I mean if somebody shoots you, you are not just going to stand there.
But what about Robocop... or Fifty Cent??
Yeah, I always thought that FPS games where you could get hit with a zillion bullets and then run over a medi-pack and get 100% health were kind of stupid, but there's a lot of games that do similar things. Of course, if you had realistic healing nobody would play the game, since you'd never heal in the time alotted.
Maybe Metal Gear Solid would be the only game I've played that made it seem a tad more realistic- that you could take 3 bullets and then die. (I don't play many FPS games though so I'm not sure about the new ones like Halo and etc.)
"Del Duio has received 0 trophies. Click here to see them all."
"To be a true ninja you must first pick the most stealthy of our assorted combat suits. Might I suggest the bright neon orange?"
DXF Games, coming next: Hasslevania 2- This Space for Rent!
Yeah, I agree. Metal Gear Solid tends to do a good job with making things look believable, like when you shoot a guard they react like they actually got hurt. In MGS, you can also knock people over or KO them. But it's a third person shooter with some FPS aspects. What I mean is I just wish actual FPS games especially ones focusing on "realism" would do those things too.
Halo, UT, and games like Quake are fine though, those aren't meant to be realistic but more arcade like. I'm talking about games that try to in some way simulate real life like various World War 2 shooters such as Red Orchestra or the various counter terrorism games in the market. Although some of the ideas I mentioned before could easily be used in an arcade style FPS as well.
"I think if physics tech ever gets advanced enough, they should make it so it simulates the actual bullets being encased in the gun and the loading and the hammer cocking/striking action of the bullet and the physics of the gun being propelled by pulling the trigger and the hammer striking the bullet."
That sounds sort of overkill to me. It wouldn't really change the way the game plays anyway, nor the way it looks, unless you could like zoom in and look inside the gun barrel etc etc, which is sort of stupid anyway. It wouldn't change anything but development time, when programmers would have to spend hours coding something that really wouldn't show in-game anyway.
Okay, you're right it is overkill and there are simple ways to do it. But that's how I'd do it if I was that good at programming. Someday I will be if I try hard enough, and I will make the most realistic game ever. A game that's exactly like RL where you can kill people in a way that's realistic, eerily realistic from everything to how the person reacts to getting shot to simulating what happens after such how they die (loss of blood, etc.), except unlike RL you can do it without going to jail. Every single detail captured in a computer game... to me making a game like that would be amazing, but then again I'm crazy.
Im sure a lot of people would like to make a real world simulator. However you would never actually finish it in your lifetime.
No games company in their right mind would attempt somthing such as that either. It'd probably be quite boring anyway.
I would like to se a serious 2D sidescrolling action game (ex: Megaman, Castlevania, Metroid, etc) that is in HiDef. The platform/sidescroller genré finally brought into the Next Generation. No psuedo 3D and no prerendered shit3Dmodels. Just beautiful 2D graphics. Imagine how awesome a new Castlevania could look! Almost like an oil-painting.
O.o ... Read that over, it makes me sound angry. I've been sitting with my 3Dstudio MC animations all day and been frustrated over it. Probably the reason
Overall I think we need some extra-super-gory games where you take 1000 hits to die because it can be more fun that way. Of course it's alot more challenging to make a realistic action game, because it would be as difficult as a, err very difficult thing
Hmm... one more thing. I want games to go back to using pre-rendered graphics rather than full graphical calculations for clouds, grass, fur, etc. Sure it will look 5% less realistic, but it'll be a hell lot faster. One game that I truly respect in terms of animation-performance balance is Medieval: TW 2, that game did realistic blood, realistic animations, nice death scenes, rain, fog, graphical stuff that actually reflect realism (i.e. fighting on a mountain over a sea full of ships in the campaign map actually looks so in the battle map and artillery can be fun or terrifying depending on which side it's on). I'm quite happy that MTW2 bagged so many awards, the AI, gameplay was a bit flawed, but it got a lot of things right to make it fun enough.
I think machrider does have a point right... doing animations in-game, rather than recording them off game. 3D added a LOT of new bonuses over 2D (like better mapping, physics, lighting, etc) and animations being done inside the game would save a lot of trouble ESPECIALLY for sports games. I hate it when the ball passes through a character in a soccer game or when in basketball games, characters dribble *against* other players instead of around them. That ruins the whole mood. Ragdoll kinda helps a bit like when enemies get shot in the foot, but it looks cheap when the ragdoll is too flexible.
But when the time comes for great physics simulators... someone, no, a lot of people WILL be stupid enough to turn their games into RL simulators, just the way Oblivion show off how realistically ugly their world is. I actually hate the realism in Oblivion, the textures stand out too much and the faces are too emotionless, compared to the lip-syncing quality. It's like a girl who dabs foundation on her face to look prettier than the other girls but ends up highlighting her pimples.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.