• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Popular Mechanics calls R6 V 2 and America's Army Realism Games

Everyone has different ideas of how to simulate "Realism" in a game, it's never going to be like reality, because the main thing holding it back is that a workable balanced game has to be there for everyone to enjoy. There are so many games which try to be realistic, OF, ArmA, AA, RO, BF2:pR, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, CoD4 in hardcore mode *laughs* etc. etc. but they all have their own nuances.

I love R6 Vegas on my 360, it's fantastic playing co-op terrorist hunt with a group of friends, the AI genuinely offers you a challenge, particularly on the "realistic" difficulty level, and I love the GoW cover mechanic and tag and bag system. It doesn't however seem to work as nicely on the PC, because i think on the PC everyone is expecting it to be much more in depth than it's console counterpart....and it just isn't. I remember the first ever R6 game on the PC, and it was hard as nails, it was fun, but also very frustrating with the tedious mission planner (where you basically drew paths for your AI to follow), and the missions could be very much a case of repeating them until you learn the enemy movement patterns.

Good article btw I think it raises some interesting questions about how realistic you should shoot for (excuse the pun!)...game balance is an important issue, and if your marketing your game as just that, and not a simulation, a game should be fun, priority number one. Simulations aren't meant to be fun, theya re meant to be an experience - so i think the first thing to decide as a developer is what type of interactive entertainment you are creating?

The article comments on regenerative health systems found in Halo, CoD etc. this isn't realistic but even RO has a similar system in place if you take a grazing wound. Whereas mods like Project Reality have you trying to apply a field dressing or find a medic, whilst you cough and slowly bleed to death and your view gets all distorted.

"Realistic gameplay" is in the eye of the beholder, everyone has their own ideas about what is realistic, and I think recently the term has been bandied about by developers who are trying to make it more accessible to casual gamers...i actually applaud this to an extent, as it may encourage the same gamers to try other realistic games like RO, games which they may have considered as too hardcore for them in the past.
 
Upvote 0
America's Army has a level of realism comparable to Red Orchestra imo.

They made a mistake though in that article, PC Ghost Recons don't have a regenerative health system. Maybe the console versions have, though.

Good article, but i think it misses one point: While it's certainly true that games make weapons more hollywood to suit our expectations, another reason is that, so far, noone has a good concept how to deal with the other input factor of accuracy: The shooter.

Give a factory-new M16 to someone with 3 month subscript training and a rusty AK to a veteran and the latter will most likely be much more accurate. Games start to incorporate these things with sway, breathing and mouse-recoil-control but so far I haven't seen any games where it is really as demanding to shoot at a target 200m away as it is in real life.

As long as we're shooting by pointing and clicking with a mouse, inaccurate guns will have to compensate for our avatar's uber-accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
AA did try to simulate the "experience" factor with handing weapons, by making your weapon sway less, and be more accurate as your honor level increases...this however makes the game very difficult for new players to learn, which is both a positive and negative point.

Perhaps the only way to get back to making it a real skill to aim is use an actual replica lightgun esq rifle controller of some kind, but then it would have to have a load of other buttons so you could move, check score etc Could be fun though!
 
Upvote 0
America's Army has a level of realism comparable to Red Orchestra imo.

They made a mistake though in that article, PC Ghost Recons don't have a regenerative health system. Maybe the console versions have, though.

Good article, but i think it misses one point: While it's certainly true that games make weapons more hollywood to suit our expectations, another reason is that, so far, noone has a good concept how to deal with the other input factor of accuracy: The shooter.

Give a factory-new M16 to someone with 3 month subscript training and a rusty AK to a veteran and the latter will most likely be much more accurate. Games start to incorporate these things with sway, breathing and mouse-recoil-control but so far I haven't seen any games where it is really as demanding to shoot at a target 200m away as it is in real life.

As long as we're shooting by pointing and clicking with a mouse, inaccurate guns will have to compensate for our avatar's uber-accuracy.
What, so are you saying that Insurgency's laser guns aren't realistic? HEATHON!
 
Upvote 0
I dislike how they say they arent aiming for a realism game with RSV2, because the series did start out as such untill they took over.
If anything, they should try to keep the feeling of the gameplay the same and keep old fans satisfied and try to get more fans from there, instead of totally alienating the old fanbase and trying to get a new mass of 12 year olds with hollywood-expectations.
 
Upvote 0