[Editorial] FPS games real but not real

Discussion in 'Shooter Games: The Range' started by Fox, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. Fox

    Fox Clown Administrator Administrator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    12,447
    Likes Received:
    578
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    I have been playing first person shooters (FPS) for many years, since Wolfenstein 3D and Doom were released and I've obviously played many FPS games since then. The list is long but the more obvious ones are Quake, Counter Strike, SWAT 3, Rainbow 6/Rogue Spear, Battlefield 1942, Vietcong, Battlefield Vietnam, World War II On-line, Planetside (futuristic MMO) and Call of Duty. I've played all these games in a multiplayer environment. Either as a lone-wolf on pubs, competitively on ladders in clans (TOG), or, with tongue-in-cheek, pretend to play competitively with fellow TOG members.

    The thing that gets me with all these FPS games is that very few, if any, model or rely on real-world infantry tactics. By this, I mean team-work. In WWII, squad tactics were very much about suppression and flanking. Vietnam was about stealth and ambushing. Modern warfare is about surveilance followed by precise and deadly aggression. None of these things can be achieved by a lone player - no matter the skill level.

    Why aren't these real-life strategies being incorporated into our games? Granted, some games are designed to be simple frag-fests and they live up to that splendidly (Doom/Quake). Some of the more modern games (Battlefield, Vietcong and Call of Duty) have a very strong multiplayer/teamwork option built into the game. Yet teamwork/squad tactics are still rarely seen when playing on-line with real people.

    Have I simply been playing with the wrong crowd? Are there clan's out there that play BF:Vietnam the way it was done back in the late 60's? Do they have squads of 4 - 6 creeping around the bush, moving ever so slowly for fear of being seen? Do they flank a trail and wait for unsuspecting victims before springing a deadly trap? Are there people that do this constantly? Successfully? I'm guessing there would be very few.

    Is there a BF1942 team that likes to sweep through Berlin in tight formation, laying suppressing fire across a road intersection, just in case, while a squad quickly moves across open ground? I don't see many players doing that on the pubs.

    In Call of Duty, are fire-teams given orders to progress through a map maintaining closely interlinked arcs-of-fire? Are flanks carefully covered during Search & Destroy missions? I dare say that rarely happens. Some 'elite' teams may do, but largely not.

    Why?

    Why do these things not happen during our on-line gaming time? Are we, players, not interested in that stuff? Does it slow the action and drop the kills-per-minute ratio? Are we just looking to vent steam after a hard day and any action that gets you into the thick of it so you can squeeze that trigger is a good action?

    There must be some gamers that tire of that and are looking for something more from their games. Why don't we see some brilliantly executed moves from this quadrant of players?

    Are these players really out there but their numbers are so small they get lost in the crowd? Do the game mechanics/dynamics prohibit this sort of play? When I join a jungle map on the public servers, why does my team scatter like ants as soon as they spawn? EVERYONE knows there is safety in numbers so why is this so easily forgotten? Have these dedicated players tried to play the squad but given up in frustration? What frustrated them? The game or the players?

    Are the games realistic in every way except the ability to execute a war the way war's were really executed? With so many different FPS games out there, why hasn't anyone taken the best team concepts and rolled them into a single block-buster team game? Does the market not demand such a product?

    What is the best team-based FPS game you've played? What makes it a good team game?
     
  2. Ned

    Ned Public Forum Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,590
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    Qld Australia
    You won't find what you're looking for in pub games! A lot people use pub games just for target practice and ignore the objective! When playing in a match though it's different. I have friends in the top few GA SOF2 clans. When they play in pubs eg. CTF gametype they don't care about the flags... they just practice killing. Match time is all business. These guys don't talk unless it's necessary. They don't laugh either! I wonder if they even enjoy it! TOTALLY different to TOG (thankfully).

    They practice strats and timing of the map to be played. You won't find real life stuff here because it's not real! In real wars the training attempts to get you ready for real stuff. No instant health packs like in lame team deathmatch games.

    BF will never get there unless they remove the name and team icons from around the players!

