After my Vietcong post and watching the trailer to Call of Duty, and looking at MOH:Rising Sun, and Men of Valor:Vietnam, it seems very obvious that war shooters finally seem to have come of age. Black Hawk Down is another realistic (as opposed to Quake/UT style FPS gaming) war based FPS that has come out recently. Also, Hidden and Dangerous 2, and probably a few other titles I''m forgetting are around the corner. Ghost Recon and Operation Flashpoint were of cource realistic war based FPS also, but they were both fictional scenarios. But what inspired me to write this post was seeing something very simple in the Call of Duty trailer....a soldier dragging a wounded man out of the line of fire. What a great idea. Not just in terms of gameplay but introducing yet another added level of realism and more importantly, a dose of humanity into gaming. After visiting the Vietcong forums fairly regularly, I''ve definitely noticed a very strong desire amongst the people there for more realistic war-based first person gaming. And not just the Vietnam era, but even eras like the Korean War, and even WWI. But a large number are crying out for more realism. Surprisingly, quite a few even don''t mind if guns are imbalanced as long as realistically the guns really were that way. For example, in Vietcong, some people complain that the VC weapons are useless except for the Degaterev and the AK47 (I found the SKS useful, and the PPS43 wasn''t bad)...and in a way they are right. For the most part American weapons were superior (except ironically for the M16...and Vietcong even models the M16 accurately in that it can only hold 18 instead of 20 rounds since the original springs in the clips could deform easily). But what I''d really like to see is a healthy dose of humanity along with realism injected into future war-based FPS games. The scene of the soldier dragging a wounded soldier is very powerful, and hearing cries of "medic" and having to get to them is very moving. While reading some comments about the Men of Valor game, the lead designer said that he just wanted to showcase that these were ordinary men, often drafted into service, who had to perform under extraordinary circumstances. These weren''t your best of the best cream of the crop guys....just guys like you and me who had to do what they had to do under extreme situations. The other thing I liked about Men of Valor that the designer was doing was that your teammates can die...but if you protect them, they live and gain experience. While there''s obviously the advantage of having more experienced people on your side, hopefully seeing a "friend" die, will be saddening. So, I say enough of the Horror, Sci-fi, and Spec Ops shooters that have previously flooded the market. It''s time to look at a new sub-genre, the realistic history based shooter. They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Have you heard of Full Spectrum Warrior? It''s another game commisioned by the US Army, but will be released to the public. There was a bit about it''s realism on Penny Arcade recently. Check out the third post down.

FSW looks interesting, but I''d prefer doing real war scenarios...so either something along the lines of Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia or Kosovo if it''s going to be a modern engagement. I think the Ghost Recon what-if scenarios are good, but I''m thinking more along real world historical combat.

I''d like to see games really go hard core about the realism, just to see how far someone can push it until it becomes boring or too real. While tactical shooters have come a long way, they still don''t model gun combat very well (a real life engagement takes far more many bullets fired to achieve hits than FPS games....if wars were as deadly as FPS games, hardly anyone would come out alive). I think making combat more realistic by modeling statistical analysis of how many shots were fired to how many casualties were given (and taken) would actually enhance gameplay. It makes the game go by longer, and it also makes searching for every last tactical advantage possible.

I''d also like to see FPS games go towards a truly team-based effort....not the stuff you see on BF1942 or even AA, but true organized teams. The only way to pull off large scale battles is to have teams...not just MMO like BF1942, but honest to God organized groups that know each other and have worked together. This will also reinforce the sorrow of "losing a bud" in battle, especially if FPS games take a more character oriented approach to battle (like having stats for your character that can be improved over time...and dying means losing those accrued skill points).


They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

You make an interesting point Dauntless (again).

I think we have a lot to owe to Counter-Strike. As much as many loath it, it has brought realistic-based military ideas to the general public. I remember back when it came out and if you asked someone what an mp5 was, they would assume it was some kind of amazing music file.

Nowadays people know the simple elements of modern warfare. Things such as the type of weapons, what a flash bang is and who the SAS are. I used to rave on about them to my friends and they had no idea, nowadays they even know what each of them look like.

I am not saying that Counter-strike in any way represents real warfare but I believe it was what was needed for money-loving publishers to see that realistic games can reach the mass market. It was really up to games such as Rainbow 6 (far less popular than CS) to show that the genre could go even further into realism.

Doolwind

I think that after the recent IRaq war, the public is more interested (or at least concerned) with how the military truly operates. I think the extremely abstracted RTS games and pseudo-realistic FPS games like MOH:AA will not be as interesting to the mainstream as much as it once was (though it''ll always be popular).

