There are many titles based on popular historic (World War 2) conflicts that claim to be 'realistic', though none really come within a hairs breadth of 'realism'. No sir, I don't think the typical 101st airborne grunt strafed, jumped into mid air then hit the floor prone and nocked out a German soldier with a headshot using a Karabiner 98K he had swiped three minutes ago.
When a developer says 'realistic World War 2' simulation he really means to say is 'the Germans speak German and the Americans speak American' (or something to that effect) 'oh and the Karbiner 98k is pin point accurate and gets one shot one kills everytime and you can't reload the M1 Garand until you've used up a clip', of course if you're really lucky they might add 'if a grenade explodes near you, you'll experience a disorienting effect, we have also implemented a cover system to provide maximum interaction with your environment'.
In Day of Defeat: Source if a grenade explodes near you but doesn't kill you your screen will go still with the last image you saw, the sound may also temporarily turn off. The question is, 'how realistic is this?'. If a greande did go off near you and gives you such a trauma to the point you're virtually blinded and deaf would you still be able to run around? Or would you fall to the floor in some way shape or form? It's an impact trauma, it's meant to push you in some way.
The cover systems used in games thusfar make no sense from a realistic stand point. Why is it than in games such as 'Rainbow Six: Vegas' that use a very developed (and cool) cover system does the camera go from first person to third person? When a person is in cover they don't usually see around corners, wheres the realism in that? I understand that it might have something to do with orientation for the player but even so, developers should find another way to provide said orientation when in cover.
Now to add to that, online Multiplayer games suck when it comes to squads, single player can get away with scripting and AI but online just plain old sucks. It isn't that if in a typical 'realistic' online multiplayer game the team actually works like a squad they end up losing - quite the opposite, it's just that people play online multiplayer games because they want to have fun, and they won't have fun if they do what someone else wants them to do.
I'm not one to just say how bad everything is without giving suggestions as to how things can be improved. I think the best way to solve the issue of the 'every man for himself syndrome' is by giving people their own mini AI-squads in online multiplayer games. Have them play the leader of a three man team, given the other two players will be controlled by the computer it will mean that they will listen to the orders of their commanding player, after all bots play to make the player happy. This will literally force players to use team work, granted it will be with AI bots but it will get people used to the idea of issuing and perhaps even recieving commands which can naturally extend to other human players.
Now finally, my biggest qualm with 'realistic' shooters. Why no gore? If someone dies from an explosion right next to him why does he fly three hundred feet into the air and lands in a ditch on the other side of the map yet is still in one piece with no bruises or signs of trauma? I want 'Saving Private Ryan' type gore, I want to see peoples limbs fly off and see them alive but incapable of doing anything about it, I want to see guts spilling when a person gets stabbed, I want to see tanks squash enemies, not push them away. We have advanced physics engines these days, we can literally simulate water but we can't simulate blood and flying limbs? What kind of world is this?
Before people try to bury me in a tidal of 'you idiot!' or 'it's just a game!' or 'maybe you just suck at online games!' (yeah ok, so I do) I want to make it absoloutely clear I have nothing against games like Gears of War or Brothers in Arms or Day of Defeat: Source. They do what they do really well - entertain. However I want them to entertain me more than they already do, I like to be immersed in a world and am willing to suck badly in a game so long as I find it authentic, to that end I have these gripes with games that claim to be 'realistic' but aren't close enough to 'real' to satisfy my lust for realism.
Here, I have an exclusive screenshots from Pokemon Graphite, the Pokemon game slated to be released in late 2030, post apocalypse. Imagine all the cool futuristic things we'll have by then, from flying cars to instant cancer removal pills, and of course Plutonium will be sold at every corner drug store. But somethings don't ever change, Pokemon is one of those things.
Posts
