Realistic shooters... what's the appeal?

[Laughriot]

I hope this doesn't get me flamed by Call of Duty or MW fans, but... what on earth is the appeal of games like this? I have avoided them almost since they started being made because I strongly dislike the whole "look down the barrel of the gun, reload every three seconds, etc" style of gaming. I enjoy escapist entertainment, and games like this have always just seemed pointless to me. It seems like the equivalent of buying a WWE wrestling game where the punches all clearly miss. If I wanted reality stuffed down my throat when I played video games... I'd just watch TV (or shoot a real gun) instead of play a video game.

Recently though, I've had cause to play them though, because my young nephew and some of his friends have been really into them. They tend to favor them over other shooters, and so I figured I'd give them a try so that I could play with them when I visit. The thing that I noticed about them is that their "realism" basically makes them the FPS equivalent of WoW PvP with no resilience. They seem like a contest of reflexes instead of aim or skill. Getting hit 2-3 times in any body part is a kill (which I suppose makes sense, as they are going for realism) with most encounters lasting long enough to squeeze the trigger twice (or once, with a shotgun.)

It just seems... pointless. I was reminded of playing Goldeneye 64 with the one-hit kills cheat turned on. It didn't matter who was really the better player, only who squeezed the trigger first. The hardest part of the game was finding your opponent and noticing them because of the very drab backgrounds.

To test a theory, I convinced the folks I was playing with to play a few rounds of Halo 3. The result was insanely different. Aim was important, because if you aren't solidly headshotting your opponent, you're looking at 10 or so shots to score a kill with anything other than a shotgun or heavy melee weapon. Reflexes were still important, but the person who got the first clean shot didn't automatically win. It seemed like a battle of who could maintain good aim on a moving target better (i.e. skill) and less about who could squeeze the trigger first. The people who had been dominating the Call of Duty games ended up being very frustrated because they would pop around a corner and spot their opponent, quickly squeeze off 2-3 shots, and then stand there till they took a dirt nap because their opponent wasn't dead yet.

I have to say... my impression of these games (World at War and Black Ops, specifically) is that they are shooters that were intended for people who are bad at shooters. See, squeeze, kill, profit. No need to maintain aim through recoil, or carefully line up kills. It really does seem like WoW PvP at 14 or 19 as a hunter or rogue, whereas Halo 3 (in comparison) seemed like PvP at 85 with stacked resilience, where movement and decision making are important.

So... I say again, what is the appeal of these games? I hate to sound like I'm dissing on them, because they obviously have their niche, but... I just don't understand what that niche is.

Thoughts?

P.S. Please pay close attention to the parts where I say that I'm not trying to diss the game, or incite a flamewar from the fans of said game. I'm simply looking for fans of these games to explain what on earth it is about them that makes them so popular/awesome. Please be constructive.

[Badpaladin]

Think of it like an action movie. If you see a ridiculous action film with aboslutely no realism whatsoever, chances are you're going to say, "Wow, that was corny as hell." It's the same deal with video games; if it's not relatable on some level then there isn't a hightened sense of "woah" factor.

[Speaknoevil]

In real life a 12year old from the congo with an AK-47 can kill a highly trained Special Forces sniper by being in the right place at the right time.

[Zeta333]

In what world is COD a realistic shooter?

Also why make a thread asking why people like a game that you dont like and then tell us about the games that you like? People will play what they like, not everyone likes the same thing.

[mystik]

I'm with you. I don't find any appeal in Call of Duty or any of the realistic modern shooter games. I find the setting and themes very boring and uninteresting. I tried Modern Warfare 2 when a few friends were playing but I could not get into it at all. If i was going to play a shooter Halo or something like that would be more appealing.

I don't want so much realism in games like this.

[Laughriot]

Think of it like an action movie. If you see a ridiculous action film with aboslutely no realism whatsoever, chances are you're going to say, "Wow, that was corny as hell." It's the same deal with video games; if it's not relatable on some level then there isn't a hightened sense of "woah" factor.