    Americas Army may be what you want Fox.
    Have you checked it out??


    Too real would be boring I'd say. Voice comms would have to disabled when you died for example. The dead can't help you.

    FPSs to me are games to have fun with.
    I don't try to relate them to real life most of the time. I think games like CoD have a good balance. Deathmatch to Search and Destryoy offer big variations in gameplay all within the same actual game.


    When you say best I'm guessing you mean most real. The most real FPS experience for me was when I teamed up with Ozivillan in an AA 2v2 match. A very differnet gaming experience. It was a great game. I plan to play more AA next year.


    Anyways back to my beer... most of this is probably rabble considering the state I'm in :p
     
  3. Nightlife

    Nightlife Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Broadford Victoria Australia
    You'll never see the team work required in most games because of communication requirments. Try and type something out usually ends with you dead abd half a sentence typed out. Using a voice program helps, but you can only have one person talking at once or things get messy. The best way to get teamwork happening is to initiate it. Find a good player on your team and back them up, don't expect people to back you up. Do it enough, people get the idea and then the team work can begin. Play that way on pubs of DC and Joint Ops and it works quite well. Hell even got a 6 man team backing each other up in Joint Ops once, even had medics on the ball.
     
  4. Gazz

    Gazz Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Townsville, Queensland, Australia
    In the real world your life is very valuable. In the real world once you die the game ends ....there is no re spawn. I think we would all play very differently if the cost of playing a game was the same as real life.

    But you would probably see a heap of new player classes. I guess there would be more Generals than what we needed. Plus there would probably be a few deserters and some police to then go catch them as well?
     
  5. Wayfarer

    Wayfarer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    16,351
    Likes Received:
    1,566
    Location:
    Hornsby, Sydney. Sports SAGN
    Hmmm, sounds as if Fox is feeling a little disillusioned with games atm.
    Forget pubs for anything but a deathmatch with an objective, unless you’re in there with your clan mates and you rally them into a squad. I used to do this in Tribes2, sometimes with complete strangers, to great success and a rewarding feeling of achievement.

    We need to modify RL tactics in a game for all the obvious reasons: timing, death, and physics. These mean games will never be satisfying simulators of real conflicts. However, working with the materials at hand can increase the enjoyment. Modifying those Real Life tactics to suit the game is the key. How? Well, that’s the $64.00 question.
     
  6. Demon_Keeler

    Demon_Keeler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,693
    Likes Received:
    171
    Location:
    Greenacre, Syd, OZ / Member No. 478
    I think guys that at the end of the day most ppl don't want to muck around with tactics and be told be others where to go and what to do! they just want frags and get out there and blast away at the enemy!!!

    but then I could be wrong! ;)
     
  7. Ned

    Ned Public Forum Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,590
    Likes Received:
    284
    Location:
    Qld Australia
    but then you could be right :wink:
     
  8. brana

    brana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Brisbane Australia
    This is something I've thought about as well fox. There are multiple problems as I see it with getting the tight integration you are talking about in game.

    I think a major part of the problem with trying to get a level of realism up is that in games there is a lack of situational awarenes. No matter how much you improve things like sound in game it doesn't make up for what you lack. Your peripheral vision is limited you don't quite have the same idea as to what's going on around you. Voice comms don't really help as there is no direction to it. You make a call and I have to try to work out exactly where you are. In RL it is likely that in small force ops like most of these games are you would be close enough for me to be able to at least locate you or have a very good idea where you are or should be.:D

    What else well practice. In RL you practice over and over and over again. Basic skills first over and over, then more advanced over and over and so on. AA has attempted to do a bit of this with the training but well it is minimal. Some of the games you mention are CQB type games and for these type of operations the training requirements are even higher and importantly are practiced as a team over and over and over and .... well you get the point. If you enter a room everyone knows exactly their roles and what they are going to do. Who breaches the door who is flashing the room, which direction everyone is going on entry, what happens if someone goes down etc etc. Also in many of these cases there is a pretty heavy intel gathering phase, where are the X-Rays, where are the hostages if any that kind of thing. There is no real way that you can get this into a game. The single player versions of both rainbow and SWAT3 though at least you can send a team into a room and watch how they move.

