hmmm, I think that we have to realize that games are games for a reason...some things shouldn''t be real. But therein lies the rub. Robert E. Lee once said, "It is a good thing war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it" As people who never suffered at the point of a gun (at least I hope know one in here has had to deal with that), nor known what it was like to have their homes destroyed by an invader, or had to fear that someone out there was actively trying to kill us, it''s very easy to feel the power of games.

We get to "kill" other people, but in a very safe way where no one gets hurt. So this is what draws us to violent style games. We get to indulge in the fantasy of power with no one getting hurt. We get to immerse ourselves in a world that would otherwise be impossible. But I think there should be a balance too...because otherwise it gets too seductive. Not in the sense that it will make us want to kill others like the media drivel claims, but rather it seduces us into complacency and a false sense of security.

During the Vietnam War, people got to watch the War being fought on their TV''s. They thought from the safety of their homes they had an idea of what was going on. The trouble was that seeing it on TV was like comparing a match to an inferno. We simply don''t have the frame of reference to understand what was going on. Did you hear about the WWII vets who would cry uncontrollably or had to leave the theatre while watching Saving Private Ryan? While I found some scenes very disturbing and gruesome, but it was still just another violent movie. But to these vets it brought back a flood of related memories, a perspecitve that we just simply have a total ignorance of....Thank God...and Thank God for them having to bear these memories and scars in their hearts forever so that we wouldn''t have to.

In martial arts, I see students who think they are being taught "real" techniques that "work in the street". And they go and practice in a controlled environment where they know that there is very little chance they will get hurt. Well, as Bruce Lee once said, learning to fight is a lot like being thrown into a pool...you sink or you swim. You don''t know till you do it. And yet these poor students are being instilled with a false sense of confidence and security because they think they know what fighting really is. I used to be friends with a bouncer who got into quite a few God honest fights where his life was at stake, and he said that the most important lesson to learn is to control your emotions. But you can''t learn how to control your fear...unless you are put in a fearful environment.

So where do we strike the balance? How do you instill fear from a computer? Where does realism go overboard? I''m all for realism, I stress it all the time, but I also know that games have their limits. There are some things we will simply never be able to emulate while sitting at our comfy computer chair...just like the people watching TV and seeing 19yr old boys dying in Vietnam simply couldn''t comprehend. I would never advocate making computers life-threatening....except perhaps for military research purposes with volunteers.

What I''m trying to say is that there is a price to be paid if you want that level of realism. All of our combats vets sacrificed a little of themselves even if they didn''t die. They sacrificed a sort of innocence that 99% of Americans don''t realize they have and take for granted. FPS are either just for fun, or a mental exercise (tactical FPS games), but simulators? No where close. Even with the kind of strategy game I''m thinking of, I will never be able to capture the fear and tenseness of what it must feel like to have to send out good men to die. We should never forget these things....even if we are just making games for fun. Maybe its the asian blood in me, and the tendency for asian cultures to respect even the smallest things but we shouldn''t take even the "virtual" taking of life for granted. If my game ever sees the light of day, I will definitely remember to honor all the veterans of every nation in the world that fought for the principles of freedom and try to convince the publisher to have a portion of the proceeds to a Veteran''s group.

The cardinal rule of game design is this:

Make it fun.

Dying is not fun. Limping, bleeding, getting weak, and slumping in a corner is not fun.

We are not trying to recreate war.

We are trying to create a different kind of competition. People should want to avoid death because they want to rack up points, help their team, or run the flag back to base - not because death is so terrible.

In Return to Castle Wolfenstein, it takes time to respawn. There isn''t anything disurbing about death. It just takes you out of the action for 30 seconds or so - 30 seconds that could have otherwise been spent helping your team and scoring points.

I like this system.

A problem I have with systems designed around penalizing wounds is that they skew gameplay in the wrong direction. It penalizes the underdog. That''s a problem; a game should not intentially give advantages to the player who is already more powerful. Its like creating a cash prize for creating the most successful business - whoever wins needs the cash least.

