Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

    This post is in response to realism crowd and the many times people have been in debates on these forums, among others, about the realism battlefield 3 is supposed to be portraying.

    So often will there be two sides arguing over some mechanic, weapon, tactic or whatever tomfoolery only for one side to retort and say, 'yes, but that's just not realistic.'

    That's correct sir, it's not... and nothing in this game is. The difference is the game is going for authenticity, not realism. The two words being closely related but not exactly synonymous with the other.

    The question of what we find realistic is pretty narrow when talking about BF3, so far the main ones seem to be: bullet damage and to be more up to date on these forums and I've even seen the issue of iron sighted sniper rifles, the type of kit to bring into a situation and even medic revives.

    For me I think if you're going argue realistic then you have to go the whole hog. The US army isn't running around with Iranian shooters, Chinese GPMGs or running about with a .44 revolver with a scope attached. The average squadie isn't going to be piloting a chopper, get hit by a stinger, parachute out at 400ft while firing his RPG at a tank disabling it so the lads inside jump out, meanwhile I land, knife two guys in the back, fix their tank back up with a magical acme torch and I'm all good as soon as I find another another magic box that makes my gun shot wounds heal right up and my 'health' reaches 100%...

    I'm not being facetious, I'm serious. I'm not trying to point at any people in particular and have it beef so please don't think I'm singling any one out for a barney. I just think the whole 'realistic' argument just doesn't hold water and flawed from the start. There's no end to how realistic you can take it and dealing in absolutes is not something I really do, this is why I use the word authentic when talking about these things. By that I mean, the game uses real weapons, real vehicles, semi-real mechanical ideas by which I mean your transport might have the tracks blown to shreds from a mine, but you don't need 6 lads spending hours fitting a new on while in a middle of a contact. So they use the concept of repairing neatly symbolised in that little magic torch.

    Now I know you all know this, I'm not saying anyone who goes on about is stupid or simple, just a bit misguided. I just think it's forgotten and people need to be reminded to just think for a moment about where realism stop and starts and how each persons idea of realistic would be different. Some might have a problem with the amount damage you can take or the way a weapon is used while never even thought about the fact its' unrealistic, since they're just not issued, for every solider to have a personal parachute to use x number of times. If you bring in realism then I demand no one jumps of buildings, I'm forcing you all to use the stairs.

    Realism would bog this game down too much and ruin the flow, as I said the game isn't realistic and it isn't trying to be, but trying to adjust it to be is folly since there are so many gaping holes left in it since you're making it out to be something it is not..You can't be 'def fibbed' back to life after taking a shotgun to the face, a 'support' guy can't run around with all that kit with a huge box of never ending ammo... and were the hell did that recon pull that mav out from?

    So while we debate the point of realism I think it's energy wasted when we should be concentrating on other things. If you don't like the way something is used and you think it detracts from game play it's fine to go and discuss the point and the reasons why these problems are making your experience less enjoyable and if others have a similar problem. If it really is game breaking, or just a useless waste of time (mav roadkilling!) then it's fair game, but trying to enforce own personal standards on your own expectations of what constitutes realism in very unrealistic game is not going to go well for either side that will get us no where. I would say try to 'un-narrow' ( I know it's not a word) your own way of looking at it and when a contradictory situation comes up then you will have more time strengthening your own argument where it matters.

    I'm still pretty new here but I like the way things are handled so far, I just don't like the calls to have everything in black and white, especially when it's so loose like I tried to explain above.


    I like the way the primer is more a philosophy, and that philosophy as I see it is, don't take the piss.

  • #2
    Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

    I didn't even know there was a debate. Hmmph..who would've thunk it.

    If there are BF3 players seeking realism I'd suggest a few hours with our ARMA brethren. I played ARMA exclusively for a number of years after BF2 and realism was our mantra. I remember a rescue mission we had on the server for some time where you had to maintain radio silence and find a downed pilot using only the night sky, a compass and a transcript of the pilot's last garbled transmission. The AO was in hostile territory and any misstep could lead to massive reaction from the enemy, killing not only you and your team but dooming the pilot as well. It was fun as heck and always ended differently each time played. Sometimes the mission would last for three and four hours. Enemy encounters had to be stealthy and silenced otherwise the entire island was alerted and looking for you. Took some real skill as a unit to find that pilot and make extraction without losing anyone. For a while between ARMA 1 and ARMA II I played COD extensively and people would ask me how the map sizes compared. It's easy to say they don't compare but it's better to explain it takes 10 minutes flying time at a simulated 200 miles per hour to traverse the map. The entire map.

