and even fantasy based games there is still armour to consider, whether that's a military issue Kevlar vest or a suit of chain or plate mail (with or without a shield). This allows our medieval warriors to approach the archer make use of their shield, use cover and provide a harder to hit moving target. It also provides our modern soldiers with a measure of protection, which admittedly can be overcome with larger calibre weapons, armour piercing rounds or called shots to more vulnerable body areas, which further reinforces the sense of realism and also having to be more creative as a player than simply point and shoot.
When I asked about a recent truly creative game I had considered Portal and glad that you had thought of this too, though it dates back to the end of 2007 and I happily agree that it does use a simple concept creatively, it also uses another concept realistically, and that's physics, a real life factor if ever there was one.
I've always wondered how a multiplayer portal game would work out. With guns of course.
I'll cut this short because I'm at work and my shift ends very soon, but RE: Armor, does it really matter exactly how they call it?
I'm not going to argue semantics as to whether it is better to give you 100 hp or whether it is better to give you 25 hp and 75 armor. In terms of gameplay, both save the same purpose - they make you less squishy, so combat lasts longer and is more involved.
It's immaterial as to whatever real-world justification is used to explain your character's ability to withstand damage that would kill us mere humans, whether that be abnormally high HP, or body armor, or a HEV suit. And, of course, most still retain the mechanic where a heatshot is more powerful than a torso shot, regardless of the amount of health or armor.
I'm glad we agree that gameplay is improved when your character is tougher and your enemies are tougher so that things like ducking for cover, strafing and evading, headshots, and better accuracy make more of a difference, regardless of how it is written into the plot.
Also, before Portal came out, there was an alpha version of the game with multiplayer and Half Life 2 weapons. I got to play it and it was awesome to make portal traps to send other players in a pit
Separate names with a comma.