( search forums )
Rant
Soldat Forums - Misc - The Lounge
R0L4ND
June 5, 2005, 1:42 pm
Recently, it's come to my attention that games (more and more lately) are less about innovation and experience, not to mention soul, and more about making money. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: with the increasing standard costs and quality (motion capture, hardware and software costs), developers are scared of making something realistic, good or plain innovative, for the fear of, the game in question, bombing.
What no-one seems to notice is that the market is (Please refrain from swearing)ing saturated with half-assed, soulless first-person shooters. Call of Duty? Medal of Honor? Half-life 2? It all goes into the same bucket in my book. Granted, at times there are things that have minor excentricities to make me buy the game in question (UT2004), but mostly, it's all just a muddy haze. Any game that looks like it has any hope falls short because of the developers' reluctance to make a game truly special. SWAT4 could have been the most ping-pong diddly (Please refrain from swearing) in the nuclear sub if it wouldn't have been for stupid game-balancing stuff (what kind of f&¤%ing SWAT-team uses MP5's with single and burst-fire trigger group? Not to mention assault-rifles that have 2-round burst and full auto trigger groups? What the f/¤&? Get your stuff together) and cross-hairs.
Raven Shield had a very promising premise - then the clansters found the expoits in the game-design and mechanics. The game has now degraded into a whirlpool of reflexes and routine. Every firefight looks as following: "run, crouch, spray" OR "lean out the wall for one millisecond and kill your opponent so fast he literally can't see you before he's dead".
Few developers seem to realize the fact that realism is the new cool on the market. I couldn't give a (Please refrain from swearing) less about psuedo-realistic titles in the likes of counter-strike, call of duty or medal of honor - I want ultra-realism! And there are loads of people agree with me! Operation Flashpoint was on-track, Red Orchestra is also getting there (despite inclusions of blatant stupidity) and Infiltration (despite its age, which is its drawback) for UT99 is still to date the closest implementation of what I want to see in the future FPS-market. Lately, I've been getting boners from the new screenshots of Bohemia Interactive's Operation Flashpoint 2 - that game looks amazing, and considering that OFP was moderately realistic, I can only hope that B.I will go for the full monty and make an infantry simulator. Ironsights! Realistic movement, stamina and generic environment interaction!

Putting FPS's aside:

WHAT THE (Please refrain from swearing) IS THIS FASCINATION ABOUT FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS?! Is that the only thing that today's stupid game-developers and publishers find being viable in making and selling?! The market is drying out genre-wise - we're looking at a polarisation: FPS's in one corner, strategy in the other, RPG's in another, and sports in the final corner. That's pretty much it. Where's all the innovation?!
I remember the glorious days of Backpacker - a game where you travelled around the world, to different cities, getting money in your pocket by finding work-places - which you did by answering quiz-questions in the style of the work you were applying for. That's just one of the many innovative games of the past. Lately, nothing new or revolutionizing has come out. I'm still itching for a proper break-dance sim. that plays like a fighting game! WHERE's ALL THE INITIATIVE AND ENTREPRENEURAL SPIRIT!?

Meandor
June 5, 2005, 3:17 pm
Why make innovative games when people still buy and play games that actually are all the same? I am tired too of WWII games and the such. The point is that gaming hasn't yet reached a certain level, and therefore developers aim for that audience that is simply happy to have a gun and something to shoot at. Big companies aim to make money, and the simplest way is to settle for that over used scheme - namely: WWII fps's; fps's with aliens in them; rts's that in 10 years are still pretty much clones of aoe with better graphics; rpgs that are not such but hack and slash games where all you're supposed to choose is your 'skills' in a fictitious world that couldn't be more ridiculous; sports and racing games that haven't changed since the first version were made; mmogs that all follow the same identical economy/world scheme, despite having the most different themes, ranging from space battles to fantasy.
As long as such schemes stand, there's no point for a big company to make something innovative, because they'd just risk to end up with a product that, although new, might not have as much success. This doesn't happen only with videogames, but also in most market sectors that involve creativity, such as movies (see hollywood).
Of course, there are those who try to break the stalemate with genuine games, but the masses don't like to change, and it is likely that they will hold on their good old product.
Add to that that the computer/console hardware is currently in an evolutional stage, which is the perfect excuse for producers to make games that improve technically but add little to no novelties.
That's the reason why I haven't bought a game except soldat in the last 3 years. They all bore me after one month or two.

Deleted User
June 5, 2005, 4:30 pm
Take the initiative and send some ideas or concerns to some companies. If enough people are pro-active, and give real information to the companies, as opposed to the crap that seems to be coming out of focus groups and surveys, perhaps you will see a change for the better.

Michal
June 5, 2005, 4:33 pm
I totally agree, I can't stand all those new generic FPSs I have not bought/downloaded any of them. I spend my gaming life between Soldat and Operation Flashpoint. BTW, if the original OFP isn't realistic enough for you there are plenty of awesome mods, addons, and patches that bring the gameplay and graphics to a whole new level. For example the Marine Assault Pack is great. There are detailed ironsights, new blood effects, you can actually get blackouts if you're badly injured. There are some patches to add realistic environmental effects like reflective water, high resolution sky, new nightvision effects, new tracers, and even realistic grass.
All this stuff will keep me satisfied until OFP2 comes out :)

R0L4ND
June 5, 2005, 4:34 pm
That's true, Meandor, but I find it odd that not one single company has thought of launching a plethora of original games, thereby hopefully forcing the market to take a turn for the better by creating new kinds of games. I wish that the western market would stop being so pig-headed and start thinking in the likes of the japanese. Just look at those crazy critters! "Dance dance revolution"? "Jet set radio"? Frickin' seeds of genius if you ask me. I guess that's what differs the two markets - the eastern market gives the people what they want. The western market milks something until it's dry, and then moves on. In short, it's greedily profit-based.