In short, facing an enemy with 5% health is bad enough - you don''t need to have blurry vision and a limp on top of it.

quote:

---

Original post by Nomax5
Perhaps one day we will wear Bio feed back suits powered with compressed gas bubbles that inflict real pain and injury, or induce electric shocks giving games a real BUZZ.

Who knows one day hardcore games may even be actually life threatening.

---

What kind of sick f*** are you?? The point of games is that they are fun and entertaining. If you have fun recieving or giving ACTUAL PAIN or DEATH to yourself or another, you need to get some psychological treatment.

quote:

---

Remember back when you were children playing war or cowboys “pretending”.
“I shot you 4 times you’ve only shot me 3”.
This is where I see FPS games are at currently just “pretend”.

---

Yea, I suppose children should play more ''realisticaly'' too, cuz they could have a sh!tload more fun if they took a bat and beat the losers to death...

Quote from TerranFury: Dying is not fun. Limping, bleeding, getting weak, and slumping in a corner is not fun.

Well ok of course Dying in real life is not fun but
you know I think I''m on the fence of this realism vs
fun issue I dont see difference really. In some
cases if done right, realism can be fun.

Limping, getting weak and slumping in a corner is not fun?
I dunno...if you go to the right party then maybe...

Of course, really no one wants the bad consequenses of
war. But, like in counterstrike, its kinda cool that
once someone is dead thats it for the round. Well I dont know
really, it kinda sucks that if its you you have to wait,
but it also gives you a sense of fear of dying you dont have
in say, Quake III. Another thing I noticed back in the day
when I played quake is that the people who had higher scores
than I did usually died more. (not without exception but...)
I always tried NOT to die, I''d run around, be confusing, etc.
Even if it woulda been faster to do so. Maybe theres something
to be said for playing styles but it seems to me not so good
when people dont care about how many times they lose since it
isnt taken into account.

As for force feedback suits that make it so you can feel the
bullets, maybe thats cool as long as its not too strong.
Like a little "thump" on your leg or arm or chest or whatever...
but thats all pipe dream stuff now until people make one for
100-200$ or less.

And now a quote from me, Captain obvious:
It all depends. If realism is funly implemented, good. If it
turns out that it all becomes dull, then sell it to the military!
=P

-Lohrno

I''m starting to think of realism in an FPS as an excuse for bad AI. Anything can seem smart when it can see you perfectly and hit you square in the head with an AK-47 at 400 yards.

Rather than increased realism, I''m in favor of improved AI and more intense fights. I hate to bring out Half-Life again, but there weren''t many fights you could win in that game just by stepping out from a corner and going back again. Particularly against the marines.

Still though, with all humorous intent, imagine how interesting RPGs would get if they had suits that could kill you.

I wanna'' ride on the pope mobile.

I fail to see your logic behind this "realism" aspect.

If I get shot in the ARM and lose HEALTH (which isn''t "REAL" either, but lets just say...), why would my jumping height be reduced by the fact I''m low on health?

You can''t HEAL internal bleeding on the battle field. So why would I even bother trying, I''m just going to DIE anyways.

If anything when I lose health I''d fight HARDER because my body goes into shock and adrenaline flows through my body. Ever seen people lift cars when their kids are trapped beneath them? Thats because of Adrenaline.

Your whole basis is wrong from the start, so either make a surrealistic game or suck it up because until games are truly realistic (1-2 chest shots, 1 head shot are fatal, nothing else matters, with ANY gun, ala Deus Ex) then you''ll never find a perfect medium because your "realistic" game won''t make any sense for the mere fact that in reality, its wrong.

