1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next 55 Replies Latest reply: Mar 22, 2015 1:02 PM by brsox Go to original post RSS
      • 20. Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?

        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.

        • 21. 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

          • 22. 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. 

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

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

              • 24. 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. 

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

                  adw1983 wrote:

                   

                  Realism with benefits.

                  Nice.  A good term to describe the middle ground, somewhere between shedding real blood after you get shot in a game;  and, on the other extreme end of the spectrum, for example, a QS kill. 

                  • 26. 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.

                    • 27. Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?

                      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.

                      • 28. Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?

                        Yes, they should buff all explosives,  at least give Danger Close the power of its former glory now that you cant replenish.

                        • 29. Re: Realism:  Which Side Are You On?
                          nicedrewishfela

                          I think it really depends on the series.

                           

                          As far as Call of Duty is concerned, there needs to be a basis in reality. Call of Duty was created as a series with Campaigns based on real life conflicts and with an emphasis placed on honoring the soldiers who fought in those conflicts. While the stories were contrived, they were based on real-life events.

                           

                          As such, Call of Duty has long been a "Military Arcade FPS". Based in Military Reality with Arcade physics, meaning that movements, explosions and such are exaggerated for dramatic and visual effect. Characters can jump higher than normal, can hit the ground faster than normal, can run ridiculous distances carrying huge loadouts, and can run ridiculously fast carrying heavy weaponry. In Core Modes, players can take a lot of damage and recover without medical attention or health packs. Explosions which in reality would have a large blast radius and dangerous shrapnel can be survived without lasting damage... and so on.

                           

                          The way I look at it is, a game like this needs to be be based in reality but allow for some Arcade Exaggeration in order to become more fun and balanced. Go too far one way or the other and the game just stops being fun.