Integrating Realistic violence into Games!
Author
People often wonder about having violence in games, which is closer to the reality of violence. Ie. bullets killing. Fights being bloody and quick. (as opposed to being like 'Street Fighter 2' or Kung Fu movies.)
But gamedesigners often wonder how to put this into a game and still have a game which is a GAME / FUN Because the reason that so many shooter games have health bars, hit points and even shields, is that this makes for a fun gameplay experience and stops the games being too hard.
So one approach to integrating realistic violence into games could be to have the violence as something secondary to what the player is doing. Ie. The gameplay has the player doing something OTHER than shooting, ie. management (the player funds a team of mercenaries), or emergency rescue (where the violence has already happened and the player picks up the pieces). Or that they are managing a futuristic space_station trying to fend off alien attacks by organising defences.
Thus the violent action is not what the player is in charge of, but rather something that happens in the game.
[edited by - Ketchaval on May 4, 2002 8:19:05 AM]
You mean Thief then?
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions ]
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions ]
Author
Not really, although I suppose in some ways that has parallels. I''m thinking like it being something that happens to other characters, but not in a prescripted plot style way. Either because your ingame character witnesses it (from relative safety), or because your viewpoint in the game is a detached one like in Black+White or in many other sim games / war games.
So the violence is in someways like a part of the plot, except that it isn''t a plot element it is more part of a simulation, with things that happen indirectly and are triggered in relation to certain gameplay elements..
ie. when the player doesn''t put in enough funds into security equipment for his expensive luxury goods warehouses, the player will see some armed thieves break in, kill the nightwatchman and steal the goods.
So the violence is in someways like a part of the plot, except that it isn''t a plot element it is more part of a simulation, with things that happen indirectly and are triggered in relation to certain gameplay elements..
ie. when the player doesn''t put in enough funds into security equipment for his expensive luxury goods warehouses, the player will see some armed thieves break in, kill the nightwatchman and steal the goods.
As i thought whe reading the sword fighting topic, and the insights... topic, this is a big issue.
violence in games *cannot* be realistic unless you die a lot when you fight with guns.
violence in games *cannot* be fun unless you don''t die a lot when you fight with guns.
therefore, violent games cannot be optimally realistic and optimally fun. i have loading every three seconds (i suck at FPSs).
can i suggest a few things though.
violence in games can be made more realistic by not having the player die more often, but making them *care* about the other characters that die (from their "side") more.
personal opinion, but im sick of the "you meet this guy, he follows you around and shoots things when you''re out of ammo" thing. and then he could go and die and you just carry on like none of it had happened. its going for EASY GAMEPLAY at the expense of reality *AND FUN*. personal opinion too, but its kindof boring to graba security guard and wander around while he shoots everything with the wrong number of limbs or a different uniform. its the player supposed to be doing the shooting.
the old balance, as usual.
hmmm.
its not fun to die often. its even not fun to die once, unless your camera does something cool and zooms out so you can see yourself dying....
people also dont usually die as fast as you see them dying in games. depending on the location of the hit, the type of the hit, and the character''s own past experiences and such, the hit can cause internal bleeding, make holes, incduce shock, coma, vomiting, and much other good fun.
)()
realism vs fun.
hmmm.
i like poking holes in the ideas behind FPS games. other people dont like me doing it.
die or be died...i think
violence in games *cannot* be realistic unless you die a lot when you fight with guns.
violence in games *cannot* be fun unless you don''t die a lot when you fight with guns.
therefore, violent games cannot be optimally realistic and optimally fun. i have loading every three seconds (i suck at FPSs).
can i suggest a few things though.
violence in games can be made more realistic by not having the player die more often, but making them *care* about the other characters that die (from their "side") more.
personal opinion, but im sick of the "you meet this guy, he follows you around and shoots things when you''re out of ammo" thing. and then he could go and die and you just carry on like none of it had happened. its going for EASY GAMEPLAY at the expense of reality *AND FUN*. personal opinion too, but its kindof boring to graba security guard and wander around while he shoots everything with the wrong number of limbs or a different uniform. its the player supposed to be doing the shooting.
the old balance, as usual.
hmmm.
its not fun to die often. its even not fun to die once, unless your camera does something cool and zooms out so you can see yourself dying....
people also dont usually die as fast as you see them dying in games. depending on the location of the hit, the type of the hit, and the character''s own past experiences and such, the hit can cause internal bleeding, make holes, incduce shock, coma, vomiting, and much other good fun.
)()realism vs fun.
hmmm.
i like poking holes in the ideas behind FPS games. other people dont like me doing it.
die or be died...i think
Actually, depending on the warfare, people tend to die less than you''d think. Trying to hit someone with a gun is a lot harder than it looks from the way games are made. Basically there is little to no sway with the gun, ballistics are very rudimentary, and kickback to weapons (with a few games exceptions) are highly unrealistic. Also the terrain that one fights in is usually quite different than in real life. In the Vietnam War, I remembered reading a statistic somewhere that it took on average somewhere near 1,000 bullets to kill one Viet Cong or NVA. Now some wars are just turkey where the other guy doesn''t have a chance...look at the outrageous lopsided war that was Gulf Storm for an example. These guys couldn''t even really shoot back.
Games making hitting someone FAR too easy. You have to consider the psychological impacts of gun fights too....it''s pretty harrowing to be in one. Instinctively you want to shoot as fast as possible and get behind cover. One of the best gunfighters in the Old West (forgot his name now) was usually not the first person to pull the trigger, but he took a little more time to take his aim, and he had nerves of steel. Most gunfights were not the 1 shot one kill affairs that Hollywood makes them out to be. That''s why I hate snipers....games make it WAAAY to easy to be a sniper and it unbalances the game as a consequence. If a real sniper just had to aim his cross hairs on someone and shoot, without taking in bullet drop, wind speed, target lead, hand shales, etc etc...then we could all be snipers.
Even in melee combat, killing someone was a messy affair that usually resulted in both parties getting wounded, and often the winner recieving a mortal wound as well.
Games making hitting someone FAR too easy. You have to consider the psychological impacts of gun fights too....it''s pretty harrowing to be in one. Instinctively you want to shoot as fast as possible and get behind cover. One of the best gunfighters in the Old West (forgot his name now) was usually not the first person to pull the trigger, but he took a little more time to take his aim, and he had nerves of steel. Most gunfights were not the 1 shot one kill affairs that Hollywood makes them out to be. That''s why I hate snipers....games make it WAAAY to easy to be a sniper and it unbalances the game as a consequence. If a real sniper just had to aim his cross hairs on someone and shoot, without taking in bullet drop, wind speed, target lead, hand shales, etc etc...then we could all be snipers.
Even in melee combat, killing someone was a messy affair that usually resulted in both parties getting wounded, and often the winner recieving a mortal wound as well.
quote:
violence in games *cannot* be realistic unless you die a lot when you fight with guns.
violence in games *cannot* be fun unless you don''t die a lot when you fight with guns.
Not true!
I agree that dying a lot is not fun, but as Dauntless said, fighting with guns is not necessarily going to result in a game where the player dies constantly. Look at Ghost Recon, for instance. Ghost Recon is very realistic, and it is possible to not die at all. If you''re trying to make a game like Quake with realistic guns and damage modeling in tiny dungeon mazes, then obviously you will die a lot.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