I know of a (usually) tactical fps.
You can see more of what''s around you without that warping.
You can play for money and the professionals are
probably more trigger happy than those who play Quake and
other games.
The sound is as good as is found in reality.
It includes such ''feedback'' as has been mentioned.
It doesn''t kill you.
You get hundreds of rounds of ammo.
You get to regenerate(depends on the rules of that particular
game).
In something like Quake you run around in the game world at a
pace that would require great conditioning to survive yet sit
down at a chair to play in the real world.
In this game, the pace you play at determines actual strain
placed on your body.
This game suffers no lag at all.
It can have hundreds of players(the only thing I''ve seen
come close was something with I think 64 players, some game
on the Dreamcast).

Would anyone be interested?
It''s called Paintball, you should look it up sometime.
Seriously though, if you want the most realistic fps
sensation then that''s what I''d go for. You''ve seen it in the
movies when bullets kick up dust at the feet of the hero?
Paintballs do it to and I got scared(mostly cause I was down
on the ground and my face was where the hero''s feet are in the
movies)-but I kept firing at least.
It''s not like a real fire fight but some of the rules
still apply. Most importantly, unless they fire from
maximum range and you seem them fire, you cannot pull a ''Matrix''.
What''s really interesting is that you have the accuracy
of say a smooth bore musket and the firing rate of an
automatic and the range of neither. But it''s really
fun to pick someone off after positioning yourself like so:

''|'' is a barrier,

you



them| <--fire fight--> |your buds

Always where the safety equipment and never lift your mask
unless in a safe area to do so.
You know, I really oughta play next Saturday.

Grozzler just mentioned an interesting idea. Get low on health and get an adrenalin rush that actually increases whatever combat variables are a part of the game (speed, accuracy, jump height, etc.) for a period of time. Once you drop below say... 25% health you get an adrenalin rush, but this rush only lasts for a certain amount of time, say 20-30 seconds (which is quite a long time in a typical FPS) Once it wears off you're back to normal (Possibly a penalty, but this may not be a good idea for reasons outlined below)

Thing to be careful about with realism, you have to maintain a balance between gameplay and realism. As has been said, having other detrimental affects to health loss besides the loss of health itself is going to be a bad thing in most cases. Most of the reasons this is bad have already been outlined. In general, it puts a disadvantaged player at a greater disadvantage. That's bad for game balance and gameplay.

And I don't even consider paint ball all that realistic either. I love playing paint ball, I play probably a dozen times a summer, and I'm actually quite skilled at it. But realistic? Not really. I get hit in the hand, I'm dead. I get hit in the face-mask, I'm not dead. My weapon gets hit, I'm dead. Where's the realism there? It's not there, because those rules are done for game balance. One, they want to discourage attacks to the head, that increases likelihood of injury. As a result of that though, they need to make the weapon a 'critical body part' because they need to maintain some risk of exposure when attacking the enemie. And the any hit on the body is a kill is done purely to simplify the game. Nobody has come up with a consistent, easy to use, hard to abuse, body damage system.

Not to mention in Paint Ball, most any bush is more then adequate defense against a Paint Ball assault, as the balls will break on impact with even the smallest branch. I don't think anyone is gonna argue that a bush will protect you from a barrage of AK-47 bullets. None of this detracts from the joys of Paint Ball though.

Edited by - jRaskell on February 11, 2002 5:55:20 PM

I dunno about the adrenaline rush idea...In FPSs(Quake like)
its easy to hurt yourself just to get the rush, you''d have to
have some kinda algorithm to be smart enough to prevent that.
I mean I know what I''d do would be hang out by some health packs,
hurt myself, get the rush, and then get the health, so I''ve got
a buff, and I''m healthy!

-Lohrno

I don''t see computer games as ever being particularly realistic ; their value lies precisely in the fact that they don''t have to be. It would be cool to have cheap VR headsets, but that gets into ease of operation more than anything specifically concerning reality, and the premise of many games is completely fantasy anyway.
~
-Not that most games couldn''t use some ease of operation, but that''s another complaint.
~
All any computer can do for a game is show different visual perspectives and operate automated opponents. Reality''s got nuthin to do with it,,, -and reveals a chronic lack of imagination besides, IMO.