surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I picture playing Natal-FPS' where its a realism 'get hit once and its game over' type of game. Make it an intense thriller like Splinter Cell and I could see the adrenaline happening. More so that just mashing a trigger on a controller as you lounge on the couch.
That=than*
Also, dodging bullets(like dodging shit in that Wii balance board game) could add to the intensity.
Also, dodging bullets(like dodging shit in that Wii balance board game) could add to the intensity.
I just had a 'lol' thought: The scene where Neo bends backwards to dodge a barrage of bullets in slow-mo. This would be awesometastic on Natal.
Too bad most (fat) gamers will fail to dodge the bullets and constantly Game Over.
Too bad most (fat) gamers will fail to dodge the bullets and constantly Game Over.
"I want a game that recreates that insane rush of endorphins and adrenaline ..."
I think I got a mild case of that when trying to beat some of Super Mario Galaxy's harder levels, of all games. Sure some frustration (and embarrassment) thrown in too. The feeling of elation when the I finally got it was, I wanted to jump up and tell people about it, of course being a man, I repressed those "faggy" feelings.
I think I got a mild case of that when trying to beat some of Super Mario Galaxy's harder levels, of all games. Sure some frustration (and embarrassment) thrown in too. The feeling of elation when the I finally got it was, I wanted to jump up and tell people about it, of course being a man, I repressed those "faggy" feelings.
If he wants that feeling to be conveyed, I think it'll best work through some major narrative and hyper-unrealistic presentation.
You know how in that Xbox Indie game Weapon of Choice, where tiem slows down when a bullet is close to you? I think doing that will both accentuate how serious each shot is, but also nag you enough to not want to be shot at by a bunch of bullets. Without some Kojima-esque "if you die, your game breaks" sort of consequences, its going to take more than strict "realism" to convey the emotion he's looking for.
You know how in that Xbox Indie game Weapon of Choice, where tiem slows down when a bullet is close to you? I think doing that will both accentuate how serious each shot is, but also nag you enough to not want to be shot at by a bunch of bullets. Without some Kojima-esque "if you die, your game breaks" sort of consequences, its going to take more than strict "realism" to convey the emotion he's looking for.
Maybe in 20 years such a game could be a possibility but in a world where there are more Demon's Souls complainers than there are CoD:MW2 complainers I don't think people are ready for a realistic game experience.
I, however, have been thinking about this since I was 10.
I, however, have been thinking about this since I was 10.
Also - Medal of Honor Ohama beach level (back in the day) and Flashpoint (the original) do a pretty damn good job.
I'm pretty sure a game can't do that, ever, unless it's one in which we can literally die. Even if everything was completely realistic, we would still know that we would live if we got shot, as opposed to, you know, actually getting shot.
Not to say it couldn't be made really intense.
Not to say it couldn't be made really intense.
Would Super Colombian RPG count?
I've always thought the early Rainbow Six portrayed this well. Even though you have dozens of characters to choose from, you really felt the need to them alive and avoided any moments of charging into a room with guns blazing.
The consequence is something that could be used effectively in a game. With some many FPSs emphasizing on how many kills you make, it would be interesting seeing one that discouraged killing by rewarding you somehow.
I've always thought the early Rainbow Six portrayed this well. Even though you have dozens of characters to choose from, you really felt the need to them alive and avoided any moments of charging into a room with guns blazing.
The consequence is something that could be used effectively in a game. With some many FPSs emphasizing on how many kills you make, it would be interesting seeing one that discouraged killing by rewarding you somehow.
Would it be enjoyable to get shot in the shoulder and then lose the use of your arm?
Didn't Deus Ex do that, kinda? Yeah, having both of your arms "dead" did nothing but screw up your aim, but enemies with a dead arm dropped their weapons. If you took severe leg damage, you'd move slower and eventually be reduced to crawling, though I've never had it be so bad where I've lost all limb use and been reduced to a torso and head. Of course, you were still alive in that case. If your torso or head hit 0 health, you died. And enemies realistically aimed for these areas in an attempt to put you down, instead of say, death by a thousand cuts to your feet or something.
Didn't Deus Ex do that, kinda? Yeah, having both of your arms "dead" did nothing but screw up your aim, but enemies with a dead arm dropped their weapons. If you took severe leg damage, you'd move slower and eventually be reduced to crawling, though I've never had it be so bad where I've lost all limb use and been reduced to a torso and head. Of course, you were still alive in that case. If your torso or head hit 0 health, you died. And enemies realistically aimed for these areas in an attempt to put you down, instead of say, death by a thousand cuts to your feet or something.
I always laugh when some people start going on about FPS guns in games... comparing them to real world guns with bullet spread, rate of fire, kickback and all that stuff... I always say that if a war game was real, we'd do endlessly boring patrols, then hit a roadside bomb, die suddenly and never get to play the game again.