EDIT: Concerning OPF: I havent played it for ages, but I've heard all about those addons and stuff. The thing that deters me is that there is a virtual OCEAN of add-ons for it, and I don't have the game, much less do I know where to find all those add-ons...

SuperKill
June 5, 2005, 4:48 pm
the only good fps's are the ones with a very good plot in them.
WWII games are getting so overused its not even funny. the last WWII game i played was MoHAA, a few years ago, and didnt even finish that cause it was nothing exciting.

indeed today's (most) games got really bad. i spend my singleplayer gaming time playing zelda series on gameboy.
i honestly think zelda overcomes WWII games in everything besides graphics. (and that's just because its through a gameboy)

R0L4ND
June 5, 2005, 5:04 pm
I dont care much about the setting, it's just that the FPS's all fall into the same crappy category of psuedo-realism, somewhere between Infiltration and Unreal Tournament, somehow lost or maliciously misplaced there by evil game developers. I'd play WWII-games if they'd be ultra-realistic, like Infiltration (with even more realism added in.) but they're just like counter-strike with different weapons. It's SHIT.
I don't care much for story, since even a game with good story can be mauled by choppy mechanics and lack of gameplay individuality (meaning it doesn't PLAY any different from any other shooting-game). Max Payne got boring as crap in the end, Doom 3 bombed totally after the first levels... Actually, Doom 3 is the prime best example of character assassination in a game ever. It's so monstrously hyped, and the beginning starts out brilliant... But it just falls into the same predictable rut as any other contemporary FPS. That's just sad.

Deleted User
June 5, 2005, 5:34 pm
......wut other type of game genres are there? i dont think i like games anymore, the only games i play now are just soldat, homeworld series and sw:battlefront.

R0L4ND
June 5, 2005, 5:39 pm
Jet Set Radio for once, which was a roller-blading/graffiti game... Then you had that Jet Ski-game for the N64 that put a new twist on the racing genre. Not to mention some cute and challenging puzzle-games like Bubble Bobble and the likes. You know! Innovation! Originality!

mickle89
June 5, 2005, 5:41 pm
Starcraft and Warcraft II BNE are both good.

Meandor
June 5, 2005, 5:45 pm
Roland, there are some original games now and then that get produced by big companies, just that there wasn't any really big hit lately. Just to name those that pop up in my mind right now: Black and white, Savage, Sacrifice.
Right now a game needs a good mp support to be successful, and not often innovative games have decent mp.

R0L4ND
June 5, 2005, 7:39 pm
Black and White wasn't all it was hyped up to be, if you ask me, but then again, that was more because of the mircleman with the inflatable head, Peter Molnyeux, or what's his name.
Other times, it's more about the lack of commercial and public interest. Again, "Jet set radio" had all going for it - I would have picked it up in a jiffy if I was a console user. But I'm not. However, with the lack of public attention, it never reached the super-status it should have.

Meandor, my point is that even the innovative games get (Please refrain from swearing)ized with partial standardization to "avoid alienation from the vast majority of the gaming public". Raven Shield and SWAT4 being rather good examples. (Not innovation-wise, but with the issue of familiarizing features and gameplay.)

KeyesBlob
June 5, 2005, 8:33 pm
Umm... Ever play Brothers in Arms?

That game shoves realism up your ass. Turn off the supression meter and keep the crosshairs off (it is standard that they are off, but some faggots turn them on).

When has the FPS ever been innovative? WHY does it have to be innovative. The whole concept of FPS is the reflexive shoot first ask questions later approach. Name a way that FPSs can be innovative. Name a new feature that can revolutionize FPS games. FPS games focus on two things. Graphics and fun factor. Noone gives a (Please refrain from swearing) about storylines, noone cares about who your teammates are (except in BIA, you actually seek revenge on the (Please refrain from swearing) that killed a teammate).

A game will never be able to capture the realism of war. Never. Don't hope for it because it is physically impossible to recreate the realism of war. If MOH was realistic, you'd drop out of the boat on D-day and get shot. Game over. You lose. And no matter what you do to try and prevent it that level, it will keep happening. Realism + games will never mix because games are meant to be fun and ecxiting, and give the player a feeling of control. If a game hands you your ass again and again, you don't play it. If people don't play it, it doesn't get sales.

Your rant is unrealistic and not probable.

vash763
June 5, 2005, 9:50 pm
I love Jet Set Radio, and Jet Set Radio Future, and Jet Set Radio for the GBA.

Those games are crazy, and I would like to see more of the same. But those aren't realistic at all. Are you saying uber-realism is the only cure for cookie-cutter FPS's and not every genre of game?

