The Good and Bad of "Realistic" Shooters

Konata

L2: Junior Member
Jul 23, 2010
58
127
For some research, I'm compiling a list of things people think are good and bad in "modern" "realistic" shooters. The list is compiled from this thread as well as from chat.

Good:
  • Cosmetic Unlocks
    Unlocks like the hats in TF2 are fine, as long as they don't distract too much, or mess with silhouettes in a game that relies on them.

  • Team Warfare
    Grouping players into squads and other similar methods of promoting teamwork in these realistic shooters can work well, and can help a small group of players feel like a strong and cohesive unit.

  • Quality Areas and Aesthetics
    "When they dont slather everything in smake and dirt and brown, they can look quite nice."

  • That big "Epic" feeling
    "Basically, the good bits of a good film. If someone can recommend me a shooter that feels big and epic without being dumb as a thick hollywood blockbuster, that's what i'm looking for."

  • Good leveling (Sense of accomplishment)
    "Leveling in multiplayer is a great way of rewarding players, but only if done right - meaning not making the weapons you get after 100 hours of gameplay instakill with infinite accuracy and a ten billion rpm."
Bad:
  • Corridor maps
    Enclosed, or tiny routes through maps that lead into nothing but chokepoint after chokepoint.

  • Bad Progression/Leveling
    Some people contend that side-grading and TF2's style of handling unlocks/progression is fine, whereas the methods games like Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 use are bad.

  • Fake classes
    "Another thing I dislike in modern FPS games is when they attempt to have a class system, but the classes have so little diversity you don't even care."

  • Bad shotguns
    Extremely short range and wide spread, no other alternatives. This seems to be somewhat fixed in BF2BC and BF3 by offering different ammo types, but is still a problem overall

  • Strong Chance of Bad Plot
    Oh, we're saving AMURICAH from the Russians again. What's that? A nuke? Oh hey look, a double agent!

  • Slow gameplay, quick deaths
    Many realistic shooters suffer from the "look for 5 minutes, die in 5 seconds" problem. The combat can be slow and not really that intense, then be over for you in a second when that sniper you didn't see turns your head into red mush.

  • Limited Movement
    Either you move like you weigh 5 tons, or you have some really basic fancy movement like scripted climbing over low walls, but most realistic shooters don't have a lot of fancy/interesting movement around maps. Could be seen as a pro to people who enjoy realistic shooters.

  • Weapons are all the same
    "There might be slight changes to ROF, spread, clip size and whatnot, but they're literally the same but with number tweaks. You may have a RPG somewhere in there, which is nice but not a counter-argument."

[](/c11) I'll update this as often as I can to reflect opinions I've heard from chat and this thread.
 
Last edited:

Terwonick

L6: Sharp Member
Aug 25, 2010
278
190
Most don't promote team warfare, I like how BF2 tries to fix this, with the squad system, where if your squad does good, you do good too. I also like that you can spawn off of your squad :D
 

Pocket

Half a Lambert is better than one.
aa
Nov 14, 2009
4,694
2,579
In regards to the unlocks thing... I'll be honest: I recently started getting into the BioShock 2 multiplayer (once I learned it's not actually dead after all... probably more action than TF2 on the 360), and despite going up against mainly people who were level 40 and up and not even having any gene tonics at all, I somehow managed to get kills anyway and have fun. Granted, that was just in team-deathmatch mode, which seems to be the only mode anyone plays, but I had been under the impression I would just be hilariously underpowered as a level 1 and that leveling systems in multiplayer was the stupidest thing you could possibly come up with.

But that's the only multiplayer game besides TF2 I've touched in years. My last experience with them was in the Unreal Tournament/Halo era when multiplayer was all deathmatch/team-deathmatch/capture-the-flag and the only good strategy was "be the first to find the rocket launcher/sniper rifle, then destroy everyone".
 

LeSwordfish

semi-trained quasi-professional
aa
Aug 8, 2010
4,102
6,597
Pros
-They can, sometimes, i'll grudgingly admit, be rather pretty. When they dont slather everything in smake and dirt and brown, they can look quite nice. MW2's Favela level was nice.

-Can often feel big and stonking and epic. Basically, the good bits of a good film. If someone can recommend me a shooter that feels big and epic without being dumb as a thick hollywood blockbuster, that's what i'm looking for.

Cons
-My god, they can be dumb. Thick, macho, 'MURICA posturing, with people shouting HOO-AH and talking about their cocks.

-Plots are dumb.

-The players actions have no bearing on the plot. whenever something happens, either you are helpless and it happens TO you, or someone else does it. It feels like playing a game 2-player with someone significantly more competent than you.
 

Ravidge

Grand Vizier
aa
May 14, 2008
1,544
2,818
From a perspective of:
Quake series - Team Fortress series - Unreal Tournament series - Tribes series.
Modern realistic shooters are

Pros:
They Look pretty.

The slower pace lets people keep up with each other and play together more easily.

Has better potential for a story you could care about.


