ProjectsWhat's NewDownloadsCommunitySupportCompany
Forum Index » S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Forum » Gameplay & Balance
What could be more realistic ?

« Previous 10 events | 1 2 3 4 | All Messages
Posted by/on
Question/AnswerMake Newest Up Sort by Descending
  08:47:52  18 September 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927
it may or may not be good and whether or not it's realistic is dependent on what you are comparing it to, I suppose.
  20:44:54  23 September 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
tgdkrytos
(Novice)
 
On forum: 09/23/2005
Messages: 3
Hey there sports fans! I've been a Stalker fan for quite a while now and I'm still excited about the game. That out of the way, on to the real post...

Realism. I agree that it is incredibly important to gaming, especially when the game is TRYING to be realistic as possible. I'm going to try and lend some wisdom and opinions here, just to get my two cents into the fray. But the only thing about this is that no matter what we post, say, argue, and such, it's still the dev team's choice and at this point, things are probably pretty concrete on how the small things will play out.

Weapon Speed - Weapon change speed is a good point. Games like CS have you moving at light speed to change weapons which makes for intense fast action. Games like Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon (a personal fave) have a momentary shuffling of equipment as you change weapons. It's up to the developers, in the end.

Crosshairs - Ahh yes, the lovely crosshairs. Here's the way I think of it. Since we don't have the gun actually in our hands, aiming by experience and instinct, we need a LITTLE help at least. I can't count the number of times I've fired from the hip, so to speak, with a firearm and hit my target through reflex and probably a little bit of luck. Do I prefer it that way? Not really, I'd rather be able to aim carefully. My point? I think that there should be a loose guide when not in aiming mode (having the gun on your shoulder, looking down the irons). When looking down the irons, what use would a crosshair do you? But yeah, the on/off idea could work too.

Ladders etc. - At the very least, if they don't change the fact that you can climb up ladders with weapons out, take a page from the book of Counter-Strike: Source. I was on a ladder and unloaded 65 bullets at a target 20 feet away and never hit him >_> Sure you can fire from a ladder, but you're hanging on with your legs and your arm wrapped around the bars with no firing stance whatsoever. If they won't change the system, at least make it damn near impossible to hit anything from that position.

I'll be posting more on other threads, so look for me and please don't kill me verbally I'm a new guy and don't wanna get flamed off the boards!
  08:56:31  1 October 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Dulus
(Senior)
 
On forum: 10/02/2004
Messages: 116

---QUOTATION---

But the only thing about this is that no matter what we post, say, argue, and such, it's still the dev team's choice and at this point, things are probably pretty concrete on how the small things will play out.


---END QUOTATION---



Yeah, but it's still hope that the dev team will make some changes in orig. plan. For example I think, the ironsight was added after a huge group of fans wanted it. So write, write, write and maybe you can change the game a lil bit.
  07:24:21  20 October 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
dsdcheme
(Novice)
 
On forum: 09/10/2005
Messages: 18
To be honest, I haven't read every post, so sorry if I repeat anything.

I think that implementing true realism will scare a lot of gamers from the game. While I support adding in the features, I'd suggest they are all made optional (crosshair, 1 shot kills...even to the knee, etc.).

Also, I find somethings reasonable sacrifices. Showing a body in stalker is definitely different than displaying it in thief. If they even tried displaying one, people would complain about why it didn't represent their suit, armor, weapons, etc. Thief shows the same guy in the same clothing with the same accessories, and has very few different weapons. While I can support showing generic feet, other problem present themselves with the positioning of the feet on complex terrain (in thief it is possible for one foot to magically float in air if on the side of a ledge). I think it's better to not see feet than see them unaligned with stairs, or be in impossible positions. I've played several games that show the body, and none of them have added to the game much, and most have just been annoying with all the glitches you see.