Kyklis
June 5, 2005, 10:31 pm
Brothers in Arms I loved, but had some trouble getting used to. FPS's can be innovative, in a way. I've been paying attention to Battlefield 2. If you don't know, its the sequel to Battlefield 1942, where it was a FPS with veihicles, but planes too. I loved that game. Then this one has a battlefield commander and squad leaders. To be honest, I'd love being the commander more than anything, because I love strategy. The problem with RTS's is the guys you control aren't intelligent. Ever. But when you're commanding live human beings, and telling them to do stuff, they can be innovative during a firefight, and make decisions on your own. Of course, I doubt this will ever work. The squad leaders might try to get their squad to carry out orders, but most of the time some of the squad will try to go commando, or not listen and go off on their own. Just imagine if everyone listened though. You could get pilots to wait, sure they would get bored, but when you needed them to airstrike or cut down bombers or something, they would be there and not dead. If games were ever like that, its all I'd ever need. There is one game called Alleigance ( freeware ) that I got, its a space combat simulator, with the commander. I haven't played it all that much, but it could be very very fun if people listens. Thats how FPS' can be diffrent; if people actually had to work as a team, and listen to leaders and such. Also, having the whole commander thing also adds a ton of strategy. Should you take these tanks and troops and attack here? Or should you take up defensive positions and prepare for a attack? I hope to get a better computer and buy battlefield once it comes out, as it looks like one of the funnest FPS'. EVER.

EDIT: I personally loved Half-Life 1 and 2. The stories in them were great, and yea, it was like basicly eveyr other FPS, jsut with diffrent weapon and themes, but some things were a bit diffrent. Like the part where you had to set up turrets to defend a position. I loved those games.

KeyesBlob
June 6, 2005, 1:17 am
Try Joint Ops: Typhoon Rising.

150 players online (with not half bad lag)
One player on each team is a "commander" and has an overhead view of the map. The commander tells sqauds (people are put in squads, but can chose to go off if they want) to go in exact places, puts out waypoints and such. Joint Ops is highly realistic, which like I said in my previous post can suck sometimes. The maps are many miles big (the average size is 4sq miles) and can take many minutes to cross on foot (sometimes idiots take off in choppers and leave alot of guys behind) only to get killed instantly by a commando with a Barett .50 cal.

Many kinds of APCs and Jeeps, air power consists of Little Bird choppers and Black Hawks for the Americans. Since it is tropical warfare, choppers are the only things that can operate in such confined spots.

Joint Ops IS Battlefield 2 essentially, I don't know why there is only and average size community.

Heres an average scenario which happens alot in Joint Ops...

You are a pilot, you select your weapons. You chose the MP5 and the AT-4 as your weapons (in JOps, your running speed is determined by the weight of your equipment). You hop in a Black Hawk, and start the 20 second process of revving up the engine. Many guys hop in, about 10 or 20. You take off towards the enemy island, and the warning signal goes off that someone has locked on to you with a Stinger. You fly low over the water, and everyone hops out into the ocean. You see the rocket coming at you, getting closer. You get out of the seat, and jump out the side door of the Black Hawk the instant the Stinger missle hits it. You hit the water hard, and swim to the surface. Just then, a SEAL inflatable dingey comes by and stops next to you. It calls for an amphibious APC to come help you out. The APC comes, and takes you to the enemy island.
You hit the enemy beach, machine guns and RPGs flying all over the place. Your APC is a bullet magnet, you hop out and proceed to go fully automatic with your MP5. An indonesian rebel runs at you, you proceed to miss, and he stabs you with a machete.


Then you have 2 choices.
Respawn at home base instantly,
or wait about 30-40 seconds and spawn at the point closest to the enemy.

Then it all starts over...



Most fun you'll ever have.

Milkman Dan
June 6, 2005, 1:34 am
i used to play joint ops and it was awesome except i cant update it anymore so i cant play ;_;

Cookie`
June 6, 2005, 4:28 am
A new game that is very original is called "Spore" :) Look it up its very interesting

http://spore.ea.com/

basically you start out as a single cell and slowly evolve into another species and after awhile take out some other worlds ;)

you get to make your creature too and the game figures out how it moves so you do not have too... the evolving idea has been done before but not to this big of a scale i think

Kyklis
June 6, 2005, 4:32 am
Must...get....Joint Ops.....NOW. That sounds amazing. How much is it?

EDIT: I've read aobut Spore. Very original, and I'm just hoping you can attack and take over planets, cause Thats what I'd do. I'd be all " MUST TAKE OVER UNIVERSE ". Or jsut one planet, I'd be content with that :P.

Leo Da Lunerfox
June 6, 2005, 5:36 am
To go back to the topic at hand:

Yes, I agree that games HAVE been getting repetitive lately, that all these new FPS, RTS, MMORPG and Sports games are nothing but reheated bullcrap. But once in a while, there comes a gem that changes the way people play games.

Savage, for instance, is both a very intensive FPS and RTS game, featuring 32 vs 32 ranged and melee combat across vast fields, building and research, and many innovative designs such as the stamina and exp bar. It even has its own engine made from scratch. But how did it turn out? GameStop refused to stock any more of them because nobody wanted to buy them. A game that would've been a huge success was shot down due to its lack of advertising and hype.

Ground Control 2 and Shattered Galaxy are both milestones in how people play RTS. For Ground Control 2, the game takes away the repetitiveness of RTS cliche "Whoever is able to click and micromanage the fastest wins" playstyle, and allows the player to call down any unit they want, at any time the Dropship is at base. This allows the players to focus on the actual warfare portion of the game, figuring out the best positions for attack or defense.

Shattered Galaxy, albeit with its mediocore graphics, delivers gameplay that no other RTS can. In Shattered Galaxy, it is a constant war for land, as players control squads of 6 to 12 across the battlefield. In a normal match, factions can have up to 20 players, meaning 120+ units, on the battlefield at the same time. One can imagine the scale of the war when 40 players are all fighting for control of the map. This, combined with unit customization, has got me hooked on it again and again.

