1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Realistic mods for other games

Discussion in 'New Version Suggestions' started by GalZohar, May 1, 2009.

  1. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been spending the last ~2 weeks scrambling around the net to see if anyone actually took the time to make a mod that would be anywhere near realistic and provide experience similar to the one we all miss in INF. However even the most realistic ones I've found have some extreme failure points which I will list. As long as I have edit privileges I will edit this post to sum up any relevant information other people post, please add/correct anything you think is needed.

    I'm mostly going to try and avoid "complaining" about stuff that require extra animations or modeling and stick with design flaws that shouldn't require much coding to fix, though a few exceptions may apply where critical.

    All games I know other than DTAS with random team spawn have the same issue of same gameplay every time, so I won't list it. I believe the DTAS type gameplay results in best realism, and no current game/mod has that (probably mostly because it requires maps that are not designed for linear play and because it's easier to balance linear games).

    All games also seem to have a serious range issue, though solving this is a much more complicated manner due to the fact we only have so many pixels on our monitor. See http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3172&pid=54076&mode=threaded&start= for more details.

    No games seem to have anywhere near real stamina system that has any effect on your ability to aim (due to increased breathing) or to keep running.

    Battlefield 2: Project Reality: Listing flaws from worst to not-that-bad:
    -Reviving - this kind of ruins the whole mechanics of real infantry combat. This encourages people from staying back so that they can be revived safely or so that they can revive others safely.
    -Respawns - not as bad as reviving, but still affects the level of realistic behavior you'll see in game.
    -Conefire/stabilizing weapon - Bullet spread is HORRIBLE - something like 0.5m at 100m is just absurd. As far as I understand, you need to aim your weapon X seconds before it'll even reach that accuracy. We all know "bullets go where the barrel points and make barrel control realistic" is the way to go for realism.
    -Class system: While not directly unrealistic, it just isn't done right and ends up enforcing people to use unrealistic gear setups. INF bulk system and configurable loadout anyone?
    -Country - Like classes, while the idea for itself is not unrealistic, it reduces realism due to a need to balance different countries, and that balance is usually most easy to fix at the cost of realism, either by having to have unrealistic weapon properties, by having an unrealistic limitations on available classes, or by limiting certain classes in unrealistic manners. Realism > storyline!
    -Vehicles - Seriously, get infantry combat realism straightened up first, then start worrying about vehicles. I mean making a realistic tank simulator is a project of its own, not to mention a flight simulator.

    Source - Insurgency: (won't re-describe issues already mentioned in project reality)
    -Respawns
    -Classes
    -Some weapons done horribly wrong (RPG, shotguns)
    -Hip fire seems quite accurate (no freeaim meaning a dot in the center of your screen would make sights useless) - not sure if it's also in project reality?
    -Extremely low draw distance (afaik ~90 meters)
    -Insurgents VS marines (same as "countries" in project reality)

    America's Army:
    -Camera placed in your forehead, and bullets also get fired from there, resulting in experienced players often killing you without exposing anything other than the top of their helmet.
    -Horribly implemented breathing system: At long ranges you can just aim while under cover and lean out or strafe out right as the breathing cycle is over to isntagib the other guy stalking you around the corner.
    -Dancing is feasible - no acceleration limitations combined with good accuracy at CQB ranges while moving results in left-right-left-right kind of dance to be a very feasible strategy.
    -Crosshair VS sights - While having the crosshair is bad for itself, what makes it worse is that the actual aiming mechanics also greatly differ between unaimed to aimed. Breathing has no effect whatsoever when unaimed, which helps unaimed shooting in a very unrealistic manner. Plus it's probably way too accurate, especially while jogging. Even recoil effects seem different between aimed and unaimed - favoring unaimed!
    -Maps have no official time limits - this generally results in server setting a time limit that's unsuitable for the map, resulting in extremely long camping games ("why attack if he's going to get bored and come to me and be an easy kill, I have 5 minutes and all I need is 1 minute to actually attack the objective" results in 4 minutes of wasting everyone's time).
    -Imbalanced missions/maps - Assault VS defense win ratios.

    Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare:
    This game is so unrealistic that I will not even start, however I listed it because the fact is it seems to have great potential for turning it into something realistic. It has great looking animations, player models and weapon models, sights etc. What makes it unrealistic is stuff like health regeneration, movement speed, jumping height, recoil values, damage values, tuning of the sniper breathing system, realistic reloading, loadouts, and game types - all of these things don't seem like they require a huge effort to adjust. Even the COD4 maps are probably more than great for DTAS-style gameplay.
    The only realism mod I could find for COD4, though, was very far from something I can all a realism mod. I wonder why there isn't any made.

    Ghost Reacon Advanced Warfighter 2:
    -Insanely unrealistic HUD - marking positions of visible enemies and friendlies, having an instantly viewable satellite image that's high enough quality to spot enemies...
    -Crosshair system - at least you can see how much it's going to spread, but like in AA I think it's quite bad for realism to have a fundamentally different aiming system for unaimed shooting compared to aimed.
    -Knockdown from shots - feels weird and only affects AI which makes it even more weird.
    -Leaning is weird - weapon should always be parallel to the ground, even while leaned, or else it won't shoot straight. At least moving while leaning feels nicer than it does in other games.
    -Many weapons seem the same - if you're going to make different weapons at least implement their differences.

    So why isn't there a realistic game/mod yet?

    We probably all know about the upcoming Ground Branch / Sky Gods from Blackfoot studios ( www.blackfootstudios.com/forums ), however since it's a full game and not a mod and based on forum posts from John there, it'll probably be a while before we see a beta not to mention a fully playable game. While I can't wait for this to come out, I can't help but asking myself why this hadn't been done before, at least as a mod.

    Possible explanations:

    1. Developers not having a clue about realistic combat. You see this in the forum posts, and you see it in game features and design. Some mistakes would be just really easy to not make have you had a clue. For example creating an "engineer" class that carries a shotgun or a "medic" class that shocks people back to life. Players not having a clue really helps make this worse.

    2. Balance/gameplay over realism. We all know that if the gameplay sucks or the game is not balanced, people will stop playing, especially when combined with #1. However it doesn't seem like this is a viable argument, as most realism sacrifices I've seen done to improve balance/gameplay were actually making up for some unrealistic feature that existed in the firstplace. Let's use the engineer example again: If he was given a real weapon he'd actually use it rather than perform his "engineer" role, so the solution was to give him a shotgun, while the correct solution would've been to remove the class (that doesn't really do anything "engineerish") or give him some "engineerish" tasks to do, and in any way not make him have horribly unrealistic self defense ability when he's not "engineering".

    3. Laziness. This combines well with 1 and 2 but is also a reason for itself. Why bother tuning something to a real value when you can just throw some random numbers and nobody (other than the few that have a clue) will notice? If you're going to end up tuning everything for balance then why bother making the values realistic in the firstplace.


    Open question: Will we ever see a good realistic game/mod (other than Sky Gods / Ground Branch that'll hopefully get released eventually?)

    Some partial answer (long): http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4255750.html
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2009
  2. Carpetsmoker

    Carpetsmoker Nexus-6

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think most people don't really want a realistic shooter, they just want a quick&fun shooter.
     
  3. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    If that was true, then games of Unreal Tournament's style would've been dominant today, not CoD/Rainbow Six/Battlefield/Counterstrike. There is at least some demand for realism. In the article I linked it actually shows straight from developers that they adjust weapons to match what the public deems as realistic, even though it's not actually realistic. So while "people wanting quick&fun shooter" may be some of the truth, it's far from all of it.
     
  4. Carpetsmoker

    Carpetsmoker Nexus-6

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only real difference between those games is the theme, science fiction, WWII, anti-terrorism, whatever.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2009
  5. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fisrt off calling CounterStrike realistic on the Inf boards is one of the worst sins possible - a game where a M4 is cocked by pulling the FORWARD ASSIST is NOT realistic, nor will it ever be realistic [unless you send a robot back in time to change the M4 design and rework the forward assist, but I digress..]

    I agree with Carpet on this one; the majority doesn't want hardcore realism, they want the gaming experience of an action/war movie; CoD has quite some scenes taken from popular war movies, Rainbow Six is based on a Clancy book [no I don't think of Clancy as realism authority - too biased in many ways] - and as the article you linked to mentioned, the game developers biase their weapons to what people expect them to do, which in 99% of all cases comes from movies.