If you're going to make video game violence more realistic, you'll also need to show how crappy the average man's aim can really be. Most men can't even hit the inside of a toilet when they're peeing, God forbid giving them anything resembling a real gun.
Y'know what, no thanks. Video games needn't try to recreate the neuro-chemical sensations of real life. Real life does that fine. When I crash in Forza or Burnout, it's not the same as crashing a real car in real life. It's kinda-similar, maybe, but it's not the same. And I'm cool with that. I just care if it's better than crashing in OutRun or Midnight Club or Pole Position. Video games are video games and they should be compared to one another.
I agree with having to make this sort of game on a virtual reality console. Instead of knowing you'll just have to load your last checkpoint if you get shot, maybe there could be incentive to avoid being shot, such as having a special peripheral for the game like a bean bag shooting mechanism that shoots you when you're shot in-game..... masochist's dream?
I kind of agree with him. Think about how many virtual "lives" we take in video games? When has a life ever really mattered? I would like to play a game where somebody dying is as big a fucking deal like it is in real-life. Make the player feel the gravity of a loss of life.
I'd love games if they had a Micheal Mann kind of feel, the kind of thing that Kane and Lynch touched on. The idea that each bullet has momentum and has a distinct impact on different parts of the body, shooting out peoples legs, grazing arms, all that stuff. I'd love a game that has such realistic animation, that it makes every single kill distinctly unsettling.
So when I get shot, my character dies, and I can't play the game ever again because my character is dead. No resets or save points. I may as well throw the game away and move on.
I mean, that's realistic, right?
I mean, that's realistic, right?
Roguelikes been playing this game for years - the constant threat of permadeath dangling over your head gives each and every encounter a thrill of survival you just don't get with savepoints. It'd be difficult to implement in a game with a predetermined story, unless your character kept getting replaced with another stand-in every time you died. I haven't played Far Cry 2, but some people seem to think it lends itself to "one death" playthroughs pretty well:
http://drgamelove.blogspot.com/2009/06/permanent-death-episode-1-inasupicious.html
http://drgamelove.blogspot.com/2009/06/permanent-death-episode-1-inasupicious.html
After putting more thought into it, a hyper-realistic production of this calibur would have to be referred to as a simulation rather than a "game". A game is actually meant to be enjoyable.
i demand more realistic violence in movies. not just in R rated movies. spread it down to PG and PG-13. no more of screen stuff or lack of blood flow.
No game will EVER match the adrenaline of being shot at in life or a real battlefield because one is images on a TV. Once those images can effet you the way real life bullets do...dude, you need to stop gaming. You've lost touch with fantasy and reality.
@ TheTruth,
I'm with you on the TV part but not the 'no game will EVER match' part I believe you're underestimating the future of technology. It will likely be eventually possible.
I'm with you on the TV part but not the 'no game will EVER match' part I believe you're underestimating the future of technology. It will likely be eventually possible.
@ LsTr Of SmG
indeed, the future technology will surely do things that seems impossible for us right now, i suppose we just need to wait and pray to see it for ourselves
indeed, the future technology will surely do things that seems impossible for us right now, i suppose we just need to wait and pray to see it for ourselves
Maybe if games had more realistic violence there would be fewer parents buying their kids violent games.
Everytime I have to move to do something in a videogame, I want to punch a baby. Maybe if we all started acting on those actions this motion control shit would disappear.
Sad fact of the matter is that an ULTRA-realistic military or combat simulator would not be fun at all.
A modern soldier's life, at least in a modern military like the US Army or the Australian Army, is, in truth, rather boring. Many soldiers never, ever see a moments bit of action in modern combat, and those that do probably don't see much of it. If, for example, COD:MW2 was realistic, 60% of the game would be spent in travel and preparation, 10% in briefings, 10% in actual combat, another 10% doing the paperwork and going through debriefing and then 10% training.
And Infinite combo is absolutely right - there's no way to do that unless you have someway of creating a full, 360 degree, interactive digital environment and we are so far away from that in terms of technology that you wouldn't believe it.
I mean, again, take COD:MW2 - how fun would that game be if you got killed every time you got shot even ONCE? Not much fun I'd imagine.
True, I've always been a bit disturbed by the ability for the main character to get shot multiple times. For games that are taking place today, there's not much you could do about that. Your character has got to have health and survive in some way.
For games that take place in fantastical or sci-fi settings, I would appreciate it if the designers explained how or why the main character or characters can take so much damage - for instance, maybe they are genetically engineered to regenerate, or maybe they have a magic shield that can resist damage. This would enable the character to have "health" without having magic bullet absorbing properties.
Alternatively, you could just make every main action hero Gumby. He could take a few bullets I bet. Him and that horse of his.
