Originally Posted by sirsolo

So overall, people have said "No. You're doing it wrong, so it's perfectly realistic"

No one thinks a game is perfectly realistic. That's the point of a game. From another thread:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Exactly! I often find it ironic when I think about the reality that the object of a simulation (PR) is realism. Obviously, the entire purpose of making the game in the first place is to remove realism. We already have the real thing, no need to remake reality. Some may say we're making it more fun, but that is, in essence, removing the reality that it really isn't that fun. What realities are removed is a function of ability, cost, and a great deal of opinion.

I've heard people say they want a game that the only difference is you don't die. They describe this suit you wear that tracks every movement of your body. But they don't understand what they are asking for. Say they had a virtual reality suit that, if you get shot, gave you an extended stun in that location, probably burning you badly. If you get shot in the eye, the suit would literally blind you, the balls... hope you already had all the kids you want. People could even then complain that this removes more than just death! Injury to internal organs is largely neglected etc.

It's actually much more than death they want removed. Removal of injury, pain, exhaustion, emotional stress, monotony, and much more are not only required for people to call a game fun, but to sell copies. Opinions about how you choose to simulate a willful suspension of reality are just that, opinions. It's an abstract decision that is made, not an absolute that is obvious. And, believe it or not, that decision is democratic and you have a vote. You vote with your money by buying games. Over and over again, people have voted that conventional tactics and strategy are suitably disposable when paired against fast paced action and graphics of games like Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Crysis etc.

How can jack-in-the-box deviation be improved? Send someone with an M4 and a stopwatch to every players house and measure each person's ability. If we did that, I think most would opt to keep it as it is.

I don't seriously complain that a game is unrealistic, and I don't really give much credit to complaints that people can't shoot as accurately as someone that has trained for years and whose weapon costs a tad more than your BF:2.

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

No, I agree, lets let sniper rifles be completely realistic and allow snipers to take precision shots from 2km+. Lets also make them have to calculate drop, wind variables, coriolis effect, etc before taking a shot. Oh, and if they dont have a spotter, they're SOL. Sounds like a winner to me.