28 Replies Latest reply: Dec 15, 2013 2:09 AM by mischaelite RSS

Realism:  Which Side Are You On?

Yppecaye_the_Dogged

Or is there a middle ground?

 

So, who are you more alike?  The guy who heavily emphasizes realism, as he did here....

 

"Because its the most unrealistic and the most abused use of a weapon class in the game."

 

Or, one shouldn't expect any realism in CoD, like this person here....

 

"...if you want to hate on [a certain gun] for being unrealistic then you must hate on pretty much all of call of duty....."

 

I think there's gotta to be a middle ground between absolute realism (an impossibility, really, if you think about it), and absolute fantasy.  It also depends on the game.  If I'm playing Skyrim or FF, I'd expect less realism; if I'm playing Metal Gear or CoD, I 'd expect more.

 

For example, I wrote in another thread....

 

"Realism is a relative term in video games.  How realistic is a gun, and its attendant method of killing, is relative to other guns in the game and, more importantly, to real life.  Me shooting you with my AR from 50 feet away is a heck of a lot more realistic than you QSing me from 5 feet away."  (Just an example.  Please, lets not turn this into the QS thread.)


So, where are you?  Should CoD be more realistic or fantastic? 

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    amathyx

    realism can go die in a fire as long as the game is fun imo

    only exceptions i'd have for this are games that are actual simulators - e.g. arma, dcs world, etc.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    IndyOldGuy

    I think a better term might be 'balanced" as opposed to 'realistic' and here's why I say that...
    "Because its the most unrealistic and the most abused use of a weapon class in the game."

     

    I'd almost bet this was someone talking about snipers correct???

    Snipers have no need to run the 'focus' perk, as they suffer from little or no Flinch or gun kick when being shot
    while being shot, they should not even be able to 'quickscope' per say...they should not be able to even aim when being shot...like every other weapon in the game...
    They also have no need for ready up or quickdraw, as all that is built into the snipers anyway. that's 3 perks that most others use and have to waste perk points on where snipers do not

    Also you can slap on lightweight and run around with these weapons like an SMG,
    Also the 'drag scope' hitbox is waaaaay too big
    their is little or no 'sway'
    They get one hit kills, but have chrome barrels that make them one hit kills?  makes no sense..

    They have an exploit that allows them to chamber the next round without actually going thru the 'bolt action'


    So IMO and many other peoples, these guns are the Most unbalanced and OP things going, a lot of COD is 'unrealistic' , but these guns are far from 'balanced'...

     

    Sorry if I was totally off base about that quote and hijacked the thread..


  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    Run_N_Gunning_Camper

    I'm on the extreme end when it comes to reality in COD. I fully expect COD to be an arcade game and it is not meant to be a simulator.

     

    Some unrealistic things in Ghosts:

    -Running mechanics without Marathon

    -On the Go should have been built in

    -Dead Silence

    -Scavenger Mechanic- walking on top of fallen soldiers instantly replenishes your supply

    -SitRep- very unrealistic perk.

    -Resilience

    -ICU

    -Focus

    -Tac Resist

    -Ping

    -Deadeye

     

    The above list is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to realism in Ghosts. The mechanics, weapon ranges, no structural damage, things warping out of thin air (SAT COMs, Sentry Gun, Dogs, IMS, Vulture, Gryphon, Ammo Crate, Ballistic Vests, Night Owl, and Support Squadmate), respawning, bullet damage (get shot in the extremities IRL and it will pretty much make you combat ineffective), and KEM strike as a reward for killing  25 enemies are all unrealistic.

     

    Out of the things I mentioned, only a few are actively getting discussed on these forums. Anything that can kill annoys people while things that are unrealistic and non lethal gets ignored. It is the nature of the vast majority of COD gamers to complain about something that is lethal yet ignore the rest of the unrealistic nature of the game. If you take out all of the unrealistic things I mentioned above then Ghost would not feel like a COD game. Imagine if you get shot in the arm and your avatar drops down to the ground screaming in pain. How about losing your right arm and you drop to the ground hapless, bleeding to death and yelling for help? Those are some very realistic scenarios. Do you want COD to go that way?

     

    As a long time COD gamer, I came to accept that the game is not meant to be realistic. It is meant to be a fun arcade shooter for the masses where reality often takes a back seat. If the developers decided to make COD more realistic like ARMA then the sales will tank. Ever wonder why ARMA didn't reach COD's level of appeal to the masses? It's because of the realistic aspect of ARMA that made the game not fun to the masses. Activision knows that ultra realistic features won't bring in the money at the level they want and I don't expect COD to change its formula.

    • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
      Yppecaye_the_Dogged

      Run_N_Gunning_Camper wrote:

       

      Some unrealistic things in Ghosts:

      -Running mechanics without Marathon

      True.  But for every unrealistic aspect, there is a realistic counterpart.  For example:

      --A guided predator missile (MW3)

      --An artillery strike (WaW)

      --A grenade with cooking and all

      --A bouncing bettie

      --Reloading after emptying a clip (think about the would-be unrealism in an unlimited clip)

      --Good map skills sometimes the same as real military tactics such as flanking your enemy (this is perhaps one the most real and rewarding things in CoD)

      --flash bangs

      --smoke grenades (not used often but its utility is the same as it's in reality)

      on and on and on.

       

      The point of the comparison is that just because CoD, as a video game, must have unrealistic things, it doesn't mean realism is not also a part of the game.  Unrealistic things must be part of the game for the game to work, but so too does realistic ones. 

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    Izjar11

    Good post,

     

    I think it should remain as is, a little bit of both. Perhaps Im just saying that because its been so, but if I had to choose I would say go with more realism.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    rlbl

    There is zero realism.

