Realistic Shooting Video Games?
Hi, firstly i just wanted to say this is a really cool site and the people here really have a great knowledge of firearms. Hopefully i can learn more myself along the way as i'm a bit of a beginner. Anyways, i was just wondering if anyone knew of any video games with realistic/semi-realistic shooting mechanics in it. I saw the thread about realistic shootouts in films which i thought was very interesting and gave me the idea for this thread. So first i thought i'd start with the ones i've already played. Probably the most realistic games i've played in this regard are Operation Flashpoint and Arma. Both are excellent games (require a bit of patience though). The Main complaints i have with OF (which is a game that i do love to death nonetheless) is that the gun sounds aren't very good, no handguns (though i think they were added in the resistance expansion) and even though AI die fairly quick the sometimes don't react from a bullet as expected. Though all round Operation Flashpoint and Arma i think are very realistic tactical shooters. (I haven't actually played Arma 2 yet btw, don't think it would work on my pc though) S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl has some nice shooting mechanics in terms of bullet drop, but overall it some area's that i think are a bit unrealistic. Mostly in terms of damage where the AI can take a lot of round to the body and barely react. I remember shooting a guy in the foot about five times with an AKS-74U and he barely reacted lol. But i do like that handguns are pretty useless over long ranges. It does have a great selection of guns (some of the models and sounds are a bit off though) and also has a lot of cartridge varities. The oblivion lost mod fixes a lot of issues i had with the game in general though. Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 is extremely realistic, especially for an online shooter. It's one of the few games i play online often, but unfortunately there are fewer and fewer servers. There's a fine selection of guns and they all have a nice ammount of recoil. The number of bullets left in a magazine is not shown and there is no crosshair. The obvious thing to note though is that bullet have a 'tracer' effect, but this is a sacrifice of realism for the sake of gameplay. Damage is very realistic and it took me some time to adapt after playing CSS for so long lol. I don't have a huge experience with the Rainbow Six Games, but i have played Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield that seemed very realistic. Rainbow Six Vegas 1 & 2 seemed to break away from the series a bit and i felt they lacked the realism and style of it's predecessors. I've only really played a couple of Ghost Recon games (haven't tried either GRAW yet). Though i've got to admit that Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon games aren't particularly to my taste. I'm not sure why but i'm just not a fan of controlling a squad all the time, don't mind it on occassiona though. Games that i've heard of but yet to play are; Sniper-elite, the original Far Cry (the original farcry, though i doubt it'll be too realistic) and Hidden and Dangerous. So the question is are there any realistic shooting games you could recommend me, preferably with a minimal focus on controlling a squad. |
I would have to say the Project reality mod for Battlefield 2
|
seriously? A spam bot designed to post something so specific to this site? Kinda impressive
|
Quote:
|
Also, there was one other i forgot to add earlier; Insurgency mod for the source engine. I haven't played it in a while, but from what i remember it was pretty good, though admittably i found it had it's moments of frustration.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Rainbow Six:Raven Shield or Rainbow Six:Athena Sword
Stay away from the Vegas series, it's only realistic in relative terms to other games and it is a sellout of the Rainbow Six name. |
What's wrong with the Vegas series? I mean Vegas 2 wasn't that good, but I kinda like to play it.
|
If you've played Rainbow Six:Raven Shield you'd understand.
The Vegas series was made by a completely different company and sold out of the original realism of the series in order to cash in on the mainstream gamer. |
Quote:
|
hi all new member here
I really like the firearms in COD 4 and as for STALKER i found the guns looked impressive but they lacked the hitting power, i mean i was head shooting a standard soldier with a British L85 with SUSAT scope on it and i was still not killing them. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Agreed the tactical merits of COD 4 a limited but for on line shooting fun it takes the cake.
STALKER was very dissapointing to me because i was so looking foward to all the different firearms but like you put the battle damage on the bad guys sucked. |
This is a older trailer for Project Reality but the best 1 i think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXNksCRglFc Heres the new 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2zQIYyCY5s |
My views on shooters now is the same as comparing to real life gun battles to movies. Games are for entertainment. If the damage for every rifle is bang bang to the chest and you're dead, than that's no fun. The point of playing shooters however realistic or unrealistic is to get away from real life. Some games try to put more so called realism, but they tend to fall back on the usual trends of gameplay
I remember a lot of shooters have a life bar or a percentage of health. Nowadays, a LOT of shooters you don't have a life bar. You get hit, you take cover and you're back to full health. |
I remember a lot of shooters had no life bar or a percentage of health.. You'd either be injured, which meant you'd be gimpy and easier to kill for the rest of the round, or dead at once.
I tried playing a mod for half-life 2 the other day that had almost the rainbow six type of health system. It adds a certain tension because you know you only get one chance to screw up, no picking up a health pack or jumping behind cover (silly console shooters started with that stupidity). I had almost forgotten how much fun such games were until then.:( |
Project reality has a pretty realistic damage system that also works, if you get injured and loses beyond 30% of your health, you slowly bleed out unless you get to a medic
|
In Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway your dead after one round. The longer you stand out in the open without cover, the more dangerous it becomes until you likely are hit by a round.