Getting rid of a hud altogether is also a terrible idea. When you are shot in a non vital area in real life (like in the side), you don't neccesarily start seeing red, breathing hard, etc. In many cases the only way you'll know you're shot is cause it a) hurts, b) you see the wound, or c) you feel the wound. Since you can't represent any of these in a game, some sort of indicator is needed. Maybe just a picture of a body representing what hurts (leg, arm, chest, appears red when injured), with another more detailed screen to diagnose exactly what's wrong (broken bone, puncture, etc.).

Climbing a ladder with a gun should be in, because it is possible in real life (believe it or not I can easily climb a ladder one handed, even with a backpack on; move hand to rung, move one foot up, other foot, pull body to ladder, let go and grab next rung, repeat). It should simply slow down your climbing speed, and only allow you to climb when facing the ladder. Accuracy should be reduced greatly with larger weapons (big ones shouldn't let you climb at all), but only be reduced slightly with pistols, since you can have just as or more steady an aim stationary on a ladder compared to running or moving.

One thing I would like to see is a decrease in accuracy when moving while crouched. Most games increase accuracy anytime when crouched. However, if you're hunched over running it is very difficult to aim correctly, and you have no body with which to resist recoil. Stationary is different, but it should take a second to rock back to a semi-kneeling position before regaining accuracy.

I also support a crosshair indicator, because it is difficult to portray the proper holding of weapons. I can hold a gun out and aim accurately without lining up the sights with my eye (especially with pistols). Even looking through iron sights, I can move my eyes to the side to get a near 180 view of my environment without loosing much accuracy. By moving my head I can get a 360 degree view in about 3 seconds without moving my aim by much. This is not currently possible in games, so some sacrifices must be made to make it playable, such as forgoing permanent iron sights view instead of a larger FOV crosshair view.

In some aspects...making it more realistic will reduce realism, as eliminating hud and crosshairs will eliminate the natural sensations you get by being physically there. If you want real reality, why not make only the middle 15 degrees of vision clear, like in real life? Why not make only the outsides of the view work well at night? Why not have the character trip and fall over roots and stuff if you aren't looking down at the path ahead of you? Why not make your character vomit when seeing a particularly hideous mangled corpse, or when exposed to the smell of a creature? When a bright light appears, why not make the view go black due to the blink reflex and have ghost images appear after due to persistance of vision? Why not fall down gasping when you are shot in a bulletproof vest? (class 2 vests barely stop a 9mm bullet from a rifle, and even then fatal blunt force trama can occur). Why not have the screen just go black when you die? Why have a load function at all? (If you die in real life you can't go back to 30 seconds before) Why not have to start as an entirely new person if you die? (all this is relatively easily codeable)

It would be more realistic... but then it wouldn't be fun.

Honestly, how long do you think you would last in a semi-alien environment with hundreds of hostile creatures (some invisible or telekinetic), where one swipe could break your neck? Or fight against any enemy where one stray bullet could hit your heart and kill you in 15 seconds. If we're up against professional military stalkers, they should be much better shots, much better equipped, and have been training all their lives for that job. You wouldn't survive one day. And if you can only save at camps, chances are you'll spend 90% of the time reloading from the last checkpoint, travelling to where you previously were, and trying again. And since the enemies aren't always in the same spot (like most games), you won't even have the benefit of foreknowledge to help you out the second time. Maybe you enjoy that, but most people want to play, not travel, die, load, repeat.

While realism is good in some games, any game which faces you against unrealistic odds (all of them), must take some liberties, to avoid frustration for most people. If I wanted real, I'd join the army. But I want something to relieve the stress of a busy work day without annoying me constantly, which means something entertaining, realistic enough for me to worry about my character, but lenient enough not to drive me away.

