So me and my buddy were sitting around wondering what game to play as so many are redundant now. We got to talking and decided what we feel would be the most perfect fps. To sum it up a realistic no bs fps, i mean bullet drop, wind changes, environment changes, weapon jams, real life wounds (example u get shot in your secondary arm/hand now you level your gun with 1 hand) or if your to wounded to hole a big gun you use a side arm. I would like to play a game where if im in Afghanistan a sudden dust storm blows in, or if im in Vietnam it suddenly starts raining, and i want these things to affect: sight,weapons performance, etc. So what do ya'll think?
So basically, if a bullet hits the right spot, we could be killed in one shot? If there was a game like that, I'd probably avoid it. The weather change would be cool though.
It sounds to me like you're explaining some kind of MMOFPSRPG kind of world that we're all waiting for. I think it'd be a great idea but like Chron said, it wouldn't be fun getting killed by a single-body shot (like in the heart). My ideal game would be a Zombie MMO. Chuck thought of it. I want it.
What you're talking about is something more along the lines of a simulator. I remember a game (possibly delta force?) where your body was divided into different parts, if that gets too damaged it becomes unusable. It can get pretty crazy when you can only use your head to slowly crawl along the ground! I've seen some videos about a game called Arma 2 which looks very interesting, it looks like a really good simulation game (for example when sniping you have to account for bullet-drop).
The idea of realism is far better than the reality. It's fun to think you're playing through something resembling real combat scenarios and surviving, because it makes you feel like that much more of a badass when you think it's realistic rather than stacked in your favor. Reality is a cold ***** though, and not entertaining in the slightest. That's why games only pay lip service to realism.
Americas Army is basically what you said. If not get Arma 2 or Battlefield 3 when it's released. I've been playing Battlefield 2 lately though, and i'm constantly surprised how close it feels to realistic combat. Players are influences into working as squads, and trying flanking manoeuvres to avoid full-frontal battle. Winning teams often try to deploy as many strategies as possible.
true realism = not fun for example: in reality, you cant just have a sniper, you need a sniper team. that means in this realistic game, for every person sniping you would need another player carrying around a notepad and laptop doing the calculations for distance, angle shooting, mil dot related calculations, correction for atmospheric conditions and leads for moving targets. who wants to do math in a video game? i wouldnt. not fun.
well okay take flashpoint dragon rising for an example (a solely singleplayer game well mp campaign anyway). When your sniping bullet drop and wind are a varying factor for your aiming, if your 200 yards below your target your gona need to raise your scope about 2 1/2 clicks over the target to reach. Also i think a game that does like cod and has hardcore but has a regular mode (for people who don't think a Barrett 50 caliber sniper should kill in 1 hit) but also contain a hardcore mode where you get blown in half by a fmj 50 cal bullet. Now im not saying make it so real that you need a spotter while snipping but make it real enough that oh say when your gunning down someone with an m60 and there using a idk mp5 if you get first shot that dude is gona be dead. I want a game to take into consideration how accurate and deadly guns are not just "wing it" like blackops and to an extent mw2 did. And if your shotgun is gona reach 25 yards it better be a slug not f**** buckshot man. I just would like a game that gives the sense of realistic combat, oh say you know when an rpg hits the ground near you, you may not die but your gona be kinda f'ed up you know. I think it'd be fun, as for the injured limbs etc like AA idk i think it could work but to many people now a days arn't up for something they can't just run and gun at. The enviroment changes would be awesome, hell even weapon jamming could be cool, just think after every game you can choose to clean up your gun, upgrade ammo and parts or go without and risk your gun jamming. Idk how to exactly implement that but it would be cool.
I wouldn't call it realistic, but Bulletstorm is the best FPS. Or it would be if it had competitive multiplayer.