I think there''s a large crowd out there who wants to experience all the gritty and grim experiences of war (without getting hurt or killed). They want to be immersed as deeply as possible into the experience, even if just to get a virtual taste of the amazing dichotomy of the extreme horror of war juxtaposed against the selfless heroism and sacrifice that only men in combat can know. When a game is simply bunny-hopping and blowing away the opposing guys....the essential feel of war is lost.

War is about horror, about fear, about sacrifice, about duty, about facing hard questions. I think people truly want to get a taste of that. Otherwise movies like Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, and Saving Private Ryan wouldn''t be so popular. Indeed, I think if Rambo came out today, it wouldn''t be anywhere near as popular and people would make fun of it more. I think society has started to outgrow the Rambo, Missing in Action style of movie (and game) and they want the more realistic styles of games.

And it shouldn''t be underestimated the value of playing ordinary joe-grunt versus, super duper bad ass Spec Ops dude. A part of the appeal of WWII games is that these were ordianry guys like you and me pulled off the streets to do something that I can''t even imagine. It''s sort of like the difference between Batman and Superman. Everyone can relate to Batman, but it''s hard to relate to Superman. What I liked about the Call of Duty trailer was the little bylines as the trailer played. Also, the look of fear on the Russian soldiers while the bombs exploded was a great touch. So even though Call of Duty is based on the aging and unrealistic Quake III engine, I''m hoping they can make a very good story out of it.


They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

You make some excellent points Dauntless. I especially liked your suggestion regarding multiplayer war games:

quote: I''d also like to see FPS games go towards a truly team-based effort....not the stuff you see on BF1942 or even AA, but true organized teams. The only way to pull off large scale battles is to have teams...not just MMO like BF1942, but honest to God organized groups that know each other and have worked together. This will also reinforce the sorrow of "losing a bud" in battle, especially if FPS games take a more character oriented approach to battle (like having stats for your character that can be improved over time...and dying means losing those accrued skill points).

While reading your first post in this thread I was thinking about ways to enhance the single player story experience. The more opportunities the player has to get to know and identify with the soldiers around him, the more the average player will care about those soldiers, thus heightening the intensity and emotion of the story as those soldiers are killed, captured, wounded, etc. Cut scenes could be used to introduce the characters, perhaps.

****************************************

Brian Lacy
ForeverDream Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@foreverdreamstudios.com

"I create. Therefore I am."

Read my post here and let me know what you think:

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=157935

Please understand that not only is it's intent to focus on the realism of the situations presented in the movie, but it's also taking into effect what would be feasible of a game of this nature (multiplayer) in a sensible way. Feel free to play with it

My opinion is that people should have had the chance to experience dramatic battles for themselves in a game and I'm surprised it hasn't been accomplished yet. As for the Rambo orientation, you also have to take into consideration that single player games (focused on a single, supreme hero) were the original focus, multiplayer (as well as co-op play) is just really being shown the light of gaming. It's just a matter of taking things to a higher level, after all, the visuals have been dramaticly increased since the Atari era of gaming meaning the possibilities of the expected realisim is more than there (visualy), we just need to delve deeper into the players' experiences.

quote:
But what I'd really like to see is a healthy dose of humanity along with realism injected into future war-based FPS games. The scene of the soldier dragging a wounded soldier is very powerful, and hearing cries of "medic" and having to get to them is very moving.

My point exactly. There are plenty of 'frag' games, but they don't give you the true feel of honor and courage under fire and this is what people want to feel coming out of a game like this.

My 'dime' and my two cents

- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus

GO DEEPER!


[edited by - ronixus on May 23, 2003 6:59:12 PM]

quote: Original post by Dauntless
a soldier dragging a wounded man out of the line of fire. What a great idea.

I have been thinking about this concept for a while, more with regards to RTS games but it is the same concept. I think one big thing that games, no matter how realistic they are, haven''t done yet is making the player care about the other soldiers they are fighting with.

As you said, the guy getting dragged away was in the trailer. even in this game I doubt whether you will be able to do it in game, and if you can, I doubt even more how many people actually will do it. Perhaps a few game studios have tried it but it was wasn''t fun, or was never used. It is much easier to abstract it out and have a medic who simply heals you.

The other problem is the speed of the game. For someone to be dragged out of the way they must be incapacitated, which means the player is just sitting there doing nothing. From a "fun" perspective (which is what most gamers are there for) people would prefer to "respawn" and get back into it rather than sit there for a minute or two hoping someone will drag their body away and fix them.

Doolwind

<offtopic>
Hey Dauntless, I sent you email a few weeks ago at your address listed in your GDNet profile. Think you could email me with your current address (or check that one)? Thanks.
</offtopic>

If you want a realistic war game, have the player jump out of a trench and get killed instantly. hey presto! I suppose you may as well just make and out-of-your-own-eyes cutscene.