Balance Vs Realism

Black Ops forum

This is an old old argument among FPS players it seems to me.



Now for many a game being realistic can be the deciding factor on whether the game is purchased or not. Others buy it strictly for the multiplayer and balance can be just as or even more so important. So I would like to ask some of your opinions. To you what is more important? Why is it so important to you? For the sake of this could you also give an example so that others may see and discuss this?



To be honest this is a debate that I cannot come up to my own answer on. So the question stands for now...Balance Vs. Realism.
An_Anthro_Fox
Likes: 0
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎28-02-2009
40 REPLIES 40
MW2 tried to be to realistic and it ruined the game. You want it to be realistic, but only in gun behavior, power based on caliber, and graphics. You want to play a GAME, not try to replay a movie. The SCAR-H and the TAR-21 for some reason have the same power and are both overpowered. One is .308 and the other is .223, drastic difference in power (real) but the same power somehow (game).



A .308 will one or two-hit you in real life, but the game needs to be fun and fair.
munkeyguner
Likes: 4
Posts: 451
Registered: ‎01-06-2011
I agree. I've met people who think something should change when you get shot, something like you can't move as fast. That would ruin the game. Realism in a videogame should really only rely on the guns, attachments, map types, and equipment. Other than that it should be up to the developer to make a fun fair game.

PS: Does it bother anyone that the word "videogame" isn't in the dictionary here? It had red squiggly below it and I had to actually add it.
chadcoakley
Likes: 0
Posts: 304
Registered: ‎20-08-2010
that's a great debate question. Balance does have a big role in FPS, but overall i would have to pick realism. Realism can bring a game a long way, prime example Bad Company 2. Especially when you put most of a assault rifle clip into a sniper, but one shot from him and you are most likely dead and the hit detection was off in MW2. A person shoots at you, but you die when really none of the bullets hits you. Just a space that around your body. That pissed a lot of people off.
ACEUZI
Likes: 0
Posts: 12
Registered: ‎04-09-2010

An Anthro Fox wrote:

 

This is an old old argument among FPS players it seems to me.



Now for many a game being realistic can be the deciding factor on whether the game is purchased or not. Others buy it strictly for the multiplayer and balance can be just as or even more so important. So I would like to ask some of your opinions. To you what is more important? Why is it so important to you? For the sake of this could you also give an example so that others may see and discuss this?



To be honest this is a debate that I cannot come up to my own answer on. So the question stands for now...Balance Vs. Realism.





It really comes down to the pace of the gameplay at which you like to play at. Realism FPS games like America's Army and WWII Online force you to play at a slower, much more tactical rate. Call of Duty has it's tactical aspects, like Search and Destroy, but for the most part the fast-paced, adrenaline pumping gameplay from the CoD franchise is what has drawn so many people to it. I myself played the original Call of Duty when it first hit the PC, and it was incredible for its time, as was United Offensive (still the best game in the franchise, IMHO). Bad Company 2 is a pretty good balance of tactics and fast-paced gameplay, but even that game gets repetitively boring rather quick.
Sabre1076
Likes: 0
Posts: 77
Registered: ‎30-06-2008
That's why Hardcore mode exists it's more "realistic"
the_chug31
Likes: 2
Posts: 993
Registered: ‎09-08-2010
this comes down to gameplay for me an balance and realism can sometimes be one in the same like dual wielding in mw2 i mean shooting with dual wield shotguns isnt realistic and its unbalanced as well



but for me an unbalanced game frustrates me but an unrealistic game doesn't always (unless its dual wield shottys)



balance is definitely something that makes a game great and re playable but if games were completely realistic they wouldn't be any fun
dean456
Likes: 1
Posts: 287
Registered: ‎16-10-2008
Balance all the way



I dont care if the Spas 12 does have a kill range of 25 yards (it doesnt) it shouldnt have it in the game. All weapons should have advantages and disadvantages.



Low range, high damage = shot guns! This is balanced.



Pistols should be short range and mid power but very accurate. This is balanced.



SMGs should be short range, low damage but have a high ammo size and good fire rate. This is sometimes balanced in some games.



Assault rifles should be mid range, mid power, low accuracy but a decent fire rate.



Sniper rifles should be LONG range, high damage, but should NOT ever be useful in short ranges. This is why quick scoping should be eliminated it destroys the checks and balances of the weapon hierarchy



I dont care if their are super weapons in real life, no one should dominate because they managed to get the best weapon or learn the cheapest kill methods
PirateNinja
Likes: 0
Posts: 863
Registered: ‎21-08-2010
Thank you for your input guys but I do hope to hear more input and views. This will sound kinda odd but I love hearing peoples views and opinions...but I would love to hear reasoning as well. It makes it a lot more insightful and for me that can make or break a discussion.
An_Anthro_Fox
Likes: 0
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎28-02-2009
As I mentioned earlier on Skype, I think that they should go towards realism for the visuals and sound, but go for balance in terms of damage and recoil. The most important feature, however, is balance. A gun can be really realistic, but if this means it is an end-all-be-all weapon, that is not good. A good example of a gun being balanced, but not as realistic as it could have been is the M1 Garand from Call of Duty: World at War.



The M1 Garand in Call of Duty: World at War was a very powerful gun. If you used stopping power, it was a two shot kill from (I believe) any range. Now the downside to this gun was that it's recoil was a little tough to get used to. That's the balance part.



Now on to realism. The M1 Garand looked great, sounded great, but the reload animation/function was not realistic. It's en bloc clip that holds 8 rounds, was designed to eject once all bullets had been fired and the user should not be able to remove the clip while there were still bullets in it. This is not a huge issue, but it would have been a nice addition that would have helped to add more distinction to the gun.



In short, balance is what really matters.
kickimanjaro
Likes: 1
Posts: 246
Registered: ‎01-06-2011

Studios