#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# Is it time FPS’s grew up ?

This topic is 5315 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

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”. In order to progress to the more grown up “paint ball” stage the games have to introduce some sort of Penalty perhaps once hit your movement is gradually reduced along with your health (like the MMORPG Death Over Time) forcing a retreat to seek medical attention. Perhaps a true character which retains evolved skills, abilities, items, cash. loosing them as a penalty for death. 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. “It’s a funny old world” Nomax5

##### Share on other sites
Back when counterstrike was under development, there was a division amongst the team members as to whether there should be a reduction in movement speed and jump height with loss of health.

I have often thought that this would be a good thing, and I have yet to see why it is developers don''t use this sort of design device.

In FPS games it is particularly common to end up whittling away at your opponent little-by-little (unless you have the rocket launcher). I suspect that developers wanted to save players who got on a down-streak from getting instantly fragged whenever they get hit (if you slow down, then you can''t run away from your opponent, so you''re f****d).

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

##### Share on other sites
Haven''t you guys played Rogue Spear or any of the Tom Clancy novel-to-computer games?
You actually start to limp and so you become an easier target if you are hit in the leg or something.

-------------------------
(Gorgeous graphics)+(beautiful sound effects)+(symphonic music)+(no gameplay) != Good game

##### Share on other sites
Until we get past the "instant resurection with minimal impact" stage, none of this will matter all that much. People would actually have a tendancy to WANT to die sooner when injured so that they can "be whole" again, grab a few weapons lying about and get back in the action.

Again, "Rainbow 6", et al, does an admirable job of making you WANT to stay alive because when you are out, you are out.

I think this would be more of an issue in MMORPGs where the pace is a little slower and you have severe ramifications on death.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

##### Share on other sites
Haven''t any of you guys played the mod for half-life called Firearms? It does exactly that (or at least it did in the last version I played).

When you get shot you bleed. When you bleed, you lose health until you stop bleeding. You have to find/use bandages to stop bleeding. I didn''t think this was as fun as counterstrike. Its not a matter of having a realistic game, its having a fun game that counts. People don''t play games if they aren''t fun.

Moe''s Site

##### Share on other sites
I''ve played CounterStrike quite a lot, and I don''t think that if they''d have added additional damage to wounds the game would have been any better.

First, the great thing about CS is that everything can (and eventually will) happen. It''s perfectly possible to kill an enemy without getting hurt at all, and with an inferior weapon too. I remember getting in front of two guys (both a lot better players than me), and getting two kills by headshot in half a second from my M4A1 Colt automatic rifle.

The point being that while you are alive, you are _in_ the game.

Countless times the last man of a team with 5 life points kills two or three enemies and wins the game.

So, if you enter a closed fight and you kill an enemy and still have 5 life points, you _won_. It wasn''t a draw like the damage suggests (95 - 100). It was your victory.

But if serious wounds would cause bleeding, decrease the aiming accuracy and speed and jumping height, turning a heavily wounded survivor into a sitting duck, that victory feeling would be gone. As a consequence, the game would have a lot more draws, a lot less victories and a lot less unlikely heroic victories. More, those who finish up the wounded would be unrightfully rewarded with an unworthy frag.

Finally, such a move would force wounded players into camping somewhere around the level.

I think this is a classical case where realism conflicts with fun.

##### Share on other sites
I agree that we shpould work towards more realistic damage SIMULATION in games, but actually harming the player? Don''t you think that''s going a little too far? I mean, develpoers would find it kind of hard to get repeat players if their game decapitated you within five minutes...

-----------------------------

Vash the Stampede

"Love & Peace!"

##### Share on other sites
I like the idea of increased realism. Delta Force did this well. You never really knew what your health was. If you got hit once, you might live. If you got hit again, you were probably dead. Medal of Honor has a more arcadey feel, but when you get shot, your aim jumps all over the place.

I don''t think slowing the player down when taking damage would be a good idea. I envision a scenario where most wounded players would simply kill themselves to get back to full speed (unless this was a gametype where you don''t come back until the next game after dying).

I think Unreal Tournament had some variations on this idea. In one mod, if you got a lot of kills, your model became bigger and easier to hit, while if you took a lot of damage, you became skinnier.