    Using real world settings and/or weapons existing in real life doesn't make a game realistic on it's own. Take US Navy Fighters or A.T.F. as flight sim example - they use tons of existing aircraft and weaponry, but the game itself is highly arcade [although I enjoyed it back in the days]. Compare this to Falcon 3.0 or 4.0 or Tornado and you'll see the difference. On the same account Rainbow Six Vegas is a reasonably enjoyable game [if you're not expecting realism] using real life weapons in a heavily hollywoodesque setting with questionable degree of total realism.

    Even Inf, which I consider to be among the most realistic mods - especially considering the UT99 base - has design decisions that are questionable in terms of realism; the possibility to lose control of a gun at prolonged automatic fire [especially the Minimi], the bulk system as whole, the jumping solution, the MP5/40 rear sights could be some examples of what [IMO] doesn't come close enough to reality. Now look at how many still play Inf and how many play CounterStrike [even the old one] or UT99 and you'll see Inf has just a couple of followers left. The majority doesn't wan't realistic games, they want a action-movie like thrill ride, no matter what theme it has.
     
  6. soultaker007

    soultaker007 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol can some 1 delet this one
    i just wanna edit
    my mistake sry
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2009
  7. soultaker007

    soultaker007 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol counter strike realistic
    omg
    i played counter strike and source too becouse slovenian players play thet game alot
    lol thet game is not even 1% realistic only if u shot enemy in the head maybe
    Thet game is like ut just runing rushing in public
    cod 2 maybe get a few things but not a realistic game ever
    cod 4 which is dotaln Pole is not realistic 2
    for me infiltration game is the most realistic game ever made
    infiltration got just 1 mistake
    It is a mod if infiltration would be made in fullversion game it would be still playible with many playes online
    Thet is my thinking
    Why i am thinking thet way
    If we look Insurgency got many players and thet game is not even close infiltration for me but it is mod too i think
    i played but i don t know if thet ganme is hl2 mod
    lats time plaayed 1 year ago and i never read or ... just downloaded and played
    I just know it s free if u got hl2 i got it original
    If we look ut 2004 mods all death strike force frag ops ... (here i don t talk abouth realistic bu bouth of them are more realistic then counter strike
    Mods are all death in ut engine :(
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2009
  8. Coop-Stogie

    Coop-Stogie New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Counterstrike: i had to kick someone`s **** outta him as he tried to tell me that it`s realistic *evil grin*

    Project Reality: if you compare the first version with the actual one, it`s gettig closer to realistic. Modding BF 2 isn`t that easy (i`ve tried it, it`s very very hard ). I don`t think they ever include a Loadout Config Menu, i dunno how they should do that with that "Modding-friendly" :rolleyes: game.

    America`s Army: this game sucks so hard, it`s CS with bigger Maps, Iron Sights, and only 6 or so weapons.

    GRAW 2: I like the armory (M21 ftw), but nothing more

    CoD 4: I was a MASTER in the first 3 months after it has been released, it`s far from realistic, but it was awesome

    Insurgency: never played

    Red Orchestra: the first and only available realistic WW2 game out there, reminds me of INF :)

    Battleground Europe: Running around behind enemy lines for 2 hours without contact, makes you fall asleep (like it happened to me lol)



    Inf could need a RE-DO, starting with graphics....NO I DON`T MEAN INCLUDING Hdr-Bloom-makes-you-blind-and-seeing-mushrooms-running-around-graphics, i mean include a better compatibility with newer graphic-cards f.e. (sometimes the sky flickers like weird), redoing the weapon models (get rid of that bloody 32bit bug).....advanced graphics like Clive Barker`s Undying had (hell of game!!!!)
    Btw....wazzup with the INF Update ??? :lol:
     
  9. soultaker007

    soultaker007 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suggest that everyone ask this question! lol
    seriously would be nice to the magnitude of this new ce and possible to get more players .

    we wanna have 2.91 ce 2009 :D
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2009
  10. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said those games were realistic. None of the games/mods out there are anywhere near being realistic. They are, however, games that are based on realism. And those "games that are based on realism" seem to be by far the most common when it comes to FPS games. I don't hear nearly as much about UT 2003/2004 like I heard about UT99 back in the days, nor have I seen too many FPS games of that concept, while there's pretty much an endless supply of realism-based FPS games.