Also, any changes would need to be moved to the AI as well, which would be much harder to code. They would need to take into account when to switch weapons, shoot differently when moving, be blinded by bright lights, be unable to see anything but 90 degrees directly in front of them, and so on.
  04:05:38  21 October 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
serp
whats this?
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 02/27/2003
 

Message edited by:
serp
10/21/2005 23:49:29
Messages: 621

---QUOTATION---


Getting rid of a hud altogether is also a terrible idea. When you are shot in a non vital area in real life (like in the side), you don't neccesarily start seeing red, breathing hard, etc. In many cases the only way you'll know you're shot is cause it a) hurts, b) you see the wound, or c) you feel the wound. Since you can't represent any of these in a game, some sort of indicator is needed. Maybe just a picture of a body representing what hurts (leg, arm, chest, appears red when injured), with another more detailed screen to diagnose exactly what's wrong (broken bone, puncture, etc.).
---END QUOTATION---


Often, people have no idea they've even been shot when they've been shot. Sometimes it takes several seconds to realize it, sometimes they faint before they even realize it. Pain is non existant. Seeing a wound could be taken care of by showing your body and such (although i agree, its kind of awkard seeing your body in game). There are plenty of other ways to visually show you are hurt other than having a simple bar, and there's no reason they can't be done.


---QUOTATION---

I also support a crosshair indicator, because it is difficult to portray the proper holding of weapons. I can hold a gun out and aim accurately without lining up the sights with my eye (especially with pistols). Even looking through iron sights, I can move my eyes to the side to get a near 180 view of my environment without loosing much accuracy. By moving my head I can get a 360 degree view in about 3 seconds without moving my aim by much. This is not currently possible in games, so some sacrifices must be made to make it playable, such as forgoing permanent iron sights view instead of a larger FOV crosshair view.
---END QUOTATION---


looking through iron sights doesn't have to decrease FOV, so its not different from crosshairs in that sense. When your looking down your gun, there is really little difference from that and looking down the sights, so there is no need to really differenitate them.

---QUOTATION---

In some aspects...making it more realistic will reduce realism, as eliminating hud and crosshairs will eliminate the natural sensations you get by being physically there. If you want real reality, why not make only the middle 15 degrees of vision clear, like in real life?
---END QUOTATION---


in case that wasn't a joke, because your eyes already accomplish that task....

---QUOTATION---
Why not make only the outsides of the view work well at night? Why not have the character trip and fall over roots and stuff if you aren't looking down at the path ahead of you? Why not make your character vomit when seeing a particularly hideous mangled corpse, or when exposed to the smell of a creature?
---END QUOTATION---


we all agree there is a limit, you dont have to tell us that, but most of agree that most games don't go anywhere near the limit and we want them to push a little farther.

---QUOTATION---
When a bright light appears, why not make the view go black due to the blink reflex and have ghost images appear after due to persistance of vision?
---END QUOTATION---


Your eyes already accomplish that to a degree. HDR and ghosting moniters accomplishes the other 2 pretty well...

---QUOTATION---


Honestly, how long do you think you would last in a semi-alien environment with hundreds of hostile creatures (some invisible or telekinetic), where one swipe could break your neck? Or fight against any enemy where one stray bullet could hit your heart and kill you in 15 seconds. If we're up against professional military stalkers, they should be much better shots, much better equipped, and have been training all their lives for that job. You wouldn't survive one day. And if you can only save at camps, chances are you'll spend 90% of the time reloading from the last checkpoint, travelling to where you previously were, and trying again. And since the enemies aren't always in the same spot (like most games), you won't even have the benefit of foreknowledge to help you out the second time. Maybe you enjoy that, but most people want to play, not travel, die, load, repeat.

While realism is good in some games, any game which faces you against unrealistic odds (all of them), must take some liberties, to avoid frustration for most people. If I wanted real, I'd join the army. But I want something to relieve the stress of a busy work day without annoying me constantly, which means something entertaining, realistic enough for me to worry about my character, but lenient enough not to drive me away.

Also, any changes would need to be moved to the AI as well, which would be much harder to code. They would need to take into account when to switch weapons, shoot differently when moving, be blinded by bright lights, be unable to see anything but 90 degrees directly in front of them, and so on.
---END QUOTATION---


Please name a game that is obviously extremely science fiction based, has RPG elements, and tries to emmerse the player with realism. Because i honestly want to play one, that's the reason im sitting here waiting.