Some rather have realism, others dont. You cant say your opinion for a good FPS makes for the best FPS in existance, because its just your opinion. I like playing Halo, and I think its one of the better FPS's out there. Is it realistic? No. You brought up the point of realistic differences between guns... that wouldnt work well in a game setting for numerous reasons. The biggest one is the imbalance between weapons, why use a MPK at all if a M60 is a one shot kill? I really wouldnt want to play a game where the weapons are not balanced and guns jam on you in the middle of a fight. Not too keen on having to clean your gun after every game either.
i think do you play on PC? s this is the next title i am waiting for: Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad PC exclusive i am afraid, but looks the mutts nutts
Wow that seems amazing. I don't game too much on P.C. but I might make an exception. I hope it lives up to what it sounds like it's gonna be. That could either be really fun or a pain in the ass. I'll probably still try it regardless. Any idea of release date?
So, you know what realistic combat is... Anyways at OP. There's no best shooter out there. It's entirely up to preference. I'd say the casual market is more suited for shooters that realistic, namely CoD. Fast kill times and the lack of difficulty to kill other players allows many players to pick up the game and have fun and at times feel like an action hero, which are how the games are marketed as. You too can join the ranks of Rambo, McCain, and the like Well the fun lasts for a while until we wait for the next installment of a realistic shooter. Since every realistic shooter plays like each other with regard to kill time and map design, we're basically paying for new maps because everyone's learned the spawn traps and best camping spots on the last year's installment. In this way we're telling developers that as long as you keep players on their toes with more maps and better graphics, we're perfectly happy trading in last year's spawntrapathon for a newer model. /rant That said, I don't have a problem with realistic shooters because there's a market for gamers like me. Gamers who like a challenge. Personally, I don't think making a game more realistic would be fun. Adding elements that make the game more random, which takes control out of the players hand, is rather like telling me when I lose a battle or scenario, **** happens. Elements that change the game play work when they're expected or predictable. There's a fine balance between oh-**** moments and oh-**** moments that players have no control over. This may not seem like this has anything to do with your idea, but it does. When you add the elements like rain, sleet, or snow into a game when players can't control or easily predict it's frustrating for players than want a cohesive competitive experience. It'd be cool for casual gamers, but they don't take games seriously enough to put that much thought into the game to notice your attention to detail. So, it'd ended up being wasted effort, because the people who would appreciate your effort aren't going to enjoy the game play. Put, succinctly, I want my bullets to go where I place the reticule.
There are very realistic shooting games that are made for the department of defense. Call of Duty isn't that realistic. It is setup to be very fast paced run around in close quarters killing people, to be like Rambo, like Rusty Eagle said. If you were a soldier who fought like you were in call of duty, you'd probably be dead. In real life, you don't respawn, so people take cover and fight from very far away. However, Call of Duty maps are made for close quarters combat. Snipers are only effective in black ops if you never move. If you want a game that combines some realism with being tactical and being kinda fun, play Far Cry 2. It's like Call of Duty, but with more realistic weapons (they kick back when you fire so you can't spray randomly to get kills, and shotguns have realistic range and damage), yet balanced weapons. Most combat takes place at the long range, but skilled shotgun and smg can fight at close range. You can also get a silenced gun and try to play stealthily, the maps are setup for real sniper battles. And it is the most powerful map editor on consoles. It is still nothing like an actual army game, and it is setup to work as a fun and competitive videogame. I'm not sure how you get to play the super-realistic games, but really you shouldn't want to unless your going to go to real war. I'd assume you'd either need to get a job at a related government contractor or join the army.
well im not saying it has to be how i stated exactly to be the best fps, this was just my thoughts on what i think fps's should entail (not all just some elements) of what i stated. I have played on combat simulators but no im not joining the "military" (there is more than just the army that deals with actual war) I think environmental changes on a game like cod would be great, make it predictable though (as already stated) if it is on a time sequence then people wouldn't be "Oh ****" all the time and could count on being around an indoor area when it occurs. The gun jams are just a thought however on a competitive game it wouldn't work. That PC game sounds great but how many times has a game sounded great then it was just a regular old point and shoot.