    You can have a realistic game play fun if you just tune the downtime, as downtime seems to be a major game killer (see: AA on 10 minute games with campers). Having you spawn right into combat though and shoot someone / get shot within 5 seconds of spawning is also a game killer for a lot of people, but surprisingly a lot less people are bothered by it.

    I think the main killer of the trying-to-be-realistic (INF, to a lesser degree America's Army, and to an even lesser degree insurgency/project reality) shooters was the lack of fine-tuning gametypes. Even the almighty INF didn't have DTAS until it was already too late to save it. America's Army has those annoying long minutes of waiting for the timer to run out for the camper to be forced out and attack (or else he loses), and often he won't even do that which makes it even more boring. America's Army also uses fixed spawns (like most games) which make it very repetitive and very dependent on blind bombing with m203. Insurgency and project reality have so many weird things about their gametypes I won't even get started. All those bad gameplay mechanics force to either include unrealistic combat mechanics or having bad gameplay. But I do think you can have a perfectly realistic shooter and still have it be fun if you make proper missions (DTAS style with random spawns). It's just that mod makers usually don't put the time into it and actual game companies prefer to go with what the masses of misinformed kids think is real/cool, especially when it means they can put less effort in development at the same time.

    INF never had a big community. I think if inf 2.9 with DTAS and random team spawn would've been out back when UT was still live and kicking full force, the community would've been much bigger for much longer. Not to mention the beginning of INF was pretty much combat-mechanics-only with no gameplay, making sure anyone who tried the mod would be impressed by the realism and then ditch it due to no gameplay. Not because realism forced bad gameplay, but simply because good gameplay wasn't designed in the firstplace (see how long after INF release it took until DTAS and random team spawn were actually fully functional).
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2009
  11. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's the point I see different. In my opinion those are not based on realism, those are based on hollywood and/or popular fiction - just because they use scenarios and weapons existing in real life doesn't make them realism based [IMO]. Just look at the stories of the Rainbow Six games - simple terrorism isn't enough, it must be humankind-threatening to be enjoyable, apparently, which is one of my major gripes with most games; what's wrong about being a simple soldier in a simple battle?

    Basically calling CS, CoD andf the like realism based is like saying Fast and Furious is realism based just because they drive cars that exist in real life. It's like calling Die Hard or Last Boyscout (yes, I like both :D) realism based just because Bruce Willis carries a Beretta 92. Why are the games featuring real life themes so popular then? Probably because people think it's realistic, closer to real life than Sci-Fi scenarios with plasma weapons and alien monsters - it's easier to "identify" with the game because it features familiar surroundings and items.
     
  12. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Based on realism" simply means that you took some stuff from real life as a basis to your game. Since afterwards those things get completely twisted in comparison to reality, they're not realistic, but they're still BASED on realism. And like you said, a lot of people actually think it's realistic as a result, even though it really really isn't. I think if people actually get a truly realistic game that will actually be playable too, they might realize how stupid the other games are.

    Even science fiction can be based on realism. It doesn't make it realistic, but it does at least give it a connection to reality, which I believe is something a very large portion of the gamers are looking for.
     
  13. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've never been on a CS server, have you? [Note: it's somewhat unrelated but by my limited experience CS servers are populated by the worst imaginable online people]

    If people actually played a realistic game they'd complain on how the shotgun does penetrate body armor too bad and doesn't throw people back by a few meters when hit. They'll complain that they can actually hit something with an M4 and that the animation for reloading is wrong because their guy either pulls the cocking handle or hits the bolt catch release (or whatever it's called in English). They'll complain that their guy can't run at beyond 100m-sprint world record speeds when loaded with 80kgs of equipment. They'll complain that various sounds (e.g. supressed shots, selector switching) sound unrealistic. They'll complain that there's no .50AE Desert Eagle in game because that's the über-pistol and everyone uses it.