Realism doesn't exist to piss people off, it exists to tell you that this isn't completely fantasy, it exists to give more connections to the game. Realism exists so that as you play the game you actually emmerse yourself into the game. The more realism you can get without making the game worse, the better, this is what we want. And i honestly think that most things people want in this forum wouldn't subtract from gameplay (except some guy did indeed recommend tripping).
  04:02:11  25 October 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
dsdcheme
(Novice)
 
On forum: 09/10/2005
 

Message edited by:
dsdcheme
10/25/2005 4:08:41
Messages: 18

---QUOTATION---


Realism doesn't exist to piss people off, it exists to tell you that this isn't completely fantasy, it exists to give more connections to the game. Realism exists so that as you play the game you actually emmerse yourself into the game. The more realism you can get without making the game worse, the better, this is what we want. And i honestly think that most things people want in this forum wouldn't subtract from gameplay (except some guy did indeed recommend tripping).
---END QUOTATION---



What do you consider "better"? Personally, I feel that the ability to trip would greatly add to the immersion. It would make you watch where you were going, no more running backward while firing or endless strafing. Also a strength system that would limit your running (not just sprinting) to maybe a few kilometers, etc, before forcing you to stop (not run slower, completely stop), to catch your breath. However, these would definitly make the game very difficult to play. You'd also have to add in variable aiming (so you could aim the gun behind you while running forward), to make it possible to fire cover shots as you run away.

If you want a realistic game, try Trespasser. Not completely realistic (i.e. your health regenerates slowly after about 20 seconds of no damage), but extremely realistic in gun handling and interface, i.e. you have to manually adjust your shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints to get the gun pointed in front of you, and use the sights to line up your target. This means that you can also aim the gun sideways if you really wanted to. It also has weapon physics, meaning that if the enemy gets close to you, it physically shoves your gun up out of the way. However, even though the game only presents you with one or two enemies at a time, it is very difficult (unless you take out all enemies from maximum range). If an enemy gets close, you are probably dead.

Also, current games do not do anything to make simulated darkness realistic at all. In real-life, only the edges of vision have any high density of rods (or cones, which ever reads dark/light). Therefore anything in front appears very grainy. Computer monitors (even when very dark) create much more light then true darkness. Therefore your eye can see a dark screen on a game much more clearly than in real-life. Hence the need to simulate graininess in games.
Ditto with light. HDR only works with things on screen, and the effect of bright lights on screen last very shortly. If you look at the sun for 1 second, the spot can stay with you for about 15 seconds, which the game would need to control, since a bright spot on the screen (even with HDR) only stays about 1 second in your eyes (due to the difference in brightness between the white screen and an explosion or sun.
Finally, iron sights in games do reduce field of view because the gun (if portrayed correctly) blocks out the bottom center (about 1/8-1/4) of the screen. Actually looking through a sight reduces much less since your other eye can see most of what the gun blocks out.

One thing I would like to see is a game that represents flashbangs correctly. A flashbang going off near a person does not just blind and deafen them as shown in most games. It completely f***s them up by overloading the sensory part of the brain. If you watch Assault on Precinct 13, when the girl ends up huddled quivering on the floor, that is the effect of the flash bang, not fear. Therefore flashbangs in games (and grenages to some extent) should basically make the player collapse for a series of time. Also, grenade aiming should be much more simplified to match real life. I can hit a pretty small target with a baseball at long distance, as well as bombard targets on the ground. This comes naturally and easily, without looking up, or judging timing, or doing anything other than just looking and throwing. This isn't present in any game that I've seen, as all use a time based distance and aim based tragectory.
  04:42:07  25 October 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Fux0r666
resident smart-ass
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 06/04/2003
Messages: 1927
You're using assault on precinct 13 as evidence in an argument about neurology to make a generalization on to the behaviour all people? :
  02:45:51  26 October 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
serp
whats this?
(Resident)

 

 
On forum: 02/27/2003
 

Message edited by:
serp
10/26/2005 2:51:19
Messages: 621

---QUOTATION---

Finally, iron sights in games do reduce field of view because the gun (if portrayed correctly) blocks out the bottom center (about 1/8-1/4) of the screen. Actually looking through a sight reduces much less since your other eye can see most of what the gun blocks out.