The half life mod, The Trenches, is a game where realism meets gameplay. In that game, players fight out in trenches, equipped with weapons similar to the standard loadout of WWI soldiers. Going "Over the Top" usually ends in Sucidial slaughter, which is realistic, but the makers was wise enough to exclude some realism aspects, such as giving the guns some accuracy, and allows the player to get shot once in a non-head area before dying. Imagine what would happen if they tried to base it too much on reality, and have the player die from getting shot in the foot, losing his balance, falling over, and then bleed for 15 minutes until someone comes and shoots him in the head. Such realism, although interesting, is nothing like a game I would want to play.

Face it, your average gamer (By average meaning the people who looks at IGN or Gamespot's scores and buys whatever hyped up stuff they proclaim to be good without a cent of their own judgement) is where most of the gaming company's revenue come from, and sad to say, we are the minority group of the gamers. That is why even mircosoft develop consoles, to capture the "Teenage/Adult" demographic of gamers, without intimidating them with PCs.

But not all hope is lost. Some companies, such as S2 Games, Vivendi(not so much), and PopCap games continue to create games that are innovative and fun for users to play on. Plus many independent game making teams produce high quality games that have new ideas in them. But until then, turn on your "Rehashed" filter, and your problem should be fixed.

Kyklis
June 6, 2005, 5:48 am
Ground control 2 I have never played, But am Now intrigued. Another one is Warhammer 40k : Dawn of war. It offers some new additions to RTS'. To name a few:
Squads: Your units come in squads when you build them, and you can add on to the squads. Selecting the squad is like selecting one unit; they all move together.
Morale: Diffrent weapons and units do things to the squads morale. For example, having one of the Chaos Units ( Bloodthirster, a gigantic demonic type thing ) would scare the (Please refrain from swearing) out of any man. Once a squad loses morale, their attack damage and speed goes down.
Cover: If your squad goes into a crater, they are harder to hit and have more cover, and same with a hill.

Stuff like that makes game more strategic and fun.

Captain Ben
June 6, 2005, 7:12 am
The trend now seems to be maturity. Don't get me wrong I love gory games full of sex, etc, but I also love my young 'kiddy' games as well. Even now, I love playing Diddy Kong Racing, because the elements in it are both fun and original. But games like Final Fantasy, the first ones were fun, but then when they began using sex to sell, I totally lost interest. Every one of their games now seem to have a scantily-clad women posing on the cover.

Droopy
June 6, 2005, 1:03 pm
It angers me when I see an original game, being only half made. Rise of nations for instance. I rather play older games, like doom with lesser graphics, than a year of working on gameplay and 3 years on graphics FPS. Half Life(the first one at least, if you find HL2 sucky) is a more original FPS. It combines massive firefights and use of your brain. Though I like HL1 better than HL2, I still think that HL2(along with Doom and Far Cry) brought a new generation of FPS's. or at least thats what they said. I still get the feeling that FPS's are just the same, only with realistic graphics(wich make the game only a bit more realistic).

There are a couple of good games comming up. The Movies and B&W2, STALKER and Gothic 3. Though I think stalker is gonna be just another average FPS.

R0L4ND
June 6, 2005, 1:39 pm
quote:Originally posted by KeyesBlobUmm... Ever play Brothers in Arms?

That game shoves realism up your ass. Turn off the supression meter and keep the crosshairs off (it is standard that they are off, but some faggots turn them on).

When has the FPS ever been innovative? WHY does it have to be innovative. The whole concept of FPS is the reflexive shoot first ask questions later approach. Name a way that FPSs can be innovative. Name a new feature that can revolutionize FPS games. FPS games focus on two things. Graphics and fun factor. Noone gives a (Please refrain from swearing) about storylines, noone cares about who your teammates are (except in BIA, you actually seek revenge on the (Please refrain from swearing) that killed a teammate).

A game will never be able to capture the realism of war. Never. Don't hope for it because it is physically impossible to recreate the realism of war. If MOH was realistic, you'd drop out of the boat on D-day and get shot. Game over. You lose. And no matter what you do to try and prevent it that level, it will keep happening. Realism + games will never mix because games are meant to be fun and ecxiting, and give the player a feeling of control. If a game hands you your ass again and again, you don't play it. If people don't play it, it doesn't get sales.

Your rant is unrealistic and not probable.



Stupid response, and I'll tell you why.

#1 - A world war 2 game without proning? Get lost.

#2 - You're dead wrong when you claim that no game will be able to capture the feeling of war. Many games have got many different aspects down, it's just up to someone to combine the different aspects together. For example - the iron-sights, weapon sounds and weapon-handling of Infiltration, the movement and delicate CQB controls of Raven Shield, the excellent supressive factor of SWAT4 and the freedom of Operation Flashpoint. Combine those together and you'll get an FPS that whips the (Please refrain from swearing) out of BiA, anytime.

#3 - "Name a way FPS's can be innovative" - by being realistic. Nigh on every FPS on the market involves a crosshair and quick reflexes. Try making it into a battle of iron-sights and tactics. Sure, you'll deter a large part of the standard market, but the realists will get drawn to the game like moths to a light! And trust me, realists are NO SMALL PART of the market. They've been overlooked for way too long - it's time to make an engrossing game, that can truly tote itself being "the most realistic first person experience on the market" (gameplay-wise).

#4 - You say that FPS's are about two things. "Graphics and fun factor". Fun is relative.