    Anyways my point is if you are looking for a mil sim experience give ARMA a try at tacticalgamer. We have a great bunch of dedicated players and super dedicated active admins.
    sigpic
    |TG-1st|Grunt
    ARMA Admin (retired)
    Pathfinder-Spartan 5

    Comment


    • #3
      Well said.

      Sent from HTC EVO via Tapatalk
      .
      "Young gamers assault while Older gamers flank."
      "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

        Just to add to what Grunt said, I've often seen people get offended when they've been suggested that maybe they aren't playing the right game or maybe they should give ARMA or PR a try. I really don't think the intention is to offend anyone, I really look at it as an honest suggestion that maybe the person in question would have more fun playing a different game if they are truly hung up over core gameplay elements of less-realistic titles such as Battlefield.
        "Looking for brahs to come fight crime with me" - Unload



        Comment


        • #5
          Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

          If I'm wrong tell me but some of that realism people are talking about was lost in the move from BF2 to BF3. BF2 was somewhat unbalanced for a game but it tried very hard to provide realistic combat. BF3 on the other hand is about providing a well balanced experience which often takes away from realism.

          As Grunt70 mentioned if anyone wants true realism then take a look at ARMA.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

            I dont see it as game-play elements per the specific tittle. I think that we should all bring an attitude to the server that it is my buddy before me, my team before my buddy team, my team before the win, and the win should be the result of everything above. We cater to a very specific type of player that is looking for a specific type of game play. That type of game-play should be replicated throughout the community to the fullest extent within the specific game tittles engine and limitations.

            Sometimes my statements are painted with a huge paintbrush, but like Voodoo said, core gameplay elements should be universal in all tittles that the engine allows. The same emphasis should be placed on things throughout game tittles within the limit of the engine. If you wouldnt do something in RL why would you do it the game? Yes the engine allows you to do it, but it doesnt mean that you have too.






            "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population....Tactical Gamer is not mainstream. We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers" ~ Apophis

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

              Debates about games, shooting games particularly (more specifically shooters with a modern premise) always find themselves in this arcade v real life quandry. I say save yourself the headache and just take it for what it is, I tried mil-sims never was a fan; call me weak, a wuss, a pansy, but there is just something about crawling for a simulated kilometer and getting shot in the head by super ridiculous line of sight AI that just doesn't say "fun". Battlefield has always been about those "Battlefield Moments" you'll hear them mentioned in developer interviews 1,000 times you'll see them posted on Youtube and then purported further by the official BF twitter, that's what this game is about, that's what it aims to be. Now we as TGers have an environment we can control to an extent but at the same time some of us are trying to instill a game value/mechanic that just wasn't meant to exist. TG was atleast in my eyes always about promoting competitive tactical gameplay, good games amongst multiple squads working towards the same goal, over the years I feel that perhaps TG may have shifted toward a more Mil-Sim constituency, that's cool but don't touch my Battlefield ;).
              Current member of the

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                There is ArmA2:Free. Not sure if it's worth bringing this up here, but for those tentative about actually buying ArmAII without knowing how it works... well, the free version isn't that good (limited missions, no mod support, low graphics), but I'm sure some people could get together to play a mission or two on it and show either that it's what you might be looking for, or that it isn't for you.

                Pepper

                "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." David Hackworth

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                  Originally posted by Jack Bauer View Post
                  If you wouldnt do something in RL why would you do it the game? Yes the engine allows you to do it, but it doesnt mean that you have too.
                  I understand your intention, and in fact support it, but my problem is with your argument. That argument in itself isn't very inclusive; because of this it has a pretty hard boundary that isn't very flexible.