    And why would they? Because most people playing computer games have no fucking idea what the above mentioned are like in real life - and that includes myself on several issues. They get their "knowledge" from movies, internet forums, vague urban myths and third hand talk. Given their sources a LOT of them actually have a surprisingly strong opinions - there was a really nice thread on the (now lost) INFMOD forums where one guy, who said he actually owned a G3, claimed it is gas-operated [for those who wonder, it's not] and didn't step back from that claim after evidently proven wrong. On another forum someone claimed he "popped off heads with a M82 at ranges of 2.5km" - that's what little game kiddies start to believe because they simply don't know better and it's much cooler than getting the least bit of information on how ballistics work.

    Insurgency [at least their initial release] featured a L42A1 as sniper rifle for the insurgents, which by itself is reasonably absurd as those are rather rare; but to add insult to injury they claimed it to be .303 [it's 7.62x51] and had the model of the Enfield Enforcer [a police version of the L42A1 that's drastically different in optics and even rarer]. The INFMOD 40mm incendiary grenade with its strange designation can most probably be traced back to a round produced for the 40mm Bofors AA gun [no, it can't be fired from a M203]. Both in-game mistakes could have been avoided with a bit of proper research, the first with 5 damn minutes using google and/or wikipedia.

    Call me a social pessimist but realistic games are a nice market - for the choice few who have a bit of understanding on how the things in-game actually work and want the game to reflect it properly. No, the game kiddies won't see a realistic game is realistic if it bit them in the ass.
     
  14. Logan6

    Logan6 TC Vet

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    0
    Realistic games will probably always be mods of other games, because the majority of players don't want a realistic game. Personally, I would love for some mod group to take on Crysis Wars, as it has very nice graphics. Unfortunately, that is pretty much all that it has going for it. They claim to have bullet drop in the game, but I can hit a vehicle half a mile away with the pistol with no bullet drop. Hillarious. The weapons are unrealistic. The vehicles are pretty much the same. The flight sim is pure crap.

    On the positive side, they do have the right idea, and its a beginning. This is what FPS needs to be. A merger between infantry ground wars and vehicle / flight simulation.

    My dream of what this should be is a merger between Infiltration / Steel Beasts / Black Shark / and Open Falcon.
     
  15. okdante

    okdante New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about Operation Flashpoint series (OFP, ArmA and upcoming ArmA 2) from BiStudios?

    Haven't noticed many references around here about this game...
    ...sooo...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXx3vMy_AQ&feature=channel_page
     
  16. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    You haven't noticed it because BuF had a great forum crash leading to elimination of most 2006-2008 data, plus OFP and ArmA aren't considered realistic by the old forum population - while I can't say that about ArmA, since I never played it, I'd surely not call OFP realistic, especially on the armor and aircraft side..
     
  17. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Games that model infantry as well as ground and air vehicles are bound to fail on the realism aspect, and are usually harder to turn them into something realistic (see: project reality's failure). It's complicated enough to make a realistic shooter, or a flight sim or a tank sim for that matter. Anyway I hadn't actually played either of those games due to the issues I heard they had, but if you want to post something similar to the original post I'd add it up there.
     
  18. Psychomorph

    Psychomorph  

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    2
    Don't fix what's not broken. That's the reason why companies don't go for proper realism when it comes to games where realism could be applied, such as tactical games, because these games sell the way they are, no need for innovation.

    We won't see true realism in tac-games for long, not until Blackfoot does it and that will take a while.
    SWAT3 is in my view the best tactical simulation (emphasis on "simulation") ever and beside Infiltration the most realistic game ever. But as said, it is a real simulation down to it's balls, these things won't see the light of day anymore (maybe in 10 years).
    I actually think that BIA with their ArmA series still kinda holds to the old philosophy and thanks to the massive fan community there will be more ArmA titles, they just need to get better. While I'm not the greatest fan of BIA's games, I see them as the last frontier of true realism games.
     
  19. GoldenNugget

    GoldenNugget New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well there's ACE2 coming out for Armed Assault 2:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00MS1madVnM

    Check out the other videos too.

    You have range cards and moa changes, backup sights, huntIR, weapon deployment, deafness from being too close to tanks and mgs, and a slew of other things.
     
  20. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    While ACE2 seems like it would bring nice things, I'm keeping my expectations low. They seem to be focusing too much on weird features and too little on actually maximizing the game's realism. It sure does seem to introduce some decent improvements though.
     

Share This Page