KeyesBlob
June 6, 2005, 2:12 pm
Wow, you are really foolish. You actually think that war is like it is portrayed in games? Even RS3 or any of the rainbows are highly unrealistic. Any game that has "life", any game that you can "chose" your weapon before a mission, any game that you can see your character in a 3rd person, is an unrealistic game.

Its funny, you think you actually know what war is like. Neither do I, but I sure as hell know more about it than you do obviously, if you think a game can come close to recreating it.

R0L4ND
June 6, 2005, 2:33 pm
Haha. You're stupid. You obviously know jack-shit about anything that has got to do with para-/military forces, so go back to call of duty and your crosshairs.

For starters, the Rainbow-team does not constitute "war" or a regular military force. It's a task anti-terrorist force, meaning it's not bound to any national military regulation. That means that they're free to select any gear they wish, since their focus is not to select the most cost-efficient gear, but rather what they feel fits the job best. Granted, players don't always stick to the weapons that operatives would normally be trained with, and doubtfully would a task-force stack up with so diverse weapons as the game Raven Shield shows, but still, it's not unrealistic. So that argument of yours fails.
MILITARY FORCES, however, are bound to their national affiliation. Equipping an army is a matter of governing - the government decides what firearms should be bought in for what use, and from who. It's not a matter of specialist tailoring to find the ultimate gun for the situation in question - but rather to find a relatively versatile solution that can fit into the role and operating climates of the army it's going to get used in. Weapons get purchased, and handed out from the armory. Who gets what is decided in the basic level of training. Unlike task-force operatives, you can't switch to other weapons because you wanna "get the feel of another one", but you're pretty much stuck with the same weapon you were assigned with when you enrolled, as long as you're a standard grunt in the regular army.
So, in Operation Flashpoint, you rarely get to choose your weapons. In single-player, you're mostly just stuck with your trusty M16, while you've got your squadmates to support you with machineguns, grenades, grenadelaunchers and anti-vehicle capabilities.

What the fuck do you mean by "any game that has life"? When you die in Raven Shield, your character is dead! When you die in SWAT4, your character is dead! When you die in Operation Flashpoint, your character is dead! Have you missed out on something here? And only in OFP can you see your character in 3rd person views without cheating.

Feel free to bring any other arguments in that I can shoot down.

SuperKill
June 6, 2005, 2:41 pm
roland i think i get your point now.
ever thought about the fact that most people dont want games to be as realistic as you want them to be?

just think about the big names of multiplayer \ singleplayer games today;

[half life family]
**CS - multi - pretty far from *realism* by your point of view, yet it was and still is the biggest and most played multiplayer game in the world. for sevral years now. (same with CS:S)
**Half Life - singleplayer - not even close to realism, and does not have amazing graphics or supreme game engine, even for its time, yet it was one of the most successfull singleplayer PC games along with its expansions.
**Half Life 2 - singleplayer - same deal, not realistic at all, yet it's got one of the best (if not THE best) ratings\rankings in game magazines almost everywhere.
[/half life family]
**Unreal Tournament - single+multi - unrealistic, yet a huge hit at the time. plus its still being played online. (along with the latest *versions* of the game, UT2K3 - UT2K5.. hits, every one of them)
**Quake III Arena - multi - this game is as unrealistic as it gets. still like all the list above, it was a hit in both multiplayer and singleplayer.

its legit if you complain about games being way too repeatative.
fact is, 99% of the gamers will prefer games with awsome gameplay (see halo, cs, UT) than games that makes your char walk crippled once shot at the leg.
and its completley understandable.

R0L4ND
June 6, 2005, 2:55 pm
Replace "most people" with "some people". Because no realistic FPS (in the true meaning of the word) has been released lately, the gaming industry doesn't even know what a potential gold-mine they're sitting on.
Concerning gameplay - if you make a completely realistic game, by realism standards, it WILL balance itself out. It will create natural balance, instead of artificial balance - however, the trick is that you can't do anything half-assed. If you want the realism-based balance, you have to go for the full monty. Don't wanna walk with the same speed as a pile of lard? Stop weighing yourself down with 3 machineguns and a rocketlauncher. Don't like dying without any sort of pre-announcement at all? Try keeping your head down and stop rambo-ing for a change. And so on.

I have no particular problem with ultra-unrealistic shooters (even if it's been a while, I am a UT2004-player too), since they don't pretend to be something they're not, what bothers me are the half-assed "realistic settings but physics, stamina and accauracy taken from outer space"-shooters (whose names I don't even have to mention by this time).

Michal
June 6, 2005, 9:40 pm
quote:Wow, you are really foolish. You actually think that war is like it is portrayed in games? Even RS3 or any of the rainbows are highly unrealistic. Any game that has "life", any game that you can "chose" your weapon before a mission, any game that you can see your character in a 3rd person, is an unrealistic game.

Its funny, you think you actually know what war is like. Neither do I, but I sure as hell know more about it than you do obviously, if you think a game can come close to recreating it.
That's not exactly true, OFPs combat engine was developed for training marines so obviously it must be a pretty good representation.
BTW before OFP2 is released, Bohemia Interactive will release Armed Assault which runs on an upgraded OFP1 engine. I will definitely get it.
quote:**CS - multi - pretty far from *realism* by your point of view, yet it was and still is the biggest and most played multiplayer game in the world. for sevral years now. (same with CS:S)
**Half Life - singleplayer - not even close to realism, and does not have amazing graphics or supreme game engine, even for its time, yet it was one of the most successfull singleplayer PC games along with its expansions.
**Half Life 2 - singleplayer - same deal, not realistic at all, yet it's got one of the best (if not THE best) ratings\rankings in game magazines almost everywhere.
[/half life family]
**Unreal Tournament - single+multi - unrealistic, yet a huge hit at the time. plus its still being played online. (along with the latest *versions* of the game, UT2K3 - UT2K5.. hits, every one of them)
**Quake III Arena - multi - this game is as unrealistic as it gets. still like all the list above, it was a hit in both multiplayer and singleplayer.
I've played all these games except CS and HL2. Although they were fun at the start, they got boring and repetitive after a week or two, especially in online play. For me, lack of realism and freedom = boredom.