    Basically as everyone has said these are games. I just don't think that many people would be willing to put the time into training for a more realistic tactical set. Even if they were I really think that the limitations placed on your situational awareness by the nature of the thing will limit your ability to move as a cordinated movement. Have you tried Ghost Recon? Also Full Spectrum Warrior is worth having a look at just to see small scale infantry tactics such as fire and movement, overwatch etc. Didn't really like the game though. Oh the other plug I would make for AA is the lack of a respawn. It does tend to make people a little more cautious so more likely to attempt to think rather than ramboing constantly.

    My 2 Cents
     
  9. mayday

    mayday Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,225
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yep :lol:

    People can get awfully stressed when their well laid plans (tactics/co-ord) don't pan out, where's the fun in that. :?:
     
  10. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Getting Started

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agree with alot of what's been said - can never be realistic it's a game - otherwise you need to enlist!

    Clearing tactics and working in squads is used by many teams in Desert Combat. Most clans communicate in Team Speak with whisper channels and/or separate sub channels so comms CAN be as suggested and fire teams do flank and work in an overall strategy.

    Not all clans do this but some do, but probably not to the detail your suggesting admittedly.

    Scarecrow
     
  11. Head_Case

    Head_Case Getting Started

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    Fox, go back to your beer and stop wishing for a real-life battlefield sim. If you REALLY want that, I know a few regiments in Iraq that are looking for a few good men. Real-life battles are SCARY and you don't want to play then in a game. Play games to have fun. Getting a coordinated effort out of 5-6 players requires a great deal of practice and most gamers don't want to go back to school, they just want to open the box and start playing and having fun.

    So drink your beer, and play to have fun.
     
  12. Head_Case

    Head_Case Getting Started

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    Fox, have you tried a Paintball match out in the woods. That's the only way you'll get realistic battlefield conditions. Computer games are not real!! They are designed to maximize players having fun. In every online MP game there are always individuals that only want to play as individuals. It's almost immposible to get a group of online players to cooperate and play as a team, even when they are in the same clan. Clans are just loose knit groups of players that play together because they enjoy the companionship of people they know, even if they've never met face-to-face. Coordinated practices with someone in charge of strategy (ie. a leader you are obliged to listen to and whose directions you MUST follow or you land in the brig) are virtually unknown in the gaming world.

    So give up your need for gaming structure and have some fun. Or go play paintball.
     
  13. Chappy

    Chappy Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Philippines
    I see where you are coming from Fox.... (scary).

    If you are simply asking about the teamwork/RL strategy aspect, then it doesn't really exist yet. I've played most the aforementioned games and as someone else said Ghost Recon is pretty close to small squad tactical warfare. BF2 adds a few new 'must have' roles eg. medic and includes a battle commander and re-spawns with your squad leader, but I guess we can't evaluate it until we download the demo next week.

    Some recent games have the ability to share roles but it will never be realistic when we have things like death cam, voice comms with 'dead' people, hit indicators, mostly non-destructibile environments and the ability to re-spawn after 10 secs to re-appear wherever we want.

    Hardware limitations mean you currently can't have servers with 1,000 active players. 8O Just imagine that for one second... imagine the logistics involved, the need for team structure, generals, squads, infantrys, air/sea/land liaison, intel, the amount of equipment - planes, tanks, ships etc., the mayhem! 8O :D
     
  14. Sloffe

    Sloffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Chaplain have you had a look at WWIIonline?. It's not quite at the level you were expressing in your last paragraph, but it's close. It doesn't have the graphics but it does offer the strategy and logistics or as close as you can simulate them on a computer
     
  15. Sloffe

    Sloffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The rub is though that you'll always have the conflict between the quick fix and putting in the time to make the game a better experience. Joint ops has the potential to be a great tactical experience but it's up to the people who play it to make it so. And you need people who can share the vision to make it happen.
     

Share This Page