                  For example, as Crux pointed out in Xen's thread, someone shot in the head wouldn't be able to be revived in RL. By the logic of "if you wouldn't do it in RL, why would you do it in the game?" I wouldn't bother touching my teammate. In most cases, I wouldn't bother reviving him; no one walks from battle injuries in seconds. From what I understand, that's the very reason why Xen doesn't play a reviving assault. I completely understand the logic, but I'd be hard pressed to feel that this breaks the spirit of TG. The thing about BF games that a lot of "things we wouldn't do in RL" are sacrificed for better gameplay. Ammo boxes the size of backpacks, filled with bullets (universal bullets, I might add), C4, grenades, and AT rockets shouldn't be carried lightly, with the supplier running around without worrying that his ammo box would detonate and take out his entire squad. Doing so would fit what he would do in RL, but it's simply not feasible within vanilla BF titles. Likewise, a pilot wouldn't use aircraft without a full systems check; soldiers would be a lot more conservative with their ammo knowing that ammo in reality is limited and costs money; a soldier wouldn't just get back to the fight after being blown by a tank; the list goes on.

                  I know I'm taking the argument very literally, but if we don't, where do we draw the line? Where do we say "Yeah, I wouldn't do that in real life" to the point where it completely breaks the core Battlefield gameplay? That's why I strongly encourage the mentality of "real life strategies" and not "real life decisions". The core of Battlefield has never been about realism. Treating it as such would completely break what the game is about. However, playing Battlefield using real world tactics, to me, fits nicely into what both the core Battlefield experience and TG is all about.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                    Originally posted by Jack Bauer View Post
                    Sometimes my statements are painted with a huge paintbrush, but like Voodoo said, core gameplay elements should be universal in all tittles that the engine allows. The same emphasis should be placed on things throughout game tittles within the limit of the engine. If you wouldnt do something in RL why would you do it the game? Yes the engine allows you to do it, but it doesnt mean that you have too.

                    Jack, when I mentioned "core gameplay elements", here is an example of what I did not mean, "BC2 encourages fast-paced play so you should be playing fast all the time". I would never impose one style of play on someone else or even suggest how they should play. What I mean by core gameplay elements are things that are hardwired game design choices, things that are completely out of our control. For instance, I feel the tanks and APCs in BF3 are far too fast and nimble. These vehicles maneuver around so swiftly that they can decimate squad after squad yet quickly escape from trouble. But that's a fundamental element in the game that's out of our hands. We can't do anything to limit vehicles in that sense. That's just an example that came to mind, but the point is that if you are hung up over too many hardwired elements in a game, then you should at least explore the possibility that the game might not be for you.
                    "Looking for brahs to come fight crime with me" - Unload



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                      I have a really long post to write on this subject... but let me first share this link, written several years ago but still very relevant: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/tactica...n-address.html

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                        Originally posted by Iamthefallen View Post
                        I have a really long post to write on this subject... but let me first share this link, written several years ago but still very relevant: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/tactica...n-address.html
                        That's why you're the GO. Very nice find.

                        +rep


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                          MW3+BFBC2= BF3

                          Nuff said.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                            Originally posted by VoodooIT View Post
                            Jack, when I mentioned "core gameplay elements", here is an example of what I did not mean, "BC2 encourages fast-paced play so you should be playing fast all the time". I would never impose one style of play on someone else or even suggest how they should play. What I mean by core gameplay elements are things that are hardwired game design choices, things that are completely out of our control. For instance, I feel the tanks and APCs in BF3 are far too fast and nimble. These vehicles maneuver around so swiftly that they can decimate squad after squad yet quickly escape from trouble. But that's a fundamental element in the game that's out of our hands. We can't do anything to limit vehicles in that sense. That's just an example that came to mind, but the point is that if you are hung up over too many hardwired elements in a game, then you should at least explore the possibility that the game might not be for you.
                            Ahhh I see. Thanks for the clarification. :)






                            "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population....Tactical Gamer is not mainstream. We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers" ~ Apophis

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: That just would never happen... this game is soooo unrealistic!

                              Originally posted by FullMetalOTN View Post
                              MW3+BFBC2= BF3

                              Nuff said.
                              I'm sorry, but as someone who's played both franchises heavily it's these kind of statements that really baffle me.

                              I have not played MW3 very much, but I have easily 1000 hours in MW2. I had about 500 hours in BC2.

                              I cannot for the life of me see where you're coming from with this polarizing statement. If you could clarify, I'd love it...
                              Skud


                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X