L4D2's "realism mode" needs to be renamed, badly.
- Thread starter Numerous
- Start date
I just can't wait until they release the "ultra-realism mode" mutation. You step outside, there are no zombies, you walk to work.
- Oct 14, 2009
- 150
- 72
Just to clarify, I don't want L4D2 to be more realistic. In fact, I reckon it's too realistic already, I want a laser gun (or maybe a rocket-launcher-esque gun that fires faster and does less damage with each "rocket") to kill zombies with.
...But then someone would demand ironsights, regeneration, nazi infected, shooting magic self-repairing blockades, and World at War's singleplayer.
I also don't expect the name to be changed, I'm only saying it should be changed, ideally.
I'm also not saying it should be changed to "more realistic mode". That's slightly more retarded than calling it "realism mode"!
...But then someone would demand ironsights, regeneration, nazi infected, shooting magic self-repairing blockades, and World at War's singleplayer.
I also don't expect the name to be changed, I'm only saying it should be changed, ideally.
I'm also not saying it should be changed to "more realistic mode". That's slightly more retarded than calling it "realism mode"!
- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
I think it's needless nitpicking that ignores context. The point isn't that we think you want L4D2 to be more realistic. The point is that by its very nature (it's a video game) it's going to be unrealistic. That's the context you're in when you play it. So calling something "realism mode" doesn't in any way mean that the mode is supposed to be reflective of real life. It removes some of the more unrealistic elements from the game, and when you load it up and play, the differences make a lot of sense given the name.
In summary, "realism mode" is still a game, and if you're comparing it to real life you're doing it wrong. Compare it to normal L4D2 instead.
In summary, "realism mode" is still a game, and if you're comparing it to real life you're doing it wrong. Compare it to normal L4D2 instead.
Porkchop
L1: Registered
- Apr 6, 2009
- 42
- 11
I play it for the fun and challenge of it, not the name.
As far as the L4D universe goes, that's as 'real' as you're gonna get. Sure there are some things you can add to it, like limited battery light (it'll recharge like Half-Life) and all that, but when it comes down to it, it's not about "Is this realistic?", it comes to gameplay and what's fun and not fun.
Removal of the HUD would be kind of neat and challenging, but at the same time, it would hurt gameplay, especially to those who don't use a mic, or can't use one often. You could argue they shouldn't be playing that mode if they can't use it, but it may be something they really enjoy compared to the regular mode. I myself can play excellent without a mic in L4D, even in Realism, and have in games for years. I use my mic when I'm able to, but that's on the odd occasion.
There IS an Ultra Realism mutation coming up, and if I recall, it removes the HUD and there isn't an outline around anything (though there isn't much in Realism as it is). There's also another mutation coming called Iron Man which if someone dies, they're permanently dead, and if everyone dies, the campaign restarts.
I'd love to actually see both of those combined for a new Realism gamemode, and I have no doubt that they may become popular and see the light of day as an official gamemode like Realism Versus did.
As for the whole "Defibs aren't realistic in this game" deal... When are people going to get over that? It's done the way it is for gameplay purposes. If Defibs took quite a bit of time to work, and ultimately failed, it would just slow things down and wouldn't be fun at all. All they need to do is reduce the amount in Versus. Maybe one or two game. It keeps things going and it keeps things fun in my opinion.
Anyways, I hope in the next DLC, they reveal that Bill died of a heart attack because he forgot to take his meds. If they don't that's not very realistic.
As far as the L4D universe goes, that's as 'real' as you're gonna get. Sure there are some things you can add to it, like limited battery light (it'll recharge like Half-Life) and all that, but when it comes down to it, it's not about "Is this realistic?", it comes to gameplay and what's fun and not fun.
Removal of the HUD would be kind of neat and challenging, but at the same time, it would hurt gameplay, especially to those who don't use a mic, or can't use one often. You could argue they shouldn't be playing that mode if they can't use it, but it may be something they really enjoy compared to the regular mode. I myself can play excellent without a mic in L4D, even in Realism, and have in games for years. I use my mic when I'm able to, but that's on the odd occasion.
There IS an Ultra Realism mutation coming up, and if I recall, it removes the HUD and there isn't an outline around anything (though there isn't much in Realism as it is). There's also another mutation coming called Iron Man which if someone dies, they're permanently dead, and if everyone dies, the campaign restarts.
I'd love to actually see both of those combined for a new Realism gamemode, and I have no doubt that they may become popular and see the light of day as an official gamemode like Realism Versus did.
