Real Realism

[JoelTrog]

Please no flamewar, just looking for discussion.

Having "life" in games makes them play more realistically.

We can't eliminate the ability of a pc player to run the avatar soldier at the absolute peak of his ability. Think about it. The soldiers who managed to run at their absolute peak fearlessly are the stuff of legends, the winters and zaitsevs (spelling).

Having a life system allows people that room for error a real scared soldier has. if someone spots you down the street diving behind a car in a pitched battle, chances are they aren't going to kill you instantly/perfectly.

Using life, the pretty much unavoidable perfect aim doesn't always end people you hardly saw the instant you catch them out of the corner of your eye.

I for one like it, I'm playing another fps this week and it creates a more authentic combat "Feeling".

I'd like Josef Nader's input, and any others that care to participate!

JT

 

[Krobar]

You're saying that it seems that the soldiers are too fit? too good? maybe... just maybe...

 

[UncleDrax]

Please, explain by what you mean by "life" here?

 

[Redemption]

Are you implying the soldiers we play as have, shall we say, superhuman abilities as far as the accuracy and stamina and what have you? Reaction time, gun control, lack of fear?

 

[JoelTrog]

By life I mean, more life. I know we have a bit of life, aka hits to die, but this other fps I'm playing let's you take a couple more.

However that does present an issue with the bolt actions, but if every other gun was nerfed down a bit it would actually be in balances favor.

The alternative of course, is PR style where your gun is very inaccurate for 3 ish seconds when you sight in, and hipfire is useless.

@Redemption: Not sure if sarcasm, but yes. Oh yes. Ever try to sprint full tilt (mind you in running shoes on prepared surface? Takes a couple more seconds to decelerate than represented.

 

[UncleDrax]

By life I mean, more life. I know we have a bit of life, aka hits to die, but this other fps I'm playing let's you take a couple more.

"Hit Points" I think it basically the term your looking for then.. so you're suggesting that by having more hitpoints, it would force players to play in a more realistic fashion?

(Incidentally, if that is the case, and I'm just trying to clarify what you're saying, you're proving my theory that one persons 'realism' is another persons 'arcade', and vice versa. I think I'll start a 'Stop using "Realism" as an excuse campaign', because everyone can use the same word on completely opposite view points.)

 

[PrivateBurke]

I'm not flaming you:

You should use the term health instead of "life" as your term is very confusing.

You're argument is full of contradictions though. While you say Richard Winters and Vaselli Satisfy had more "life" none of them took a wound in battle. Most games don't cover the fact that if a bullet strike a human that human will either expire or become non-effective after the wound. Bullets are devastating to the human body and Red Orchestra 2, in my opinion, balances wound vs gameplay great. You can "treat" bleeding wounds to continue the gameplay, yet the game ends with non-recoverable wounds.

The contradictions of your arguments is that you won't more "realism" in the shooting mechanics. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that combat effectiveness is not on par with real life. I don't exactly know where this impression is coming from however. You cannot base a game mechanic on real world experience if you cannot compare the two variables. Your experiences in real life do not compare to the experiences of these men.

The men portrayed in this game did the following things:

-Walked halfway across Europe (fitness you or I would have a hard time to ascertain)
-Were trained rigorously in the weapons that they hold
-Had countless incidents of combat experience
-Never wore sneakers (running shoes) and would not for another 30 years
-Experienced adrenaline levels and tunnel vision that only combat troops experience

Also, as someone who grew up in a rural area I have a hefty amount of experience with firearms. I can tell you that after long days of shooting, or being tired, or hiking my aim is not affected as some people call for. My hands do not shake from being tired... recoil is not affected and breathing is easily controllable when trying to fix a target.

Rifles are some of the simplest things to fire and operate (designed for that purpose) Pistol on the other hand are much more difficult to be proficient in. Thing about it. A pistol at best has one point of contact with the body, the grip. A rifle has three points, Shoulder (very stable,) grip and then finally the support arm. It's the same physics of a bipod but with the X plane having a high angle of movement.