Deleted User
June 6, 2005, 10:04 pm
im gonna make the most realistic game in the world when i grow up :D

enjoyincubus
June 7, 2005, 2:10 am
Okay, tell me when you're done.

Cookie`
June 7, 2005, 2:28 am
Hmm Roland is gunna get a small ban or a post fine for dodging the swear filter.... fool

-=edit
Go play Microsoft Flight Simulator ElOhEl

Deleted User
June 7, 2005, 3:46 am
wow Roland...i think you need to calm down and not try to get around the swear filter
EdIt: oh...Roland good job pointing out where you sweared becuase if the Mods do look at your post it will stand out in BOLD where you cussed.

Deleted User
June 7, 2005, 4:11 am
If I want realism, I'll walk out of my house and join the f*cking army. Video games are mostly used as an escape from reality. You say that the gaming community is sitting on a potential gold mine, I think they're sitting on a potential pile of sh*t. It's all a matter of opinion
.

Leo Da Lunerfox
June 7, 2005, 5:48 am
yeah, the most realistic FPS is called Life.

You only get one chance, you get shot once, you fall over in pain, and you can actually choose not to fight! Go figure.

SuperKill
June 7, 2005, 6:54 am
quote:Originally posted by R0L4NDthe gaming industry doesn't even know what a potential gold-mine they're sitting on.
"OK"


i'm sure you do!
they just havn't figured it out yet.. silly gaming industry, they should learn something from roland.

Captain Ben
June 7, 2005, 7:37 am
It seems realism is the way to go...

Deleted User
June 7, 2005, 12:48 pm
im done :D

R0L4ND
June 7, 2005, 2:24 pm
I couldn't care less about my post-count, much less about getting a small ban for using non-personal cussing words. Wanna go rat to the mods? Go right ahead.

Swazo and Supperkill: How could you POSSIBLY know? Judging from your inane comments, I'd say you haven't walked anywhere near realistic infantry shooters. The community is scattered - some at Infiltration, some at OFP, some at Red Orchestra. If a game with a realistic premise (I'm hoping for OFP2) would get released with sufficient attention and hype, you'll watch the community of said game skyrocket.
And yes, you're (Please refrain from swearing)ing right when you say that the gaming industry should learn something from me: the western market philosophy is "find something that is profitable and kick the dead horse until it's no longer lucrative", as opposed to "give the people what they want".
You say that games are an escape from reality, swazo. Then why did you just shoot down your own argument? How about the people who like playing virtual war without actually having to have their guts shot out? Y00 t3h l0se.

KeyesBlob
June 7, 2005, 3:38 pm
Because the game potrays war to the player as they want it. It gives the player control. The reason why a game will never be realistic is because you can always turn off the game when you want to stop playing. You will ALWAYS be in control of the game, one way or another.

And by having Life I meant that any game that has a bar system or color system, take RS3 for example. You can get capped a few times in RS3 by a Tango with an M4 and walk away from it. Bullet proof vests only stop small arms fire like pistols and sub-machine guns. In RS3, you pick an "inaccurate" gun and all you have to do is put the massive red circle on the enemy and shoot.

In OFP, from what I have seen, it can be 3rd person and have crosshairs. < not realistic.

The game I have seen that comes closest to realism is the US Army version of Full Spectrum Warrior. You type in a long cheat at the code menu and it opens the Army version. That version is hardcore realisitc, you can throw a grenade all the way down the street and still get hit in the neck by shrapnel.

If OPF was released as a retail game, people would say "Oh, its just a stupid BF and Americas Army mix. Woop-de-doo-dah-day." and it would barely sell.

You have no idea how the gaming industry works.

SuperKill
June 7, 2005, 3:43 pm
you're putting your words in a way that tries to show the gaming industry as a cheating corrupted uber-evil organization that brainwashes us and makes us buy their 'crappy' games over and over again.
well you're wrong. people arent THAT stupid, they wont spend money over and over again on something they dont like.
and besides, its a fact that some good games DID get released lately.

quote:Originally posted by R0L4NDAnd yes, you're (Please refrain from swearing)ing right when you say that the gaming industry should learn something from me

haha, arent you special.

oh yea and for your question - "how could you POSSIBLY know?" ;
well correct me if i'm wrong but it seems that games that arent so 'realistic' are currently kicking the crap out of 'realistic' (as far as it gets) games?
just a little comparision between cs vs rainbow six for example.
or even the old red alert vs hidden and dangerous?
so what makes you think that adding realism will make any diffrence? its all about gameplay, and partly graphics.
just a personal opinion - i'd rather play a game that my character can hover over earth with its ultra unrealistic jetboots ( ;D ), than having a game where my character is cripple and having a hard time moving, in a huge battlefield after being single shotted at the leg. i'm just guessing that most people think the same.

its basiclly just like soldat's community. much more prefers normal mode that has the gameplay freedom than the realistic mode. hell most of realistic mode players just run there cause of the barret on normal mode or whatever other reason.


anyway when you'll be a game designer we could have this arguement again, only that time it would have a point.