Cons:
The combat is boring, it's slow and careful because you die so fast. It's like playing a platformer with bullshit instadeath traps spread across the level, except the traps aren't "things" in realistic shooters, they're other people who managed to sneak up on you or just sit and wait for you.
If you're caught in either of those situations you're dead, you can't react to what is happening before it's too late (assuming equal aim/tactical skill on both sides on the battle).
So it effectively comes down to who can get behind the other guy, before he gets behind you.

Movement is limited because it has to be realistic, at best you get some parkour climbing.
Some people like this, others don't. I strongly prefer it when there is some tricks you can pull off to gain combat advantage other than just pure aim/reaction time.

All weapons are the same. There might be slight changes to ROF, spread, clip size and whatnot, but they're literally the same but with number tweaks. You may have a RPG somewhere in there, which is nice but not a counter-argument.


---
All my cons can be turned into pros, if argued for by someone who likes those kind of games, it all comes down to personal preference.
 

Seba

DR. BIG FUCKER, PHD
aa
Jun 9, 2009
2,364
2,728
I have to disagree with your Leveling issue, Konata. Leveling in multiplayer is a great way of rewarding players, but only if done right - meaning not making the weapons you get after 100 hours of gameplay instakill with infinite accuracy and a ten billion rpm. BF3 actually does this somewhat well - the starting weapons, namely the AR-15 series (M16A3, M4A1, M27 IAR), are great for any beginner - low recoil, pretty fast RoF, high accuracy. Same goes for the FAMAS, the (arguably) most OP weapon in the game. Even though it has a 1000rpm, stupidly low recoil with a foregrip, and the standard 25 max damage, it is the easiest B2K weapon to obtain. My problem is with the Russian weapons, which are basically the same as the US ones but with a longer reload and a slower RoF.

Point: leveling in multiplayer isn't always bad, and can be fun if done right (see CoD4, BF2142).
 

Freyja

aa
Jul 31, 2009
2,994
5,813
The combat is boring, it's slow and careful because you die so fast. It's like playing a platformer with bullshit instadeath traps spread across the level, except the traps aren't "things" in realistic shooters, they're other people who managed to sneak up on you or just sit and wait for you.
If you're caught in either of those situations you're dead, you can't react to what is happening before it's too late (assuming equal aim/tactical skill on both sides on the battle).
So it effectively comes down to who can get behind the other guy, before he gets behind you.

This, a million times this.
 

Konata

L2: Junior Member
Jul 23, 2010
58
127
I have to disagree with your Leveling issue, Konata. Leveling in multiplayer is a great way of rewarding players, but only if done right - meaning not making the weapons you get after 100 hours of gameplay instakill with infinite accuracy and a ten billion rpm. BF3 actually does this somewhat well - the starting weapons, namely the AR-15 series (M16A3, M4A1, M27 IAR), are great for any beginner - low recoil, pretty fast RoF, high accuracy. Same goes for the FAMAS, the (arguably) most OP weapon in the game. Even though it has a 1000rpm, stupidly low recoil with a foregrip, and the standard 25 max damage, it is the easiest B2K weapon to obtain. My problem is with the Russian weapons, which are basically the same as the US ones but with a longer reload and a slower RoF.

Point: leveling in multiplayer isn't always bad, and can be fun if done right (see CoD4, BF2142).

That wasn't actually my thoughts, but ones summed up by some people in chat when I asked the question.

But yeah, not all leveling is bad.
 

Galgus

L1: Registered
Mar 12, 2012
2
0
I contend that leveling should feel like unlocking new options which cater to different play-styles, and never feel like a power increase.

When leveling is handled in this way, it makes players feel like they are exploring the game and seeing new possibilities and play-styles, rather than being simply disadvantaged by weaker tools.

I also detest the 2-second death Assault-Rifle based game-play I see in so many realistic FPS's: I feel weapons with quirks to them such as TF2 or the current Tribes beta offer more interesting game-play choices.

As a final rant against them, they seem to have very limited play-style options and ways to approach a problem.

EDIT: When I say two-second death game-play, I don't mean that death should never happen quickly or that it doesn't in the games I quoted: I refer to when it happens every time you turn a corner and see a new enemy.

In TF2 and Tribes, there are ways to avoid damage via dodging, juking, and simply keeping your distance while avoiding kill zones that prevent these options.

In Assault-Rifle based game-play, how long you live in a fight is usually far less up to your tactics and skill: being almost solely reliant on your opponent's aiming skill.
 
Last edited:

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
I think most modern shooters have the universal issue of sniper rifles being OP because although being a weapon that should be balanced for extreme long ranges there's very little stopping a player from using it at medium ranges like a regular rifle or even at short range like a slug loaded shotgun. Either results in the "1 shot kill" scenario that is the standard mechanic of a sniper rifle giving it very few drawbacks beyond having a long reload (restricting to bolt action mechanics is one option but then there always seem to be semi-automatic alternatives for gun enthusiasts).