But such realism takes a bit of the fun out of games, since you spend most time retrying stuff fifty times, and that alone is not realistic either. |
I love how in operation flashpoint if you had no medics with you and later you are shot in the leg you are basically stuck crawling on the ground for the rest of the mission.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There are exceptions to some of those, but I'd say the traits I listed above describe the typical shooter perfectly, even those based in real-world war settings. (Any Call of Duty game makes a good example) Anyway, it's obvious that to make it possible for the player in such a game to die from one hit, or even two or three, would make it painfully difficult. But, with all that said, 'one shot kill' gameplay can work, can be fun (if you have the least bit of patience) and, if it's done right, it can be just as intense as a typical action-packed FPS. The problem is, to do it right, a game has to be built from the ground-up with this concept in mind, and few developers are willing to do this (since by doing so they're appealing to a different and decidedly smaller crowd), and even fewer manage to do it right. Games like Call of Duty 4 are well known for their intensity. CoD4 is intense, mostly due to the fact that, in that game, you're being shot at almost constantly. You're always in the thick of it. That's also the main reason it would be so insanely hard if the player could die in one shot -- it's impossible to avoid being shot at least occasionally in that game. For contrast, take my favorite tactical shooter, Operation Flashpoint, as an example. Firstly, in that game, even as a rifleman in a large battle, you won't get shot at nearly as much as you would be in most FPSs, partially because battles are usually at longer ranges, not all inside buildings or on city streets, but also because in a game like this, the mechanics of battle are just different. You learn to move in a manner that precludes being targeted (moving rapidly from cover to cover, staying low whenever possible). You're not constantly outnumbered, and you almost always have options how to go about fulfilling your objectives. In other words, you're rarely forced into a situation where you have no options and you're in deep shit no matter what you do, many sections in Call of Duty: World at War, were like this. There's only one way forward blocked by swarms of endlessly respawning enemies and the only way to proceed is to slog forward, time your advance right and pray fate doesn't dump one of the hundreds of random grenades right next to your only piece of cover. The point is, more often than not, in a game like Call of Duty you frequently die out of sheer bad luck, whereas in a game like OFP, most of the time death is avoidable if you use a little strategy in the way you go about things. It's still entirely possible to get hit in the head by a random rifle bullet and die instantly, but it's unlikely, especially if you know what you're doing. Further, despite the fact that you're shot at less frequently in a game like this, it's actually more intense in the end, both because you don't always expect it, and also because the consequences of being shot are far more dire. In Call of Duty you're almost always being shot at, and you know that if you do get hit two or three times, you just have to go and hide in the corner until you get better and you're back in the fray (unless you're playing on 'Veteran' difficulty, or 'masochist mode' as I like to call it). Even if you do die the nearest checkpoint is rarely more than a couple minutes back. Requires some suspension of disbelief, but that's alright for that kind of gameplay, it doesn't work very well any other way. But in OFP, you're not always being shot at, but when you are it's particularly harrowing (especially so if you don't know where the fire is coming from) because every time a bullet misses you by inches, you know that if it had hit you, you would, at best, be wounded and unable to aim properly and/or walk (depending on which limbs are hit), or, at worst, be stone cold dead. You're not ambushed at every corner, so you don't usually expect to be, and you're not constantly being shot, so when you are it's appropriately shocking. This two part gameplay video of Flashpoint does a pretty good job of illustrating everything I just said. In it, the player (me) is shot at a fair bit and has quite a few close calls, but in the end makes it to the end entirely unscathed. War Cry - 1 War Cry - 2 P.S. If you take one look at this massive post and think 'tl;dr', I won't blame you. Obviously, tactical shooters (and OFP in particular) are one of my passions, but hey, at least I paragraphed it! :D |
Nice video Matty, Reminds me of Joint Operations. When I played it it was a fun game with realistic bullet physics so you had to adjust your sniper scope corectly for the range or learn how to use the mildots.
Man it was fun snipeing the pilots of flying helocopters with a barret. |
My experience with FPS games based on modern military combat is somewhat limited, but I would suggest the America's Army series (the PC versions; can't speak for the console spin-offs). With the exception of the heavy recruiting material filling the game, it's actually quite realistic; you take a burst from an enemy's AK and you're in a world of hurt, if not dead outright, with no respawn until the round is over (your character can also die from their wounds if not promptly treated by a medic). America's Army 3 seems to be the most realistic thus far as far as weapon performance, once you get past all the glitches. My only complaint with the gun handling in America's Army 3 is how the weapon bobs & weaves all over the place when looking down the sights, like the player's character was intoxicated or something even when in perfect health. The earlier version has a rather impressive weapon assortment, though it's quite starkly limited thus far in the latest version (the U.S. arsenal is limited to the M16A4, M16A4 with M320 grenade launcher, M14A4 Designated Marksman Rifle, M4A1, and M249 SAW, in addition to Frag, Smoke, Stun, and Incendiary grenades). Hope that helps, and happy gaming.
|
A game that i'm trying to get my hands on is VSB1 which is aparently based on OFP. So i'll report back when i get the chance to play it :).
Also, Operation Flashpoint: Dragoon Rising is out in the US i believe. Though it probably wouldn't work on my medium end PC, so i probably won't get to play it for a while :(. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I got OF:DR and love it. Console gaming FTW, its a hard game, most realistic Ive Played.
|
Quote:
|
What's wrong with the PC version?
|
XBOX 360=good single player, sucky online. Literally, lagging, controls not working, i can't reload, change fire rate, people teleport all over the map.
|
That aside, I'm still pretty hyped for Modern Warfare 2, despite my issues with it like dual wielding, throwing knives and stick simtex on someone. It does seem like a good game and IW hasn't disappoint yet, but I can be wrong, and this ends up being a waste of my money. But I'm the guy who bought FEAR Extraction point and Rainbow Six Vegas 2, so it wouldn't be the first time.
|
Quote:
|
Well I havent thought about trying anything else lately other than Fallout 3
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.