As for the whole "Defibs aren't realistic in this game" deal... When are people going to get over that? It's done the way it is for gameplay purposes. If Defibs took quite a bit of time to work, and ultimately failed, it would just slow things down and wouldn't be fun at all. All they need to do is reduce the amount in Versus. Maybe one or two game. It keeps things going and it keeps things fun in my opinion.
Anyways, I hope in the next DLC, they reveal that Bill died of a heart attack because he forgot to take his meds. If they don't that's not very realistic.
Last edited:
TheBladeRoden
L420: High Member
- Oct 26, 2007
- 491
- 168
Porkchop
L1: Registered
- Apr 6, 2009
- 42
- 11
Because Defibs don't exist in their world, silly.
Pooluke41
L5: Dapper Member
- Feb 24, 2010
- 203
- 30
Ultra- Ultra- Realism , instead of Seeing the Midnight riders concert, they see Ywngie Malmsteen and Its at Download, the Army Stopped Zombies Getting in and We all get a Briefcase instead of Melee Weapons, Molotovs turn into Beer, Pipebombs are your Phones and Guns are Coke, as you Play as a Buisenness??? Man in a City GOing on Field Trips!
- Oct 14, 2009
- 150
- 72
Realism wouldn't be too hard, in terms of gameplay aspects - Remove all the "special infected", they all seem to be based on hunting the immune survivors, which wouldn't really be too effective and thus wouldn't be selected in genetic mutation, remove defibrillators that work like that, so when someone's dead, theyre dead, remove the HUD, don't make bile in the air magically make infected attack eachother when infected surrounding an exploding boomer don't, and either allow people access to a pistol at all times, no matter whether equipped with a melee weapon or not, or disable the "pistol magically appears when you're incapped and holding a melee weapon" (and same thing for chainsaw runing out of ammo.
Besides, why not call it "hardcore mode" or something? "Team hardcore mode" maybe, something like that.
It might be "nitpicking and ignoring context" (well actually it definitely isn't ignoring context, unless the context is all the players being morons) but it's still valid.
And since people STILL don't get the point, I don't want L4D2 to be more realistic, it's not a matter of "it's too realistic" either, it's simply that the name doesn't accurately represent the point of the mode. In fact, in the L4D universe, wanting a "more realistic experience" is just plain wrong in several ways.
Besides, why not call it "hardcore mode" or something? "Team hardcore mode" maybe, something like that.
It might be "nitpicking and ignoring context" (well actually it definitely isn't ignoring context, unless the context is all the players being morons) but it's still valid.
And since people STILL don't get the point, I don't want L4D2 to be more realistic, it's not a matter of "it's too realistic" either, it's simply that the name doesn't accurately represent the point of the mode. In fact, in the L4D universe, wanting a "more realistic experience" is just plain wrong in several ways.
Porkchop
L1: Registered
- Apr 6, 2009
- 42
- 11
But you're contradicting yourself.
You're saying "wanting a more realistic experience in L4D is wrong", yet you're saying you don't want the horde to surround a spot where Bile's been thrown because it doesn't do so on an exploded Boomer. You're saying you don't want Special Infected. Special Infected, which make the game more unique instead of a generic Zombie shooter. You're asking for a Pistol to be removed because it "magically appears" when you're incapped or run out of Chainsaw fuel (there is a thing called "preservation" you know, especially in emergencies. If you want to get technical with "Realism", this can be explained why they don't use their pistol(s) when they have Melee, and only use it in an emergency like running out of fuel or being incapped).
A lot of the things you're asking for is for the game to be more like real life, in other words "Wanting a more realisitic experience" just as you said is plain wrong to want.
I really don't think you get the point yourself.
The name represents exactly what it does. It makes the game more realistic, IN IT'S OWN WORLD. It doesn't mean to take the game, and make it completely realistic down to every nitpicking detail. It takes the normal way of gameplay, and alters it in such a way that it represents more realistic elements. Look at the "Headshots do more damage" property. This is a common element among Zombie shooters, and zombies in most general media. Shoot the head, they go down the easiest.
As I said, things are kept a certain way for gameplay purposes. I'm pretty positive Valve's tested out some things you, and others have mentioned in both normal gameplay and in realism and have decided not to include them for a specific reason. This is why we have the mutations, to give us some things that never were in the final cut, and to add some new interesting elements to the game to see what works, how it works and if it works properly, perhaps can make it in the game in some form.
- Oct 14, 2009
- 150
- 72
Quote where I said that. You'll notice that I never said I want any of it corrected. They're all gameplay mechanics with storyline excuse explanations that hold suspension of disbelief, which is more than good enough for me.
