How to make the most realistic shooter? - Games

Impossible with current methods of control and visuals. This is why I think there hasn't been any truly realistic FPSs.

Realistic shooter: you die in one hit. No HUD. No interesting story. No bloom lighting. Everyone looks ugly. The world looks ugly. You can only carry one or two weapons. No badass characters. no huge blood splatters when someone gets hit. People and objects do not get sent flying backwards when shot at. Gas cans, etc. do not explode when shot. Lighting will be poor. Game is only 3 hours long, where you die in the end, not because of something dramatic and meaningful, you just randomly trip a landmine and blow up while talking to someone. Basically everything that FPS fans gawk over and everything Hollywood-y that has become a mainstay of games will be taken out.

I have yet to see a realistic shooter that implements the elements found in a wargame like Close Combat, especially the psychological model.

How do you make a realistic shooter? Well, Whenever somebody buys it, They get kidnapped, given a rifle and sent to Afghanistan.

[QUOTE=theredstar;18171254]How do you make a realistic shooter? Well, Whenever somebody buys it, They get kidnapped, given a rifle and sent to Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] The "Get a gun and go to war" argument is the stupidest shit excuse I've ever fucking heard. Some people can't join the military due to health issues (me for example) or some of them [B]have[/B] been to war and are now out of the military. Other people just want a close to real simulation without putting their lives at risk. "Goto war if you wanna play a realistic game!" :downswords: :bandwagon: :sigh:

The player needs to fear being hit or shot somehow with some sort of punishments in-game.

a shot to the tigh means VERY slow movement, loss of blood over a small period of time, and healing isn't just fucking bandages, it's actually using thongs to pull out the bullet and disinfect it, and yet, after you heal, you still can't walk at full speed, gunshots hurt like a bitch

Children we call this op's post arma. Thanks for sharing.

[QUOTE=Specter;18172088]The "Get a gun and go to war" argument is the stupidest shit excuse I've ever fucking heard. Some people can't join the military due to health issues (me for example) or some of them [B]have[/B] been to war and are now out of the military. Other people just want a close to real simulation without putting their lives at risk. "Goto war if you wanna play a realistic game!" :downswords: :bandwagon: :sigh:[/QUOTE] thejokeyourhead.png

[QUOTE=theredstar;18174472]thejokeyourhead.png[/QUOTE] Oh how hilarious. Too bad some people in this thread aren't joking.

I'd say the closest you can get to real war is real war.

Euphoria + FPS game

No respawn. If you die you can never play the game again lol that's so realistic

[QUOTE=wlitsots;18177344]No respawn. If you die you can never play the game again lol that's so realistic[/QUOTE] lose/lose It deletes its self after you lose.

and here is our realism thread for the week, move along people, nothing to see here

i could design a fun realistic game if i had a team and a sharp stick to poke them

Buy a gun, shoot. Simple as that.

[QUOTE=professional;18168112]Uhh what? Do you have any idea what you just said? 1. All of those games have enjoyed a great deal of success. Just because you don't find them fun yourself doesn't mean others don't. Hence why the idiots argument of realism =/= fun is nothing more than a mere unfounded [b]opinion.[/b] 2. Operation Flashpoint has been around since 2001, it was widely praised and won many awards. The problem I have with Insurgency is because of the stubborness of the devs and refusal to listen to the community, they've degraded INS into what plays like laser tag with a middle eastern theme. Many draw comparisons between RO and INS, but what do you notice different about the firefights in RO and INS? In RO (even in mods with a high amount of semi automatic/automatic weaponry, like DH) people miss during firefights. Alot. RO is representative of combat accuracy. INS on the other hand, has been coded so that all weapons have so little recoil and virtually no shaking that you can play twitch shoot at 600 meters with no trouble. Since WW2, standard infantry procedures have all relied on suppressive fire to do anything. In RO, there's good reason for suppressive fire and it works. In INS, suppressive fire is pointless, you'll hit your target at any given time. There's alot of other reasons but I won't delve into here, this post is big enough as it is.[/QUOTE] I don't know professional about the accuracy statement. ArmA II's recoil is very gentle on the rifles and it's VERY easy to just point and shoot instantly at a soldier and kill him within 500 meters and I thought ArmA II was praised for realism. Same for OFP and ArmA 1 which were praised for being realistic as well. Would you say these are considered unrealistic or realistic?

OFP all changes when you have a mod like Wargames League.