---END QUOTATION---


yeah, that is true. However, in the original argument i thought you were comparing with holding the gun just ahead of you without actually aiming, in which case you would still be blocking out that same general area. I was saying there's no real reason to differentiate in that particular case, because, truly, the gun would only be a few centimeters lower and wouldn't change much.... Now if you're trying to argue that you can aim just as well with the gun completely lowered than aimed than a)you're lying b)you're that .001% of the population that can do that

Second of all, the area right below you isn't useful FOV anyways (unless you want to implement tripping...)

Also, you continue giving me examples of extremem realism from different games as if though i want those too. I already said that there is indeed a limit of how much and what kind of realism games can have. Let me repeat, I DO NOT WANT VIDEO GAMES TO COMPLETELY PROTRAY REAL LIFE. not even close.

also, i agree with you on the HDR thing, HDR doesn't currently do that. I meant that's what HDR is supposed to do. True HDR is supposed to simulate the eye (with a limited moniter lighting range) to create an illusion of high light range. (which should include any effects given by extreme darkness and extreme brightness)
  18:58:11  19 November 2005
profilee-mailreply Message URLTo the Top
Robertino_lt
(Novice)
 
On forum: 11/19/2005
Messages: 36

---QUOTATION---
What could be more realistic ?

I am writing this new thread because I think S.T.A.L.K.E.R needs some fixes.. Like. WSP (Weapon Speed Change). As you can see at the end of the new movie, the stalker holds a SVU(?) then changes to a nade.
That's where the first bug is. He changes from a rifle to a nade inn 1 second! Even the most skilled marksmans or other military grades, can't learn to change that quick.

Always when you hear talk about a realistic game, you get like "wow! This is going to be great!" But after a while, the realism is getting weaker and weaker.. Stalker was going to be realistic. But what's with the increased rate that time passes by?

Why can't someone build a game that wasen't based on fun, but on PURE realism?
I know.. It could get a LITTLE boring, but it would be so small you didn't notice it.
Things that makes stalker un-realistic is for first :

Weapon Speed Change (WSP)
Crosshairs
Life and food bar (if they will add)
False time
Climbing inn ladders -- Can YOU climb a ladder with both your arms on the rifle?
The radar is shown all the time -- Should have been on your arm

S.T.A.L.K.E.R is a great game, but it doesn't really get the 10/10 on a realism scale
---END QUOTATION---






not the weapon change speed nerves but the weapon turn speed we all know that its really hard to turn a weapon which is lets say a metre long and veights about 7 kilos that would take it to about 2.5-3 secons to turn with it 90 degrees(thats why nobody uses sniper rifles in close combat)and now imagine a uzi or a pisto you don't even need to turn your body you can just simply move the wrist ad that would be like 0.5 seconds to turn it the same 90 degrees(with this function on it would realy put major reality to the game and would really make use of that sniper-pistol-additional equipment stalker package)
 
Each word should be at least 3 characters long.
Search:    
Search conditions:    - spaces as AND    - spaces as OR   
 
Forum Index » S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl Forum » Gameplay & Balance
 

All short dates are in Month-Day-Year format.


 

Copyright © 1995-2022 GSC Game World. All rights reserved.
This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer 4.xx and up and Javascript enabled. Webmaster.
Opera Software products are not supported.
If any problem concerning the site functioning under Opera Software appears apply
to Opera Software technical support service.