Related Sections: Opinion Shooters
This just in: shooters aren't realistic enough
By way of Blues News, I came across a blog entry from a student in San Francisco who posts under the name Charlie Six. He rightly points out that a significant part of combat is "suppressing fire". Consider the infamous order given to the Colonial Marines: "I want you to lay down a suppressing fire with the incinerators and fall back by squads to the APC". We all know how that one turned out when it came through garbled.
As Mr. Six points out:
I think [fear of incoming rounds] is the key element that is missing from FPS games, one that keeps [light machine guns] from doing their job of suppressive fire. And it is missing for an obvious reason: FPS players aren't afraid of bullets or death like real soldiers are. Unlike in real life, FPS death is just a temporary affliction, usually one that lasts no more than 10 seconds. It's no wonder suppressive fire and the LMGs that are supposed to be delivering it are so ineffective in FPS games.Mr. Six has an excellent point, although I think he fails to appreciate that not all shooters have the same respawn system. Games like Counter-Strike, where you have to sit out the rest of the round when you die, have their own de facto suppression fire. The headquarters mode from the last few Calls of Duty don't let the defenders of the HQ respawn. With these games, if you want to play, you need to be afraid of bullets.
Mr. Six suggests a few real time strategy games as a model for how this might be done. But shooters have already tried this. And they fared about as well as the Colonial Marines. From my own review of 2005's excellent but sadly overlooked America's Army: Rise of a Soldier:
America's Army is the first shooter to model the effect of "suppression" -- the term for the simple fact that being shot at tends to mess up your aim -- on the player. The concept was featured prominently in Gearbox's Brothers in Arms, but only for the AI. And it was a big part of the gameplay in Pandemic's Full Spectrum Warrior, but that wasn't a conventional shooter. So America's Army gets the honor of being the first first person shooter where gunfire can affect you even if it doesn't hit you.This was the game that gave light machine guns like the M249 (pictured above) their due. Unfortunately, this was an Xbox 1 game and there's no backwards compatibility for it on the Xbox 360. Ubisoft's Xbox 360 follow-up, True Soldier, and the PC versions of America's Army don't use the same system. So to everyone using murder simulators to train for actual combat, either find an old copy of Rise of a Soldier, or don't forget to duck.What America's Army does differently is calculate a combat effectiveness -- basically, this is your accuracy -- determined partly by whether people are firing at you and how close they're getting. The value is displayed on a meter in the corner of the screen. You can also improve it by deploying a bipod on your sniper rifle, being close to a fire team leader, stopping to catch your breath after sprinting, or improving your marksmanship skill, for example. An important part of the gameplay is that this combat effectiveness applies to you as well as the AI, friendly and enemy. So it behooves you to keep firing at those guys hiding behind that wall even if you're not hitting them.
By obonicus at 1:58 PM ON 07/01/08
In Counterstrike, though, due to a poor accuracy model, though there is a MG there's absolutely no benefit to using it. In fact, there's little benefit in firing without full intent of hitting your target -- if anything, it just gives your position away. Recoil scales up so quickly that you have no chance of hitting anything with it, and players using more accurate weapons will destroy you.
By Weebork at 2:19 PM ON 07/01/08
I liked the damage model in Operation Flashpoint. I also prefer the system the original Rainbow Six games provided for damage. One shot most likely meant you were incapacitated or dead. Non of this health kit junk or run-behind-cover-and-wait wound recovery system like in the CoD series (or Gears of War, etc.)
If it was easier to die in the game, combined with the pain of having to wait until the round is over to play again, might improve the realism. Rainbow Six lethality, combined with destructive capabilities like in Battlefield: Bad Company, along with a bunch of things, would make FPS games more exciting.
On a different note, I thought games were going to become a lot more graphic, in the direction of Soldier of Fortune type violence. Blowing off limbs, heads, shooting people in the crotch or neck -- all having a unique reaction sequence. Additionally, I would have hoped by now games would have a area damage system rather than an overall hit point system. What I mean is you can still kill someone by shooting them in the foot enough times. We need to move beyond this.
By Enduro Man at 11:09 PM ON 07/01/08
Tom: I've never tried Rise of a Soldier, but based on your description, the PC version of America's Army has been using the same Combat Efficiency Meter for some years now. A good machine-gunner can do wonders for an assaulting team, but any support function is undermined by players trying to boost their accuracy statistics. Every gunner ends up playing like a sniper, which leaves the grenadiers unmolested and free to dominate. Of course, that's a minor problem compared to the rampant cheating and the overall creakiness of the game in its present state.
By Ale Frassetti at 9:54 AM ON 07/02/08
Try out Battleground Europe - WWIIOnline(MMOG), that's the only game where you are afraid of dying, and where suppressive fire more or less finds its role too.