I suppose I could see that, which is why I can't get into the realistic games. I enjoy flashy, silly action movies. I don't mean "Snakes on a Plane" silly, but I enjoy good sci-fi movies, pewpew lasers, etc.

I dunno... I play Halo 3, and then play Black Ops, and it just feels like such a step backwards. So much of the realism results in negative "quality of life" changes (like the increased difference in telling friend from foe, quickly identifying who you are targeting, having your gun block a large portion of your screen when you go for a more accurate shot...) that it just ends up feeling like the gameplay was intentionally made inferior for the sake of improving realism.

To each their own, I guess. I did have fun playing Black Ops with the kids... I just couldn't give it credit for requiring any real skill to play, after watching the Black Ops masters bumble around and die on Halo 3.

[LordPeter]

why people still buy cod i do not understound, these games have become so shitty.

cod4 was awesome but mw2 and black ops, they just suck so much.

[Valdorian]

These sort of games are intense. They give the feeling of adrenaline trying to kill someone or get a killstreak. Also everyone is equal, the only difference between people are perks and weapons. It's not like WoW where you have to battle with people who have better or worse gear. It makes it really challenging at some points because you do need some sort of skill as well

[Laughriot]

In what world is COD a realistic shooter?

Also why make a thread asking why people like a game that you dont like and then tell us about the games that you like? People will play what they like, not everyone likes the same thing.

I called it a realistic shooter because it feels like they are striving for realism. If that isn't what they are going for, then the negative quality of life changes I mentioned make absolutely no sense.

Also, I didn't make a thread to talk about a game I liked. I made a threat specifically to talk about modern "realistic shooters" and used a game I am very familiar with (and one that was of specific relevance to the point I was making) to point out that, in my reckoning, those shooters are nothing more than tests of reflexes, in multiplayer.

You're right that people don't like the same thing, and that they should play what they like. My question was "why do you like these games?"

[Tigercat]

I define skill as being able to get the drop on someone before they know you're there to begin with. Superior positioning, predicting where the enemy will go, using terrain, vantage points, etc etc etc. How does getting off the first shot and losing a fight anyway require more skill?

For clarity's sake, halo is terrible and the entire franchise as a whole is the worst thing to ever happen to fps gaming, and in fact helped bring in the age of "spray and pray, or just use explosives, who cares about skill" gaming.

[Laughriot]

These sort of games are intense. They give the feeling of adrenaline trying to kill someone or get a killstreak. Also everyone is equal, the only difference between people are perks and weapons. It's not like WoW where you have to battle with people who have better or worse gear. It makes it really challenging at some points because you do need some sort of skill as well

The perks and weapons keep it from being truly even, though. That's actually another reason that I don't understand the appeal, although I forgot to mention it in my first post. One of the reasons why I've always stayed away from the CoDs (and games like Counterstrike) is because the primary goodness of FPS games is the equal playing field. You win or lose to skill alone. To use the Halo example again, the only thing that differs from player to player is knowledge of the maps, and individual skills. There aren't sweet perks that you can unlock that give you an advantage over people who don't have them.

---------- Post added 2011-06-20 at 02:06 AM ----------

I define skill as being able to get the drop on someone before they know you're there to begin with. Superior positioning, predicting where the enemy will go, using terrain, vantage points, etc etc etc. How does getting off the first shot and losing a fight anyway require more skill?

For clarity's sake, halo is terrible and the entire franchise as a whole is the worst thing to ever happen to fps gaming, and in fact helped bring in the age of "spray and pray, or just use explosives, who cares about skill" gaming.

Sorry, but this is clearly a pure opinion, with absolutely no substance to back it up. If getting the drop on someone is considered the height of skill, then I have to assume that I was outskilled by every lowbie rogue who one-shotted me with Ambush. After all, he took the time to carefully get the drop on me, am I right?