 

[Vesper11]

I agree that there's a lot to be done about "life" simulation but its nothing about life as "health points".

 

[JoelTrog]

I hear what you are saying, yes, bullets are deadly.

With regards to the winter's/zaitsev comment, I didn't say they had extra hitpoints. I said that they are the pinnacle of soldier, something that EVERY player in RO2 is easily capable of with any experience in fps at all.

Go out and read some combat accounts of soldiers, I just read an interesting book full of accounts from D-Day. People don't instantly shoot or get shot the way that we see in this game. There are exchanges of fire, something that a higher hitpoint system (However gamey it is) allows.

The "realism" argument Drax made is interesting. I think it comes down to a question of realism in mechanics versus realism in game-flow.

 

[DesiQ]

People don't instantly shoot or get shot the way that we see in this game. There are exchanges of fire, something that a higher hitpoint system (However gamey it is) allows.

No, more nuanced and variable weapon handling allows for extended exchanges of fire, even while avoiding gameyness.

If you had to wait for your sights to align properly before squeezing off a shot that was accurate past 50m; if your weapon's recoil wasn't so predictable; if the speed of turning or shouldering a weapon was affected by that weapon's weight, bulk, length, and centre of balance — that's when we'll get prolonged firefights.

Everything in RO2 is too predictable, and that predictability translates into predictable firefights. The only way to fix this properly is to introduce more variety and unpredictability. Giving people steelclad limbs and torsos only makes the game even more predictable: I predict that everyone will run and gun even when it's not appropriate.

Even your example of people in D-Day having extended firefights doesn't support your argument. It's not that they had more hitpoints to play with, it's that they had to deal with hunger, weather, visibility, the cold and wet, fear, exhaustion, inconsistent loads of ammo, the ground shaking from explosions, and so on. Again, lots and lots of variables.

 

[JoelTrog]

I agree with you, and my point is that hitpoints are a way to accomodate for that lack of variables. Believe me, I'd love to see the real factors of combat modeled, but that feels like it's a long way off.

 

[DesiQ]

I agree with you, and my point is that hitpoints are a way to accomodate for that lack of variables. Believe me, I'd love to see the real factors of combat modeled, but that feels like it's a long way off.

Then TWI had better get crackin' then, and use their time to add some of the above suggestions and not just slap on a quick fix like giving people more health. It will work out better in the long run.

 

[Josef Nader]

The simple fact of the matter is that RL soldiers -were- capable of many of the feats in-game. The main difference is we're playing a game, and they're risking their lives, facing -actual- danger. Nothing is going to stop bad players from behaving like lemmings because there's no penalty for it. Screwing up the gameplay mechanics for -everyone- isn't going to fix the lemmings. In many cases, it'll only make them worse as everyone else struggles to punish the lemmings for their suicidal tactics.

1) If you're getting insta-sniped, and losing quick-draw duels, it's -YOUR- fault. The key to surviving in RO is staying out of sight, and -avoiding- duels. You want to see your enemy before he sees you. If you're getting insta-sniped before you can shoot back, the only person you can blame is yourself. You're exposing yourself too much, and being too unpredictable. The mechanics in ROOST that let you get away with this are gone, and a lot of players are furious because of it. The simple fact of the matter is that if you're dying too much, it's because you're employing incorrect tactics.

2) If you're the one gunning down hordes of lemmings, goodonya. You understand how to play the game right. Just be patient now and wait for the lemmings to move on. RO1s community was 6 years old, and only had the most mature players near the end of it's long lifespan. The only people still playing ROOST when RO2 came out were veterans of several years who understood the tactics and gameplay of ROOST. RO2 has been out for all of a few months. The smacktards haven't filtered out yet. Be patient.

tl;dr - No, giving players more health won't solve a damn thing, and will only serve to remove a significant chunk of tactical play. If you're getting killed by dudes before you see them, you need to slow down, get on your belly, and advance more cautiously. It's that simple.