By the faux jew at 12:23 AM ON 07/11/08
have you tried Brothers in Arms? A key part of that game is suppression. if you dont use it, youre dead.
By turbo boy at 4:54 AM ON 09/25/08
LISTEN YOU PEOPLE ARE A BUNCH OF VIDEO GAME CLOWNS,DONT TAKE THAT PERSONAL,IM JUST TALKING TRASH,BUT NO REALLY---THE PIONT IM TRYING TO MAKE TO GAME TESTERS,GAME REVEIWERS,AND GAME CREATORS,A SHOOTING GAME IS NEVER GOING TO SEEM THAT REAL INTILL THEY DESIGN SOME SORT OF LIKE PLUG IN GUN,THAT MAY BE YOU CAN PLUG IN TO A GAME SYSTEM,AND IT SIMULATES A KIND OF ACCUAL FIRING FROM A WEAPON,AND WE KNOW THEY CAN MAKE IT,BECAUSE EVERYONE MY AGE,WELL LIKE 20 SOMETHINGS--WE ALL REMEMBER THE GUN THEY MADE FOR NINTENDO,THAT YOU COULD POINT AT THE SCREEN,AND SEGA MADE ONE TO,CALLED THE MENACER,AN ARTIFICAIL VIDEO GAME FIRE ARM,THAT YOU COULD POINT AT THE SCREEN,AND WE KNOW THE ARCADE GAMES DO THIS,WE ALSO KNOW THEY MADE A GAME GUN FOR TIME CRISIS,AND IT WAS HALTED BECAUSE OF COLUMBINE OR SOMETHING,BUT SMART PEOPLE LIKE US KNOW THAT THIER GOING TO HAVE TO STOP BLAMING GAMES FOR SCHOOL VIOLENC,BECAUSE A GAME GUN IS AS REAL AS ITS GOING TO GET,AND YOU GUYS KNOW IT,AND I DONT MEAN THAT LITTLE PIECE OF CRAP THEY MADE FOR NINTENDO WII ETHIER,BUT A BIG GAME GUN,WITH A SCOPE,ALL BLACK,THAT LOOKS REAL,AT LEAST LOOKS THE PART,I MEAN I REMEMBER GOING TO THE ARCADE IN PHILADELPHIA WERE I GREW UP AT THE MALL YEARS AGO,AND THIER WAS A POINT AND SHOOT GAME THAT PLAYED LIKE A GAME BUT LOOKED LIKE AN ACCUAL MOVIE,WITH GUNS ATTACHED,WHY CANT THEY DO THAT NOW?I THNIK WE SHOULD FIND OUT,DONT YOU?
By sfFAnbOy at 12:34 AM ON 09/28/08
ok well i just wanna say u r wrong, srry it was a good post but absaloutly wrong, i belive it was soldire front to use this befor americas army seing as i was playing it befor any x box was on the maket and still am today, to play it go to ijji.com sign up, sign in and play its super fun good graphs and the first!
By sfFANboy at 10:48 AM ON 09/28/08
ok well i just wanna say u r wrong, srry it was a good post but absaloutly wrong, i belive it was soldire front to use this befor americas army seing as i was playing it befor any x box was on the maket and still am today, to play it go to ijji.com sign up, sign in and play its super fun good graphs and the first!
By ReeyferMadness at 12:09 PM ON 10/25/08
Just increasing bullet damage would do it. I mean, that's the pure and simple reason; machine guns in most games are weak and inaccurate. IRL they are accurate out to very long ranges (especially from prone) and you're liable to die if you get hit. The pressure wave from an m249 round travelling by your head will kill you (and very bloodily).
If people would die or fall with one shot to the body, they would not run into machine gun fire. As it is, machine guns act like automatic shotties in most games, and all damage models are ridiculously forgiving. That's a problem I've had w/ FPS games for a long time, and its not likely that any major game will change it. If its hard to play then incompetent retards won't play, and that's most of your playerbase on any game :P
By Charlie Six at 6:09 AM ON 02/06/09
Sweet, the infamous Tom Chick saw my article! I graduated in May '08 btw :P
I wrote my article poorly. I shoulda said that I wanted to see suppressive fire and useful LMGs show up in the mainstream online shooter games, like COD, Rainbow Six, Battlefield, etc. All of these games have a kind of quasi-realism formula to them that really appeals to people. These are the shooters I enjoy. But they all have fairly terrible LMGs, and none model suppressive fire at all. I'd love to see that "quasi realistic" formula finally introduce some kind of suppressive fire system. Something that is fun and compatible with the rules of these games. I don't think longer respawn times or higher lethality would be very well received.
Charlie Six:
Sweet, the infamous Tom Chick saw my article! I graduated in May '08 btw :P I wrote my article poorly. I shoulda s...More »