You then go on to say that a game that defined modern shooting games "ruined the genre." You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case, I can't help but scratch my head at how clearly wrong your opinions seems. Having faster reflexes than someone is not a skill, and that is clearly demonstrated when a person gets the first shot on someone and then can't maintain their aim on that target long enough to kill them. The number of times that a person has popped around a corner on me and opened fire on one of the Halo games, only to fail to maintain their aim while I strafed and juked to kill them is astronomical. The number of times that happens on CoD games is... well, next to zero, since the first two shots kill.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, and I will respect it even though I believe it to clearly be wrong. That being said... I can't see how you can even begin to tell yourself that one-hit kills somehow does less to encourage "spray and pray" than requiring a headshot to get a kill if you don't want to spend an entire clip.

[Specops]

The appeal is if I'm going to fire off a few rounds, and hit a target, I expect it to go down. Currently, the only FPS I play is BC2 hardcore because I refuse to deal with people living through a .50 caliber round hitting center mass from an M95 on softcore servers.

[Britannia]

I'm pretty sure the Halo franchise started the whole 'Console friendly' hitboxes, as well as the 'hide until your health recharges' system.
I don't think any Halo game has ever really demanded burst fire to control accuracy, not that CoD requires too much of it either (When compared to Counter Strike).

[Zeta333]

The perks and weapons keep it from being truly even, though. That's actually another reason that I don't understand the appeal, although I forgot to mention it in my first post. One of the reasons why I've always stayed away from the CoDs (and games like Counterstrike) is because the primary goodness of FPS games is the equal playing field. You win or lose to skill alone. To use the Halo example again, the only thing that differs from player to player is knowledge of the maps, and individual skills. There aren't sweet perks that you can unlock that give you an advantage over people who don't have them.

---------- Post added 2011-06-20 at 02:06 AM ----------



Sorry, but this is clearly a pure opinion, with absolutely no substance to back it up. If getting the drop on someone is considered the height of skill, then I have to assume that I was outskilled by every lowbie rogue who one-shotted me with Ambush. After all, he took the time to carefully get the drop on me, am I right?

You then go on to say that a game that defined modern shooting games "ruined the genre." You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case, I can't help but scratch my head at how clearly wrong your opinions seems. Having faster reflexes than someone is not a skill, and that is clearly demonstrated when a person gets the first shot on someone and then can't maintain their aim on that target long enough to kill them. The number of times that a person has popped around a corner on me and opened fire on one of the Halo games, only to fail to maintain their aim while I strafed and juked to kill them is astronomical. The number of times that happens on CoD games is... well, next to zero, since the first two shots kill.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, and I will respect it even though I believe it to clearly be wrong. That being said... I can't see how you can even begin to tell yourself that one-hit kills somehow does less to encourage "spray and pray" than requiring a headshot to get a kill if you don't want to spend an entire clip.

I dont know why people complain about the perks anymore, there are no OP perks anymore. The only gay as shit perks were Martydom and Last Stand and Marty is gone now and i think Last stand is a deathstreak perk or somthing? Other than that its just small things that shouldnt make a difference if your a good player. I think the biggest thing that kills COD is the no skill rank system, any baddie can rank up if they play enough, the weapons should be rewarded to those that earn them and not any 12 year old that plays everyday after school. I enjoy Halo and was very good at it and i enjoy COD and i enjoy BF. Its just flavor, its like asking someone why they like to eat fish or hotdogs.

[Laughriot]

The appeal is if I'm going to fire off a few rounds, and hit a target, I expect it to go down. Currently, the only FPS I play is BC2 hardcore because I refuse to deal with people living through a .50 caliber round hitting center mass from an M95 on softcore servers.

Understandable. I can see where it would be quite fun to see your actions have such an immediate impact.

That being said, your description of BC2 Hardcore makes my initial comparison between "realistic" shooters and playing a hunter or rogue at 14 or 19 seem even more accurate.

I think I'm just unlikely to get it.

[Zeta333]

I don't think any Halo game has ever really demanded burst fire to control accuracy,

There is this game called Halo Reach, you should check it out.

[Penguin FTW]

For clarity's sake, halo is terrible and the entire franchise as a whole is the worst thing to ever happen to fps gaming, and in fact helped bring in the age of "spray and pray, or just use explosives, who cares about skill" gaming.

ahahahaha no

On topic: my stance on realism is you start with whatever base of reality you want and then alter anything necessary to make the game play better or be more fun.
an example being: guns jam, it's machinery and it breaks down, this fucking sucks and isn't conducive to anything one could remotely construe as fun - don't let guns jam ever.

realism sucks

[Specops]

Understandable. I can see where it would be quite fun to see your actions have such an immediate impact.

