Enamel's World

For games that are spent exploring terrain, I totally get it. Realistic mountains and things are really cool.

For games that are spent killing people, give me the cartoon characters every time.

Realism in CN is just not a thing, as one quickly learns when instructed to demolish one's schools to build labor camps as a young nation and then get used to a default 50% military population and DEFCON1. If there's any realism in CN, we're all tin-pot dictatorships guilty of all kinds of human rights violations, and our people are glowing green from all the nukes.

It all depends on what an individual's play preference is. Some prefer to immerse themselves in the game as they feel it gives them a better experience. It is the same issue why some people cry in mushy movies and some dont.

One might say that those that want to immerse themselves in to a situation on the screen where there is a lot of death going on and they are doing the killing, are evil and maladjusted.... but then there it is.

I don't think there is a problem with Games attempting to be realistic.After all its your choice what you buy.

It is when People confuse their experience of playing Games and blur it with real life that I find strange.

An example when going to a Football Match, was some Teenagers explaining that the ''Manager should do this and buy this player'' as it had worked for them on Football Manager by the size of their waist's I have doubt that they have had any real experience of Playing the game for a while.

Also when in forums debating this and that you can quite clearly judge from their post's present and past that a lot of People are basing their experience of a Computer Game when debating on a real life situation.This is extremely common in Forum posts on War or Terrorist situations.

Graphic realism isn't a gamebreaker for me. And most game developers allready know where to draw the line when it comes to gameplay realism. I wouldn't mind if they would put less effort and time into graphics and more effort into actuall content though.

I don't know how Halo or many of the Games can be described as having any ''Realism''.

What is there in Real Life to compare it?

I don't know how Halo or many of the Games can be described as having any ''Realism''.

What is there in Real Life to compare it?

Never said halo was 'real'. I don't like the game for other reasons.

I don't understand how you can make a realistic video game.

A theft and corruption Game where when you try to purchase it you give your Credit Card details to a rogue Website and get your account emptied.

lmao

I don't know how Halo or many of the Games can be described as having any ''Realism''.

What is there in Real Life to compare it?

I think his point on Halo was he could commend it on a lot of things despite it being unrealistic.

I wouldn't nessasarily be on the ground crying if they made cybernations a little more realistic.

If I had to choose realism or content in a game, I would choose content, but realism is something I would appreciate in some games.

I wouldn't nessasarily be on the ground crying if they made cybernations a little more realistic. If I had to choose realism or content in a game, I would choose content, but realism is something I would appreciate in some games.

I guess, but I think admins fail to realize sometimes how delicate their games actually are. For PC/Console, what you get is what you get. There won't be any updates outside of the minor patch. So whether you like the game or not is very cut and dry. Online game admins, are however, constantly trying to please their player base. When an admin is asking players for suggestions, they should be most concerned with how those suggestions will promote game play and work into the ongoing theme. Realism should honestly be the last consideration in their mind.

I remember playing PT, it was a game similar to CN. In that game you generated a quantitative amount of resources, but after a certain period of time, people slowed down building things because they ran out of money, and they amassed enormous amounts of resources while they were doing nothing. The game was structured so that you could sell resources; however, once everyone in the game had practically infinite resources, no one wanted to purchase any resources. Someone suggested: Make a warehouse improvement, because in real life you have to store goods in warehouses. If you dont have a warehouse, the resources go to waste. Obviously, PT and RL are the same thing, right?

Well, it turned out warehouses greatly oversimplified the problem; didn't accurately reflect RL as originally thought; created a huge pain in the ass for the playerbase; not to mention didn't fix the resource problem. PT quickly went downhill as a result. CN is in many ways the same way. Even the slightest change to certain aspects of the game would throw it into a nasty spiral.

I really caution people who suggest things based on RL. Suggest things based on what would be fun, lol

Yeah, PT was a little overzealous in fixing the problems it had. Maybe Walling will have it playable soon.

I would agree that realism should not be the deciding factor in any game EXCEPT sports games. Realism in sports games make them great. Personally, if realism was the key to video games, Every console before the 360 and PS3 should never have existed.

No FPS is realistic. In World War I 70% of casualties were caused by artillery. That statistic has only changed with the serious addition of air power. I played with the battlefield 2 mod that was supposed to be realism, but not enough to get a feel for it. One thing I can say is that most gamers would hate a game were rifles are so inaccurate and tanks are so powerful.