Irony. I pointed them out to show just how ludicrous demanding realism in L4D is, among other reasons, and I NEVER said I wanted any unnecessary in the game. However, people missed that, thus the need for clarification.
It's not the "realism" people normally think of, so unless I'm allowed to apply different meanings to words as well, they aren't justified in making the name of the mode "realism mode". Besides, as mentioned before, realism isn't even the main point of the mode.
Yes, I know you said it, I also said it. I know more than enough of that to potentially be the person acting patronising towars you, as opposed to the current situation.
However you're yet again missing the point that a realism mode promotes realism over gameplay, for example CoD4 (fast-paced gameplay, with high-accuracy/high-damage claymores resulting in easy deaths if you're not aware, and on your toes, crossed with a passive weapon that insta-kills you if you're not careful and don't check around the corner, constantly delaying you as a result, with multiple such kills possible per life, and kills not even being dependant on whether the planter is alive or not) or insurgency (do I even need to explain here?) and this doesn't even attempt that, instead attempting to promote playing and coordinating as a team even further than normal.
I said that it would be possible in terms of gameplay mechanics, perhaps you misread that and assumed I was requesting they make the realism mode more 'realistic". Please reread it and tell me what you think happened.
- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
I'm running out of care juice for this silly debate, so I'll try to keep this short.
First, you say over and over that we're missing the point, but you're wrong. Most of the people here get your point. It's you that are completely missing every valid counterpoint that's been offered here. Are you even interested in seeing the other side of the coin, or are you just going to spit out a "you're missing the point" every time someone says something that doesn't agree with you?
Here, right here is where you need to stop thinking in absolutes. When you go take a normal shower you don't say "I'm going to take a really cold shower" because it's cold compared to the sun. You're not standing on the sun. It's a hot shower, even though it's not going to vaporize you.
You should realize that in the context of a game, any time a game or part of a game is described as realistic, it means realistic to a point. Realistic compared to other games. Realistic compared to something else in the same game. But never, ever realistic compared to the real world. To fault a game for calling something "realism" and not be entirely realistic is like faulting your water heater for not heating your water to the point where it would kill you. That's not the point of the game just as much as that's not the point of your water heater.
Well that wasn't as short as I'd hoped.
The important thing from a marketing stand point is that players understand what "realism mode" entails.
Game developers, for all the games that have had a "realism mode" implemented, have no real reason to change the modes name, whether what it implies is literally accurate or not, it communicates the type of experience the player will recieve. A hard and challenging one.
"Insane mode" isn't a mode that makes you go insane because it's just that difficult, but on the difficulty hierarchy of easy, normal, hard and insane the player understands that "this will be the hardest challenge this game offers". "Insane" would be an appropriate label for a difficulty most people aren't willing to experience. People understand that getting shot is a grievous thing that would incapacitate most people, so even though the rest of a games mechanics may still be completely intact (a minigun with unlimited ammo?) players still comprehend the challenge inherent in the modes title. Which is something a lot of games do not simulate as a norm as it is counter intuitive in providing satisfying experiences to the average player.
You can consider "realism mode" a coined phrase. Not literal in its meaning but accurate in communicating its message.
"life's a bitch and so is this game mode".
Game developers, for all the games that have had a "realism mode" implemented, have no real reason to change the modes name, whether what it implies is literally accurate or not, it communicates the type of experience the player will recieve. A hard and challenging one.
"Insane mode" isn't a mode that makes you go insane because it's just that difficult, but on the difficulty hierarchy of easy, normal, hard and insane the player understands that "this will be the hardest challenge this game offers". "Insane" would be an appropriate label for a difficulty most people aren't willing to experience. People understand that getting shot is a grievous thing that would incapacitate most people, so even though the rest of a games mechanics may still be completely intact (a minigun with unlimited ammo?) players still comprehend the challenge inherent in the modes title. Which is something a lot of games do not simulate as a norm as it is counter intuitive in providing satisfying experiences to the average player.
You can consider "realism mode" a coined phrase. Not literal in its meaning but accurate in communicating its message.
"life's a bitch and so is this game mode".
Last edited:
- Oct 14, 2009
- 150
- 72
You're running out of care juice because I don't bow down and say "all hail" to you? Or You're running out of care juice because you think you're right and it should be obvious? (that last one is pretty much everyone in politics)
I'll concede grazr's point on the marketing standpoint, but it's a matter of principle.
But still, you're missing the point, I'm
I bet someone's gonna think I meant the entire topic was trolling.