That being said, your description of BC2 Hardcore makes my initial comparison between "realistic" shooters and playing a hunter or rogue at 14 or 19 seem even more accurate.

I think I'm just unlikely to get it.

I leveled a rogue to 19 after Cata came out to see what the fuss was about; I loved every second of WSG as Subtlety. xD

OT: I've tried playing combat sims, and they weren't appealing. AA3 is probably the farthest I'll go with realism. BC2 doesn't have much realism, though (unless you count the destruction as realism. :3) I do prefer shooters that are arcade-ish (Battlefield, Halo (quit playing consoles long time ago)), but prefer game settings that reward me for being accurate (2-3 shots with an assault/battle rifle, 1 shot with a sniper rifle) instead of being a walking tank.

[Laughriot]

I leveled a rogue to 19 after Cata came out to see what the fuss was about; I loved every second of WSG as Subtlety. xD

Haha, I enjoy lowbie rogues too, but... generally not till 39 or so, and higher is better. People just don't have the tools to deal with the Ambush. At higher levels, the one-shots still happen, but if you fail (especially if you use your Shadowstep for the upfront bonus and don't save it in case your Ambush doesn't crit) you are... haha so dead...

[Tigercat]

The perks and weapons keep it from being truly even, though. That's actually another reason that I don't understand the appeal, although I forgot to mention it in my first post. One of the reasons why I've always stayed away from the CoDs (and games like Counterstrike) is because the primary goodness of FPS games is the equal playing field. You win or lose to skill alone. To use the Halo example again, the only thing that differs from player to player is knowledge of the maps, and individual skills. There aren't sweet perks that you can unlock that give you an advantage over people who don't have them.

---------- Post added 2011-06-20 at 02:06 AM ----------



Sorry, but this is clearly a pure opinion, with absolutely no substance to back it up. If getting the drop on someone is considered the height of skill, then I have to assume that I was outskilled by every lowbie rogue who one-shotted me with Ambush. After all, he took the time to carefully get the drop on me, am I right?

You then go on to say that a game that defined modern shooting games "ruined the genre." You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in this case, I can't help but scratch my head at how clearly wrong your opinions seems. Having faster reflexes than someone is not a skill, and that is clearly demonstrated when a person gets the first shot on someone and then can't maintain their aim on that target long enough to kill them. The number of times that a person has popped around a corner on me and opened fire on one of the Halo games, only to fail to maintain their aim while I strafed and juked to kill them is astronomical. The number of times that happens on CoD games is... well, next to zero, since the first two shots kill.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, and I will respect it even though I believe it to clearly be wrong. That being said... I can't see how you can even begin to tell yourself that one-hit kills somehow does less to encourage "spray and pray" than requiring a headshot to get a kill if you don't want to spend an entire clip.

And how is getting the occasional headshot not luck? The point is over time, over the course of a game or a week or whatever period of time you care to look at, consistancy and all that. Faster reflexes are indeed a skill, but they're not the only ones. You act as though the only thing that can ever constitute "skill" is tracking some hyped up kid that's bunnyhopping all over the place, which I find amusing considering that's where you're most likely to run into latency issues actually interfering.

Anyhoo, if you're getting one-hit kills on extremity shots in call of duty games, perhaps you should stop playing hardcore mode with high calibur weapons, since that's about the only way it's gonna happen.

As for halo itself, it did more than any other game did to encourage the "who cares about aim, just use something that explodes" style of gameplay. Also, look at every game made these days. How are the maps designed? Small enclosed arenas. This in itself does a lot to stifle the approach of simply outmaneuvering an opponent, with the only games getting anywhere close being the battlefield games. If you say halo is what caused most of the games these days to turn into twitch shooting galleries with no tactics and no skill, perhaps you should rethink my opinion that it's the worst thing to ever happen to the fps genre.