Day of Defeat sort of reconciled this issue by disallowing pin-point accuracy when unscoped which incorporated the same accuracy penalty as when moving (any movement resulted in increased inaccuracy represented by a dynamic cross-hair). Of course the game suffered from an exploit dubbed "the strafe bug" or "counter strafe" whereby hitting the opposite movement key resulted in immediate and 100% accuracy for a short duration, completely negating "drift" (inaccuracy cool down from moving). So the OP sniper rifle issue was still a problem in competitive leagues that didn't regulate this exploit and infact openly encouraged it.

TF2 sort of resolves this issue by limiting damage and rendering headshots benign whilst unscoped, but the rifle is still a powerful shot, dealing the most damage at medium ranges by any hit-scan weapon (47-57), besides perhaps the enforcer.

My second issue isn't as "FPS" orientated, but is certainly an apparent issue in FPS games like BF and MW, where leveling systems in place allow players to spec retardedly aggrivating builds that promote tactics like spam, or spawn camping or other tactics that allow the player to siphene "unavoidable" kills whilst out of combat such as "support demolition" hybrids that can place limitless claymores and servaillence equipment.

Such levelling systems have also been oberseved in multiplayers such as Space Marine which enhance particular weapons giving a clear advantage over other players who are not only out-equiped/gunned but out-experienced already. Such systems really unbalance PvP but are actually clever mechanics that increase replayability in PvE games like Killing Floor where weapon balance isn't a major issue.

EDIT:

I wanted to complain like Ravidge had about being blind sided by enemies but this can usually be avoided by a basic knowledge and experience of relevant maps. Basic map knowledge and situational awareness will help you avoid being blind sided/flanked and is usually one of the major differences between public and competitive skill levels; micro-management of your FoV. For instance, making sure to check your backside at every opportunity that at least doesn't make you vulnerable on your "fore" can significantly reduce deaths by backstabs.
 
Last edited:

Pocket

Half a Lambert is better than one.
aa
Nov 14, 2009
4,694
2,579
I kind of wonder why nobody's tried just making it impossible to fire a sniper rifle without scoping. Especially in games that are supposedly going for "realism" — I can't imagine anyone would run around firing a sniper rifle from the hip in real life.
 

tyler

aa
Sep 11, 2013
5,102
4,621
Because they'd just quickscope--that's what the default rifle in TF2 is trying to discourage, not necessarily firing from the hip.

Doesn't work though.
 

Galgus

L1: Registered
Mar 12, 2012
2
0
Personally, my issue is with the Assault-Rifle game-play with quick deaths over large ranges with little dodging capability- but I can see how Sniper Rifle no-scopes could also be frustrating.
 

YM

LVL100 YM
aa
Dec 5, 2007
7,135
6,056
Just did finished Deus Ex HR using pretty much only my scilenced pistol and headshots.

The early game is full of enemies wearing balaclavas - headshot work
Later they add some guys wearing helmets - heedshots still work
Towards the end there are guys in heavy armour with balaclavas exactly like the early-game guys- headshots don't work here.

Some terrible lapses in sensible game design going on over at Eidos. (Ignoring the debacle of the boss fights) (Google chrome is underlining debacle as though it's not a word.. what o_O)
 

Fruity Snacks

Creator of blackholes & memes. Destroyer of forums
aa
Sep 5, 2010
6,394
5,571
Just did finished...
Fix. Grammar. Now.


Anyways. If you haven't noticed I've been playing CoD4 (MW1) Multiplayers a bit over the past few days and have been looking at it from a design perspective for my design test, so here is my 2 cents.

1) The game is fun as hell. I'd like to get that out there.
2) From a design standpoint, the maps are ridiculous (bad ridiculous, not good). Unlike TF2, there is barely any specialized maps. There are a lot of maps that can play ALL the game types, such as Backlot (Yes, I know) or District. At least to me, if you have maps that need to be designed for ALL gametypes that makes things harder on the designer when mapping, and makes the maps weaker overall. (I don't know if BF3 does something like this, if it does someone tell me) I just feel that maps that are specialized to certain game modes (which, some are, but not enough) make a game better overall and add a bit more diversity to the game and it's gamemode. Almost forcing you to try and play new maps. Yes, there is cons to this, such as you need to make more maps for release, and have less for each game mode. But I think it is probably a decent trade-off.


I for one though like the rank-up and perk system. Through, I wouldn't call each one "classes"... more like "loadouts."
 

Trotim

aa
Jul 14, 2009
1,195
1,045
Dunno what else to really say, they're just not creative at all. I'll definitely always prefer TF2, UT99/2k4, Tribes, Duke Nukem, Prey etc. to one of the five same generic other shooters. Seems to me like they use "but it has to be realistic" as an excuse for really bad design too often
 

Seba

DR. BIG FUCKER, PHD
aa
Jun 9, 2009
2,364
2,728
Frozen: CoD4 and BF3 are the same mapwise - every map has every gamemode available, but some work better than others (see CoD's Crash TDM v Shipment TDM and BF3's Caspian Border CQ Large v Op Metro CQ Large).

EDIT: now that I think about it, I don't think that every CoD4 map is available in every mode...