Realism and Video Games

You'd think you'd enjoy that, but MoH is plagued with broken snipers.

if you get shot in the shoulder you're prolly gonna die of blood loss anyway unless you get medical attention

BBJynne wrote:if you get shot in the shoulder you're prolly gonna die of blood loss anyway unless you get medical attention

hence the existence of the IFAK

There is a trade-off in movies, TV show, games, and books.
It is a Freedom/Immersion Trade-off.

Having realism allows players, readers or viewers to immerse into the story, they can also much more easily get attached to and understand the characters. For example, 28 days later, wanted you to care about the characters and their endeavors.

Having less realism gives the developers or writers or what ever more freedom to create what ever they want. They are open to a lot more material. They are free, not bound by the shackles of realism. For example, Zombieland, by subtracting a degree of realism they were able to make the movie pretty much how ever they wanted. They were making a comedy, so by reducing the importance of realism and immersion, they were able to cater more to their first priority; making a comedy movie.

That rule applies mainly to Stories, not games though.
I don't care for Realism in games TBH, like I have said a million times, I buy a game for the gameplay, the enjoyment factor. Not much of my opinion is based on the story because that isn't the first priority for most games.
Which is why I used to play so much TF2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH1kQBPNHIM&feature=channel
don't know if this is relevant or not but meh....

tiny tim wrote:I personally prefer it if shooter games that try to be realistic but fail at it, like MW, didn't advertise as being realistic. And when I look for a realistic game I don;t mean graphicswise, I mean that if you get shot in the head with just about anything you're dead. Same thing with most torso shots. Get shot in the shoulder and your aim is gonna be messed up. I mean stuff like that. And no hiding behind an obstacle for a few seconds to heal up.

Of the top of my head, SWAT 4 and Operation: Flashpoint would be right up your alley in that regard.

@Grey. If you hit someone with enough force in the head or spine with a throwing knife they would go down instantly and pretty quietly if caught from behind. Where MW2 fails in it's portrayal is they are insta-kill weapons on any part of the body and regardless of their velocity.

Vigil wrote:Where MW2 fails in it's portrayal is they are insta-kill weapons on any part of the body and regardless of their velocity.

but thats in there to balance gameplay. else no one would use them

KristallNacht wrote:

Vigil wrote:Where MW2 fails in it's portrayal is they are insta-kill weapons on any part of the body and regardless of their velocity.

but thats in there to balance gameplay. else no one would use them

It's gimmicky and unrealistic in a supposedly 'realistic' shooter.

All you need to do is go for the head, and if nessecary fire a few rounds of to finish them off. It wouldn't be that that different from a normal frag if they only got hit by the splash damage.

Throwing knifes are already overshadowed by semtex, claymores, adn C4. The only things people use less are frags and tactical insertions (atleast for ACTUAL gameplay and not boosting). MW2 had the right it right balancing (MW2 and good balance in the same sentence? lol) realism and gameplay purposes. IW/Activision just fucked a few things up.

I like throwing knives because I always use riot shield


and akimbo USPs...


I don't take the game very seriously

BBJynne wrote:I like throwing knives because I always use riot shield


and akimbo USPs...


I don't take the game very seriously

Nobody does.