-------------
SpaceRook
Latest Project: Paper Shredder
Visit my homepage for other projects!

##### Share on other sites
If i want realism, i''d gather a few friends, hire a plot of forestland, buy a couple of weapons and ammo, then head out and play..

dude, I just want good, fast paced action.

- Cmdr Dats
"The power of faith is quiet. It is the leaf unmoved by a hurricane."

##### Share on other sites
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.

This is Nuts. Everything else was cool but this wrecked it.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

##### Share on other sites
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.

##### Share on other sites
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.

##### Share on other sites
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...

##### Share on other sites

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 #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 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. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 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. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 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. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 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 #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 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 #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 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. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites RantMode = 1; Realism sucks. It''s not a game then, it''s a (likely poor) simulation, and if I want realism I can take a walk through one of the local bad neighborhoods and get all I want.. or read the morning paper. Reality be damned - I do _not_ play games to see how it feels to get shot at because there''s no way in Hell even the most realistic game is going to feel like that (I was in downtown DC long ago at a club where a gang fight broke out in front of the place, let me tell you folks you hear screams and gunshots for real it''s hard not to wet your pants on the spot). I play a lot of Deus Ex and it''s as close to "real" as I can see getting and still being enjoyable (which, last I checked, was the idea behind a "game" instead of a combat sim). I wouldn''t bother buying something used to train soldiers because war is a lot of sitting around waiting for someone to try to blow your head off - long periods of boredom punctuated by brief extremely life-threatening situations - if you''re being accurate. Call me sick if you want, but I don''t consider that fun. You don''t want to just "play a game" join some branch of the armed forces and get The Real Thing, no computer is ever going to come close. Me, I prefer playing games! It''s a destressing experience to frag a raft of bots in UT.. lol.. RantMode = 0; #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Speaking of reality in games. There is a mod for Quake called Action-Quake. There you have to give youself first aid if you are hit, or you bleed to death. And that games is WAY old! - Captain_RB #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites edit: Oh Geez i forgot I was searching for Any Date. Sorry 'bout the resurrection, guys. (Oh, God, it's over a year old...) quote: Original post by jRaskell 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. Gratz. Apples and oranges. Your post essentially complained about how an apple, while a kind of fruit, is not a good simulation of an orange. Paintballs breaking on even a hapless mosquito is part of the game. If jacketed rifle rounds were to burst into metal dust upon hitting a branch IRL, or if getting hit on your weapon would cause injury or death to you IRL, then that's part of the "game". If you want to accurately simulate something, you need to get rid of the powerups, uber weapons and health bars. If you want to make a game, you're going to have to realize that the graphics are really just an appealling facade to a very complicated dice roll or poker game. Very basically, your system determines whose input was the best overall. It is an (initially) even competition where skill and luck are the determining factors. Some of you guys are getting your underwear in a knot over making this facade better when the most important thing is immersive gameplay. All those little web games on Yahoo have going for them is gameplay. No$4 million budgets for cutscenes, no world famous orchestra performing their soundtrack, no bleeding-edge 3D engine that only supports the top 0.1% of all systems, no porn in the employee bathrooms, even after I asked like twenty times, (cough)... just gameplay and decent graphics.

[edited by - TSwitch on July 8, 2003 1:24:53 AM]

##### Share on other sites
It''s called "selective realism." Cut out or leave slight nods to the un-fun parts, and then emphasis the rest.

Examples:

Limb damage/loss: Being unable to fight back = unfun. Being unable to move = unfun. Therefore keep the effects limited, like the broken legs in Firearms HL.

Blood loss: Depends on taste. It could be eliminated entirely, made into a small element that gets the last 1 or 2 hp, or become a significant factor as in "if you didn''t take bandages you''re dead." I''ve seen it done all ways in various HL mods.

Vision: Most games that I know of don''t make you permanently blind, but for long enough to make it possible for someone to pop a few caps into you when you can''t fight back.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by TSwitch
edit: Oh Geez i forgot I was searching for Any Date. Sorry ''bout the resurrection, guys. (Oh, God, it''s over a year old...)
"ha ha"