Was just discussing with my little brother last night about video games and guns. What's so funny to us, is that so many programmers, regardless of the type of game they are making, always seem to desire more than a few elements of realism.
How do they achieve this realism? Do they use firearms/military consultants, take the devs on trips to the firing range, look up stats in firearm manuals, or review ballistics figures? Nope! They just watch some youtube videos of people shooting and call it good.
There is a running trend with videogames, in which devs advertise pretty, life-like visuals, and nice animations as "realism" instead of saying the truth, which is that it just looks real. What's worse, is that the public at large, seems to have believed them, and taken this at face value is as well. It's starting to get a bit ridiculous when I have to explain to someone that Call of Booty 16: Modern Whore-fare 5: That Time I Called Some Chick in Iraq, is not a pinnacle of realism, anymore so than a cosplayer wearing an Iron Man costume can claim he has a real exoskeletal suit and can fly.
For some reason, in every videogame, the pistol ends up being the most accurate death machine in the game, the light machine guns are woefully inaccurate and do very little damage, rifles are worthless beyond medium range, yet the sniper rifle that shoots the same round is a verifiable carnage contraption at medium and long ranges, but is worthless at close ranges..
Very, very few games have attempted realistic gunplay, and even fewer have achieved getting somewhere close to it. Granted, it IS videogames; even the most realistic game is still a game. For example, you can't compare even the best of flight sims to actual flying. No actual pilot can count simulator time as actual flying time.
But, this is not my point. My point is that there are games that actually try to be realistic and then there are games that only try to look realistic. Saying Call of Duty is a tactical shooter is like calling Ace Combat a flight sim. No, no it's not.
How do they achieve this realism? Do they use firearms/military consultants, take the devs on trips to the firing range, look up stats in firearm manuals, or review ballistics figures? Nope! They just watch some youtube videos of people shooting and call it good.
 |
| If this was the same, I should be a crack shot with my Jericho because I watch so much Cowboy Bebop |
For some reason, in every videogame, the pistol ends up being the most accurate death machine in the game, the light machine guns are woefully inaccurate and do very little damage, rifles are worthless beyond medium range, yet the sniper rifle that shoots the same round is a verifiable carnage contraption at medium and long ranges, but is worthless at close ranges..
Very, very few games have attempted realistic gunplay, and even fewer have achieved getting somewhere close to it. Granted, it IS videogames; even the most realistic game is still a game. For example, you can't compare even the best of flight sims to actual flying. No actual pilot can count simulator time as actual flying time.
But, this is not my point. My point is that there are games that actually try to be realistic and then there are games that only try to look realistic. Saying Call of Duty is a tactical shooter is like calling Ace Combat a flight sim. No, no it's not.
No comments:
Post a Comment