That said, there are some ways that modern warfare could be converted into something interesting to play. I kind of like the idea of playing a FPS through a level that contained the following classes of enemies;

-Civilians (not to be shot at)

-Rioters armed with molotovs and rocks

-Insurgents armed with rifles and rocket launchers.

Basically play the role of a soldier in such a city, having to decide what each person was and how to engage them. You could be part of a platoon sized unit equiped with rifles, grenades, riot shields and batons.

That could make an interesting and challenging game.

No FPS is realistic. In World War I 70% of casualties were caused by artillery. That statistic has only changed with the serious addition of air power. I played with the battlefield 2 mod that was supposed to be realism, but not enough to get a feel for it. One thing I can say is that most gamers would hate a game were rifles are so inaccurate and tanks are so powerful.

That said, there are some ways that modern warfare could be converted into something interesting to play. I kind of like the idea of playing a FPS through a level that contained the following classes of enemies;

-Civilians (not to be shot at)

-Rioters armed with molotovs and rocks

-Insurgents armed with rifles and rocket launchers.

Basically play the role of a soldier in such a city, having to decide what each person was and how to engage them. You could be part of a platoon sized unit equiped with rifles, grenades, riot shields and batons.

That could make an interesting and challenging game.

That sounds similar in plot to GRAW. If you had that type of situation, your rioters/insurgents would probably dress exactly like the civilians, only stand in large crowds of civilians, and only pot-shot (1-2 hit kill) you when you were turned around. Your game better not have armored vehicles, because random spawn locations for innumerable IED's would be quite the downer. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more horrible it sounds. I'm not a soldier, and I never wanted to be a soldier for those exact reasons. No way I'd want to play a game that simulated the uncontrollable situations modern day soldiers experience, it's just not appealing to me. The games I like have plots like this: Ok soldier, you're going to go here and kill as many dudes as you can. NOT: ok walk around and wait until a fight breaks out. That's one thing 007 for N64, and even HALO to a lesser extent, got right. You'd open a single door, and immediately there'd be 10 guys there waiting for you lmao

I mean, I hear you and don't get me wrong. A game like that would probably sell millions, at least for the first release, but that's exactly what I think is wrong with the FPS gaming industry. Games are based on graphics and things people perceive to be fun, when in fact, "fun" is relative. Each 'outstanding' game is the greatest gift to the earth........until the next release, which makes me question whether or not the 'outstanding game' was really that outstanding after all.

I would agree that realism should not be the deciding factor in any game EXCEPT sports games.

I guess I have a fundamental disagreement with sports games as sources of entertainment at all: you're playing a game.......of playing a game.......I had a brother and a sister,and multiple sports leagues in my town, if I wanted to do that I could have just went outside. That said, I saw my friend playing FIFA 2012, and I legitimately thought I was watching an actual game for like 15 minutes....I can't deny the sweetness there.

I think we look for different things out of FPS. I prefer more technical combat. I disliked the HALO series because it was very much "BLAM BLAM BLAM" and not enough use of cover, use of teamwork etc etc. That and the tech you got to use was actually less than Battlefield 2, let alone Battlefield 2142. The original Rainbow Six was also quite good for that, the later one I played (can't remember which) less so but still good.

I can't remember the quote, but in HALO a thousand crystal shards can pierce your body and you can still right an autobiography. In Rainbow six someone showing your friend a picture of a gun lands you in intensive care.

Exaggerated, but in the original Rainbow Six it was absolutely one shot kill. Prolonged firefights meant you lost people.

"Technical combat" in a FPS is tough. I don't think computer interfaces are flexible enough to make technical combat truly interesting. You either get "decent" technical combat (no technical combat is ever perfect), at the expense of clunky gameplay (i.e. needing a million button presses to perform minor actions to hide behind a box and shoot), or you only get a few actions which keep gameplay streamlined and fast paced (ex. Halo). Because of that, I don't find technical combat as alluring as I once did. I like my shooters fast. I moved to RTS when I realized technical combat in FPS was never going to meet my expectations. If you want attack strategy and co-op, RTS is the only way to go imo.

The original Rainbow Six had a fair few features that made it quite technical, such as the planning phase, the use of stealth, the use of teams etc. You could also lay traps and had to shield hostages from fire etc. Splinter cell was also quite good for that, although less about fighting and more about sneaking.

Battlefield with its squads, its commander role and support functions was also relatively good for that.

What makes a FPS good in my view is generally linked to how much fire your character can withstand. DO you shoot massive amounts until one is dead or do a few well placed rounds do the trick? The less armored your character the more teamwork is needed and the slower paced the fighting.