R0L4ND
June 7, 2005, 3:57 pm
quote:Originally posted by KeyesBlob
If OPF was released as a retail game, people would say "Oh, its just a stupid BF and Americas Army mix. Woop-de-doo-dah-day." and it would barely sell.


You for real? Operation Flashpoint is a retail game. It did sell. Quite a lot at that too.

As far as supperkill goes: What did I just tell you? Realism creates its own balance. And if you don't like getting gimped, keep your head down for a change. And (to dig this up again) I have no problem with ultra-unreal games - I don't like the half-ass FPS's in the likes of CoD, MoH and CS.
What the crap does gameplay have to do with the level of realism? Have you played Operation Flashpoint? Overall, the most realistic retail FPS released up to date - it had supreme gameplay and game mechanics. Its overall realism never got in the way of the gameplay.
As far as your "psuedo-realism whips realism"-argument: if you make me turn up an argument I've used 2+ times more in this thread, I refuse to talk to you. IT IS ALL ABOUT GAMING INDUSTRY INTEREST, HYPE AND PUBLIC EXPOSURE. Operation Flashpoint was, pretty much, a sleeper hit, whose success depended on positive reviews and word-of-mouth. Public exposure (minus reviews) was scarce, hype was nigh on minimal... yet it made a name for itself, thankfully enough.
So, release a realistic title with much hype, and it will sell, regardless of its level of realism.
Concerning "people won't play outdated concepts and old stuff that's basically being sold in a new box with a new name" - wrong again. Companies will make MINIMAL adaptations and changes in most cases. As I said, profit comes first in the western market - so the mentality is "why change something that works?".
People seem that to forget that games can be as much of escapes of reality as they can be works of art - this truth is being undermined by most greedy companies (with a few exceptions) that are more interested in making a buck out of it rather than creating an experience, which is what computer games, in fact, are all about.

SuperKill
June 7, 2005, 4:03 pm
(to undig it up) i was talking about the half assed fps's.
but nevermind.

Green Barret
June 7, 2005, 4:36 pm
Whoa.. i see flames coming up. Don't flame me though, I'm just posting my opinion.

I agree with Keyes that games cannot be totally realistic. Games are games. They are limited to the keys on the buttons on the keyboard/mouse.

Think about the most realistic FPS game you've played. Now imagine you had one of the weapons in that game and you had to use it against incoming enemy units. Even if that game had crosshairs aiming, reloading, controling recoil etc in real life are somethings that are totally different.

Get person who is extremly good at the most realistic games at this time and hand him one of the weapons from that game. He might aim, sure, he can fire, yeah, and he might even be able to reload the gun. But can he handle the gun like he does in the game? No. Life and games are different.

In such "realistic" games all you have to do is control a mouse, click and press the reload button from time to time - something that allows even 7 year olds to gun down "terrorists". I hardly find that near real situations.

Games are best for doing things we CAN'T do in the life we live. In Soldat you can jet around in boots which don't exist right now. In Starcraft you can control units in space which is impossible in this world of this moment. In Half Life you can gun down aliens that are unheard of in real life. The list goes on...

Games ARE limited in realism, but ENDLESS in terms of fantasy.

R0L4ND
June 7, 2005, 5:07 pm
Crosshairs are far from the closest realism implementation. Have you played Infiltration? That's by far, in the infantry weapon-handling aspect, the most realistic game up-to-date. Your character breathes, which affects your aiming - once you've got the weapon up to your shoulders, you can either snap-shoot, or hold your breath to steady the sights for accaurate fire.
The weapon discipline, implementation and handling is also excellent - in most cases down to the standard regulation/operator manual of each individual weapon. In fact, let me show you:

http://infiltration.sentrystudios.net/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/action/shot0162.jpg
- That's the view of the weapon at the hip. As opposed to other games, the weapon positioning feels, more or less, natural.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/psyxeno/Aim_nas.gif
- This is the famous iron-sight I keep telling people about. You have no idea how much more challenging, realistic, gratifying and engrossing the gaming experience becomes once you aim with iron-sights rather than crosshairs. You should try it sometime.

Sticky
June 7, 2005, 6:19 pm
quote:Originally posted by Green BarretGames ARE limited in realism, but ENDLESS in terms of fantasy.

This is why I stick with Nintendo.

Michal
June 7, 2005, 10:09 pm
The problem with most FPSs is that (online) it is a competition of who can move their mouse and click best. I like a game that requires thinking and strategy, it does not necesarily have to be a realistic style game, but realistic games are more likely to have these complex situations. Even Soldat can be very complex and interesting for me with proper maps and options, but on the other hand a "vanilla" CTF game bores my mind out.

DT
June 7, 2005, 11:28 pm
the passion to make games that for pure fun is not found in to many game makers these days...

Famine
June 8, 2005, 1:06 am
Time for me to play that game ROLAND!

KeyesBlob
June 8, 2005, 2:19 am
quote:Originally posted by R0L4NDCrosshairs are far from the closest realism implementation. Have you played Infiltration? That's by far, in the infantry weapon-handling aspect, the most realistic game up-to-date. Your character breathes, which affects your aiming - once you've got the weapon up to your shoulders, you can either snap-shoot, or hold your breath to steady the sights for accaurate fire.
The weapon discipline, implementation and handling is also excellent - in most cases down to the standard regulation/operator manual of each individual weapon. In fact, let me show you:

http://infiltration.sentrystudios.net/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/action/shot0162.jpg
- That's the view of the weapon at the hip. As opposed to other games, the weapon positioning feels, more or less, natural.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/psyxeno/Aim_nas.gif
- This is the famous iron-sight I keep telling people about. You have no idea how much more challenging, realistic, gratifying and engrossing the gaming experience becomes once you aim with iron-sights rather than crosshairs. You should try it sometime.