     

    1. It is a game (that should just about sum it up right there)

    2. You can't hip fire people from across a large distance

    3. You cannot get shot, regenerate health and keep trucking

    4. Do I need to go on? well ok...

    5. You cannot run around with a sniper rifle and then expect to shoot with any accuracy at a moments notice (and I am not even talking about quickscoping)

    6. You cannot respawn after you get killed

     

    Just because some guns are modeled after guns in RL (lol see what I did there?) does not mean there is any attempt for real life parallels.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    WKMMS

    If I were to pick a side, then I would sway more towards the unrealistic side.  Having said that, I judge a game by the quality of the experience from my perspective, not based on whether the mechanics of that experience are more or less realistic.  If I enjoy the experience, I will continue playing.  If I don't, I will find an alternative means of entertaining myself.

     

    The main purpose/intention of a video game has been as a source of entertainment first.  Different genres look to provide that entertainment factor in different ways, some through an intricate narrative, others through brain-taxing puzzles or with exciting combat, but there has never been a game that comes even close to being considered realistic.  

     

    However advanced technology has become in recent years though, we are light years away from being able to experience a truly realistic gaming experience.  We experience games with only a limited number of senses, predominately our eyes and ears.  There is no sense of smell or touch, or deep genuine emotional involvement.  We interact with these created worlds with little plastic control devices.  Developers create sights, sounds and environments that have familiarity because it serves to help the player relate to a character or story, as well as stimulate the ocular and aural senses.  At all times though, there is never a true basis in reality, only an imagined reality.

     

    And really, as a person working to create an entertainment experience isn't it better to be unshackled by the limitations of reality and to have full creative freedom?  I think so - besides, I'm pretty sure most of us play these games to give ourselves a break from reality.. am I right?

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    RunAndGun1

    It's a video game and we shouldn't expect too much realism given that reality would not allow for much fun. Such as respawning right after you're killed. But there are aspects that I think need adjustment to create some level of consistent expectations to make the game anything near fair.

     

    1. Weapons should operate somewhat like their real life versions. Quickscoping is not what sniper rifles are capable of in any situation. It's a mechanic borne from poor coding and kept in because it means more money to the developers. Since most quickscopers are 12-14 years young, and have no respect for anyone but themselves.

     

    2. Lag. Fix the fricken lag.

     

    3. Running mechanics - without marathon - are complete BS. I shouldn't have to use a perk to run like a normal human being. Three steps - walk - three steps - walk, is not natural on any planet.

     

    4. We need realistic developers. Altering game mechanics or map design to cater to a tiny group of players (I.e. Quickscopers, MLG, eSports) is not how you extend the longevity of a game or maintain its popularity. Such decision making will surely guarantee the (well deserved) demise of the game series.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    Adam1234567893

    This is an Arcade FPS realism isn't needed to make this game fun they can add some realism but to make it completely realistic will get rid of that fun. Don't even think about comparing Hardcore to realism.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    ANWRambo

    The only thing they need to fix is explosive damage.

    Like when someone uses C4 right next to you and you die but they live.

    Screw that noise. Make it so the noob dies also.

    When you shoot a rocket in confined area into a target right next you both players should die.

    That needs to be fixed.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    Megadog14

    I don't care, I just want a fun game.

     

    Although being the zombies fan that I am, I suppose I sway towards the unrealistic side

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    ghamorra

    This game is based on realistic principles. Anyone who says CoD shouldn't be realistic shouldn't be discussing anything about this games mechanics. As you quote says:

     

    Yppecaye_the_Dogged wrote:

     

    "...if you want to hate on [a certain gun] for being unrealistic then you must hate on pretty much all of call of duty....."

     

    Sure it's a video game and has obvious video games qualities, but if you don't want to play a realistic FPS then there's Halo.

    • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
      Yppecaye_the_Dogged

      ghamorra wrote:

       

      Sure it's a video game and has obvious video games qualities, but if you don't want to play a realistic FPS then there's Halo.

      This is a good point.  So long as CoD's environment is created to reflect real life places, it ought to somewhat reflect what would happen in those places if an armed scrimmage occurred.  If, like Halo, where you're in a futuristic setting, then, yeh, lets have some crazy fantastic guns and aspects that defy physics. 

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    TOLAND

    For a closer to reality experience I play ARMA.  When I just want to have fun I turn to COD.  ARMA is closer to the real deal, but the gunplay is not that crisp so gun fights aren't nearly so enjoyable.  While ARMA is fun when you have a couple of coordinated teams, it is not what I would call a game that you play to have fast paced "hero" type fun.  I like COD for the fantasy super soldier matches.  I'd like to keep both options open personally.  Peace.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    dtuchpunk

    somewhere in the middle. Some stuff should be realistic or more realistic. Some stuff should be unrealistic so the game will be interesting. The balance may even very between games.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    adw1983

    Realism with benefits.

     

    -A headshot doesn't HAVE to kill in one hit, but it should never take more than two headshots for primary weapons, or three from pistols on long range

    -Repawning ON

    -Realistic weapon handling --> skill requirement to shoot and hit enemies

    -When snipers one hit kill, no weapon should four hit kill on short range unless it fires at 1200 RPM. (1HK: 200 RPM 2 HK: 550 RPM 3 HK: 800 RPM 4 HK 1100 RPM

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    NoLifeKing32

    I really dont care about realism, I care more about fairness.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    Gerbera

    All I can say is that if CoD was actually realistic, much of the community would be ******** even louder and more than ever before.

  • Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
    Adam1234567893

    I wish the explosives and tacticals would be realistic that way I can actually kill someone instead of getting a hitmarker or going into the room and they are already out of the stun.