[QUOTE=Chunk3ym4n;18178929]I don't know professional about the accuracy statement. ArmA II's recoil is very gentle on the rifles and it's VERY easy to just point and shoot instantly at a soldier and kill him within 500 meters and I thought ArmA II was praised for realism. Same for OFP and ArmA 1 which were praised for being realistic as well. Would you say these are considered unrealistic or realistic?[/QUOTE] Lol the difference there is the movement model and aiming model of ArmA. In INS, although it has psuedo free aim, it's still essentially a twitch shooter, you can bring your sights to bear on a target, even at long range, with extreme accuracy, control and speed. In ArmA that's a little harder to do so quickly. Also the movement model contributes greatly to ArmA's realism. INS on the other hand still kinda feels like CS, you slide around everywhere and theres no movement inertia to sidestepping. It's been a while since I played ArmA 2 now, but in my last PvP match, people weren't twitch shooting eachother at 100+ meters, there was back and forth shooting going on for a good few minutes until someone ran out into the open without fire or cover, even in CQB situations. INS on the other hand, every game I've played of it feels more and more like laser tag. It's literally impossible to miss in INS. Although I suspect this may have to do with the source engine not being able to replicate bullet travel time, so when you shoot, your round ends up on target instantly. The problem with alot of game engines, like the Project Reality crew found with BF2, is if you just dump the "Real world" data straight in and expect it to work out ingame, it doesn't work so well. In the early versions of PR, this is what they did, dump the real world values for the weapons and such straight in. What was produced was 1 hit kill twitch shooter, with no promise of teamwork or tactics other than: don't get seen. There was no difference between close combat and long range shooting. Now since the BF2 engine can't replicate sway, recoil and such due to hardcoding, they took the path of "un-realistic methods to get more realism" and introduced the deviation system, which, while i'm not a huge fan of it, I will admit it has worked admirably in the game's favor, as you now have long range, back and forth firefights, a good suppression system and if people wish to be truly effective, they have to think with their heads and flank their opponent's positions etc.

Well, the base gamemode of Garrysmod is kind of realistic because there is no point and there are no rules.

[QUOTE=SFArial;18183995]Well, the base gamemode of Garrysmod is kind of realistic because there is no point and there are no rules.[/QUOTE] Expect a lot of boxes coming your way.

The only fun I need in a hyper-realistic Shooter is an Editor with vehicles...

[QUOTE=Stripez;18178844]Buy a gun, shoot. Simple as that.[/QUOTE] Have a box so you can ship yourself to Iran.

[img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/fpsidea.png[/img] Take a look at this. [b]THIS[/b] is how bullet spread should be done. When the player shoots, a trace is sent out from the tip of the gun, not the center of the players screen. Designated within the weapon script would be the farthest distance from this point a bullet could be spread. With this we can generate a radius from the center of the trace ending, and this circle would gain size depending on the distance the trace picks up. Then we randomly generate where the bullet lands within those coordinates.

[QUOTE=Chunk3ym4n;18178929]I don't know professional about the accuracy statement. ArmA II's recoil is very gentle on the rifles and it's VERY easy to just point and shoot instantly at a soldier and kill him within 500 meters and I thought ArmA II was praised for realism. Same for OFP and ArmA 1 which were praised for being realistic as well. Would you say these are considered unrealistic or realistic?[/QUOTE] M16A2/A4s aren't AKs nor Mosin rifles, they don't kick like mules and a trained soldier knows what he is doing

i hear joinin the military is pretty realistic but it's kind of stupid because of respawn time is like NEVER

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;18195417][img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/fpsidea.png[/img] Take a look at this. [b]THIS[/b] is how bullet spread should be done. When the player shoots, a trace is sent out from the tip of the gun, not the center of the players screen. Designated within the weapon script would be the farthest distance from this point a bullet could be spread. With this we can generate a radius from the center of the trace ending, and this circle would gain size depending on the distance the trace picks up. Then we randomly generate where the bullet lands within those coordinates.[/QUOTE] Uhm that's how randomized bullet spread works minus the really dumb invisible trace idea. It works with math.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;18195417][img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/fpsidea.png[/img] Take a look at this. [b]THIS[/b] is how bullet spread should be done. When the player shoots, a trace is sent out from the tip of the gun, not the center of the players screen. Designated within the weapon script would be the farthest distance from this point a bullet could be spread. With this we can generate a radius from the center of the trace ending, and this circle would gain size depending on the distance the trace picks up. Then we randomly generate where the bullet lands within those coordinates.[/QUOTE] But if it's wrong you get f3 where you shoot in super circles or at 90 degree angles from the barrel (SNIPER RIFLE!) and it is almost impossible to shoot anything without vats or super spray and pray. Mods fix it some but really.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;18195489]M16A2/A4s aren't AKs nor Mosin rifles, they don't kick like mules and a trained soldier knows what he is doing[/QUOTE] Take a look at firefight stastics, both ones done by the military and ones done by the FBI. In a live firefight, the figure is something like [B]40-60% of shots miss[/B]. And this is with "trained" combatants we're talking about. This is why almost every nation's infantry doctrine relies on massed fire. But also once again, dont misunderstand what I'm saying. If you read my previous post about dumping real world "data" or "values" into a engine you might understand what I'm trying to illustrate better. Problem is we'll never have a game engine that can accurately recreate the nuances of the human body and shooting, nor would I want it to. So we substitute.