1. I have held an MP5. That point of view is so off, its retarded.

2. BIA doesn't have crosshairs, unless you turn them on. Funny thing is, I have more satifaction no scoping someone in H2 with crosshairs that I do using iron sights to cap someone in BIA.

PS: That game looks like (Please refrain from swearing).

PSS: The guy above you is right. You can add breathing and such into a game, but no matter how much you perfect it in a game, it will never be like holding the real thing. In that game, when you select to zoom in with iron sights, do you actually have to line up the sights before you can aim, while breathing and running. I bet the sights are pre-lined up like they are in the screen shot. I bet when you breath that the sights stay lined up but move in a U swaying pattern.

Realistic my ass.

Hitman
June 8, 2005, 3:10 am
WHO CARES, THEY'RE JUST GAMES!

F**k, the whole point in games is they're not realistic, otherwise they wouldn't be fun. Reality is what limits the 'fun factor' and if you shove too much of it in games they suck. "Omg, the crosshair is off by 186 mega-millimetres, which means the angel of the projectile the gun is firing isn't..." Yap, yap, as long as you can shoot the damn thing with some sort of effect that one would expect, who cares?

Want something realistic? Go outside.

Cookie`
June 8, 2005, 3:14 am
quote:Originally posted by HitmanWHO CARES, THEY'RE JUST GAMES!

F**k, the whole point in games is they're not realistic, otherwise they wouldn't be fun. Reality is what limits the 'fun factor' and if you shove too much of it in games they suck. "Omg, the crosshair is off by 186 mega-millimetres, which means the angel of the projectile the gun is firing isn't..." Yap, yap, as long as you can shoot the damn thing with some sort of effect that one would expect, who cares?

Want something realistic? Go outside.


Hitman wins thread!!!

Famine
June 8, 2005, 3:28 am
(Please refrain from swearing)ing E-head

Deleted User
June 8, 2005, 4:11 am
quote:Originally posted by R0L4NDI couldn't care less about my post-count, much less about getting a small ban for using non-personal cussing words. Wanna go rat to the mods? Go right ahead.

no i was just stating the facts...didn't mean to offend anyone here.

Kyklis
June 8, 2005, 5:57 am
Yea, hitman pretty much wins here :D. Anyways, like everyone else said, its impossible to come near enough to realism for it to be like the real thing. Well, actually....If they come out with Virtual Reality, and perfect it awesomely, it could work. You could go and buy, say, some world war two game, pop it into VR system, and play. It would be like the Matrix, SORT OF. You'd never have to move to move in game :D. If you got show in the leg in game, you would be wearing a suit, and the leg would stiffen up in real life, messing up your movement IN game. ( If you've ever read Ender's Game you'll understand better. Like getting flashes in the leg ) And if you were the same size in the game that you are in real life, then, THEN, it would be realistic. Even then, it wouldn't be completely realistic, because you'd probably respawn. You'd never be as careful or scared as in real life, because who cares? You'll just respawn. Then if they added some kind of thingy that made you hurt when you got shot, it would be very near to the real thing. But is that ever, EVER gonna happen. No. Maybe about a tiny tiny inch of possibility. Then you'd get your realisim. But then who wants to have to aim physicly and line up ironsights when they can move a mouse and acheive a perfect headshot? Who wants to have to control their breath to ahceive better acuracy, and crawl through things, instead of just pressing C and W? No one. Hitman's right.

R0L4ND
June 8, 2005, 1:04 pm
(Please refrain from swearing) this, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Kyklis
June 8, 2005, 4:10 pm
No, its like talking to several, geneticly modified, intelligent brick walls.

i am ahab
June 8, 2005, 5:11 pm
LEVEL ENDS:

HITMAN you have finished the SOLDAT FORUMS TOPIC_ID=24177 level!

****************** NEW HIGH SCORE **************
-irritating the thread starter bonus x25 -
-nintendo recognition as ultimate original developer-
-BONUS STAGE UNLOCKED!-

Congratulations for your bonus task you get to continue annoying easily annoyed people for as long as possible!
Join Todays Top Annoyers!:
mickle89 48735747587845758748370935784754754473 irritatometer points!
raptoR 48735747587845758748370935784754754472.9999 irritatometer points!
...
...

Kyklis
June 8, 2005, 9:43 pm
^ Nice.

Leo Da Lunerfox
June 9, 2005, 1:21 am
Haha, great joke.

Deleted User
June 9, 2005, 2:04 am
quote:Originally posted by KyklisNo, its like talking to several, geneticly modified, intelligent brick walls.


LMFAO! All I can think of when I read that is FliesLikeABrick
.

Famine
June 9, 2005, 2:10 am
The (Please refrain from swearing)ometer just went up a bit.

Kyklis
June 9, 2005, 3:46 am
I saw a picture of flieslikeabrick once. It was a brick. With sunglasses. And a jacket. Leather. No joke :D.

Hitman
June 9, 2005, 12:43 pm
You just killed it right there, mate. You gotta know when to stop.

SuperKill
June 9, 2005, 2:48 pm
exactly what i had in mind :/

Kyklis
June 10, 2005, 12:13 am
Eh. No point denying it. I have a problem with taking jokes too far :P.