A modern soldier's life, at least in a modern military like the US Army or the Australian Army, is, in truth, rather boring. Many soldiers never, ever see a moments bit of action in modern combat, and those that do probably don't see much of it. If, for example, COD:MW2 was realistic, 60% of the game would be spent in travel and preparation, 10% in briefings, 10% in actual combat, another 10% doing the paperwork and going through debriefing and then 10% training.
And Infinite combo is absolutely right - there's no way to do that unless you have someway of creating a full, 360 degree, interactive digital environment and we are so far away from that in terms of technology that you wouldn't believe it.
I mean, again, take COD:MW2 - how fun would that game be if you got killed every time you got shot even ONCE? Not much fun I'd imagine.
True, I've always been a bit disturbed by the ability for the main character to get shot multiple times. For games that are taking place today, there's not much you could do about that. Your character has got to have health and survive in some way.
For games that take place in fantastical or sci-fi settings, I would appreciate it if the designers explained how or why the main character or characters can take so much damage - for instance, maybe they are genetically engineered to regenerate, or maybe they have a magic shield that can resist damage. This would enable the character to have "health" without having magic bullet absorbing properties.
Alternatively, you could just make every main action hero Gumby. He could take a few bullets I bet. Him and that horse of his.
You only need to watch the Just Cause 2 trailers to see that anti-realism movie logic style games are way more awesome than games that strive for realism.
In an age where people cry over virtual innocents dying (I think the COD No Russian level is a great stress releiver, that doesn't mean Im gonna do it for real or condone real murder), no way this could happen. People can't even accept virtual people having sex or dying, never mind virtual people dying in an even more realistic manner.
Personally, I don't want videogames to depict more realistic violence than they already do. I played the God of War III demo, and it was kinda pushing it for me. I don't really like pulling people's heads off or seeing guts pour out of enemies. Push the envelope too far and some might argue that people will become completely desensitized to violence. That picture of Columbine above provides a compelling reason to me as to why there needs to remain a boundary between what is real and what is fiction.
I'm not one of the people that buys into videogames causing people to be violent, but I do think videogames can desensitize people to violence, and I don't think it is any coincidence that many of the school shootings in recent history have been carried out by people who enjoy first person shooters. Again, is this because the videogames cause violence? I think not, but I do think violent people seek out these types of media, and if you are a bit unstable, shooting 1,000 people in a videogame may make it slightly less foreign or bewildering to pull the trigger on 20 classmates. If you increase the realism of the graphic violence depicted in videogames, it blurs the lines between reality and fiction. Just my thoughts.
I'm not one of the people that buys into videogames causing people to be violent, but I do think videogames can desensitize people to violence, and I don't think it is any coincidence that many of the school shootings in recent history have been carried out by people who enjoy first person shooters. Again, is this because the videogames cause violence? I think not, but I do think violent people seek out these types of media, and if you are a bit unstable, shooting 1,000 people in a videogame may make it slightly less foreign or bewildering to pull the trigger on 20 classmates. If you increase the realism of the graphic violence depicted in videogames, it blurs the lines between reality and fiction. Just my thoughts.
dugdawg: saying that it's ''no coincidence'' is silly. Videogames are a popular past time, especially with teenagers, so thats like saying that every drunk-driver who has killed someone likes alchohol (which by the way is a contributer to more deaths than videogames have ever proven to be, yet no one seems to ever get on the ''omg alcohol leads to accidents and deaths!'' badnwagon.)
If anything, it should be the fact that 99% or so of players of violent games that NEVER go out and murder people that should prove, to most sensible people, that violent games do NOT cause people to be violent. Maybe you should be wondering if people bullying those kids caused the comlumbine shootings, and maybe if people had treated them better, it could have been avoided. Videogames probably had nothing to do with it, and was just an outlet for them, as it is for all of us.
and fake violence will NEVER desensitise people to real violence. There's a very real difference, I think most people are smart enough to realise, between videogame and movie violence and real life violence. You are not giving people enough credit to distinguish between the two. If that were the case no one would blink an eye lid when soldiers die in war, or when 9-11 happened or any similar tradgedies.
If anything, it should be the fact that 99% or so of players of violent games that NEVER go out and murder people that should prove, to most sensible people, that violent games do NOT cause people to be violent. Maybe you should be wondering if people bullying those kids caused the comlumbine shootings, and maybe if people had treated them better, it could have been avoided. Videogames probably had nothing to do with it, and was just an outlet for them, as it is for all of us.
and fake violence will NEVER desensitise people to real violence. There's a very real difference, I think most people are smart enough to realise, between videogame and movie violence and real life violence. You are not giving people enough credit to distinguish between the two. If that were the case no one would blink an eye lid when soldiers die in war, or when 9-11 happened or any similar tradgedies.
In the future 14 year old gaming geeks will control battle droids to fight real life wars. Audio sensors will allow them to hear "a simple bullet crack past your ear..." Also money and Soma injections are offered to those with the most kills in a day.
follow
