The Game Design Industry and Firearms


PDA






sco
August 15, 2008, 11:48 PM
Hello. My name is Scott and I will admit that I do not have quite as much experience with firearms as the rest of you. The extent of my exposure was limited to shooting 44 caliber rifles at my local gun-club with my dad once or twice a year just before I moved away to college.
I am now a passionate game design student here in sunny Tempe Arizona at the University of Advancing Technology. I have heard a lot of my friends who are immersed in the firearm culture that us Game Designers give you guys a bad rap and are horribly inaccurate when it comes to firearms in games. As a student of game design (yes, thats actually what my Bachelors Degree will say in about 2 years) I was interested in an archived topic that you guys had a while back. I read a few of your topics and I can see you are far more knowledgeable and passionate about firearms than most of the Designers and 3D Modelers here at my college.

I would value the opinions of the ladies and gentlemen on this site. If you could answer a few questions for me, I would appreciate it:

1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

5) Anything else that comes to mind. Id love to hear it.

O ya. If you have any questions you would like to ask me, I'd be more than happy to answer them. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "The Game Design Industry and Firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
esmith
August 15, 2008, 11:56 PM
1. I think its kind of hit and miss with some games. Call of Duty 4 is probably one of the most accurate gun depicting game out there. You can shoot through walls and there isn't always an invincible wall protecting you behind every object. Unlike say Gears of War where a cardboard box will stop the toughest of weaponry.

2. A lot of the Call of Duty games make the guns look pretty close to what they were/are. There have been a few mistakes i have seen though. In COD 3 the mauser rifle you use is always in the bolt-lock safety position, however the gun can be used as normal. This is also hit or miss according to what game were talking about.

3. Balistics. I love how in the Half life series the revolver can shoot just like a rifle out to the end of the universe. None of the projectiles in that game have any drop to them, except the crossbow i believe. This problem is involved with many games besides Half Life.

Granted, you can't make everything perfect, as it would kill the game, but im just pointing out what is inaccurate.

4. I don't really know to be honest.

pdowg881
August 16, 2008, 12:03 AM
My biggest issue is sound. Most games all have guns that aren;t lous enough. Most also lack the sonic boom along with the sound of the gun firing.

Cmdr. Gravez0r
August 16, 2008, 12:11 AM
Esmith, your signature is incorrectly transcribed. Should read "Die waffe, lecht an" (Rough trans "weapons ready) or something similar. Common mistake.

Speaking of video games.

*plays "Hell March" from Red Alert*

esmith
August 16, 2008, 12:14 AM
Esmith, your signature is incorrectly transcribed. Should read "Die waffe, lecht an" (Rough trans "weapons ready) or something similar. Common mistake.

Speaking of video games.

*plays "Hell March" from Red Alert*

Hahaah, i was waiting for someone to catch that one. Ha, i can't believe someone else here is an oldtime red alert player.

As for that, i respectfully disagree, it isn't Die Waffen Legt An, if you listen to Hell March 2 from Red Alert 2 it sounds a lot more like my sig line.

Hell March is a kick ass song though.

I LIKE IT!
August 16, 2008, 12:14 AM
1) Fun though usually inaccurate

2) Close enough though many still skip on details

3) Sound, climb, mag cap, reloading, false representation of balistic characteristics

4) It doesn't matter it's just a game(if it's fun it will sell)

5) Nope, but I did stay at a holiday inn last night:D

sco
August 16, 2008, 12:16 AM
@ esmith
Thanks for your input! Ballistics are very hard to code properly because even the most powerful physics engine doesn't render the bullet like it should. It doesn't actually have "mass" in most cases, though in same games they do. As systems get more advanced, things like more accurate ballistics and destructible environments will become more present. I know a few games that have ballistics though some players actually ask for the ability to turn them on/off. Thanks for your input

@ pdowg881
Good point. A lot of games do not accurately portray the level of sound produced by a firearm. However it is entertainment and we can't deafen them, but the idea has been bounced around. Thanks for your 2 cents!

bwavec
August 16, 2008, 12:16 AM
Shot placement and ballistic damage is a peeve of mine.

In early versions of "Ghost Recon", I could hit a guy in the head with .50 Barrett and he is still going. A leg shot with the same weapon puts the guy down. Go figure. The head shot should have taken the head clean off his shoulders.

Also the .50 did not have more punch at long range. It worked about as well as a 5.56........not exactly realistic ballistics.



:cuss:

sco
August 16, 2008, 12:22 AM
@ I LIKE IT!
Fun's what is important right?

@ bwavec
Shot placement always annoys me. The standard method of making a model and wireframeing it is not very conductive to shot placement thought. However, I've had a few sneek peeks at some of the new stuff and you should be happy soon. (Vest that the player wears and you can feel where you got shot.)

Gunnerpalace
August 16, 2008, 12:24 AM
A leg shot with the same weapon puts the guy down

I'm doing that right now, M107 the best weapon in the game.

Gunnerpalace
August 16, 2008, 12:29 AM
[QUOTE]1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?
QUOTE]

1. They see to be doing they're best

2. Amazingly stunning

3. That you cant reload the M1 Garand mid-clip.

On a side note the weapons in Medal of Honor Airborne while visually stunning, had issues with stopping power and muzzle climb was ridiculous.

RtHG77
August 16, 2008, 12:30 AM
1.) Like stated above, hit or miss. Some games, like Ghost Recon that are geared towards realism tend to depict guns accurately (with some concessions for game play). On the other hand, you have games like GTA 4 where the character can lug several thousand rounds of ammunition for his half dozen pistols, long guns, and rocket launchers. It really depends on what kind of game you want to play; military simulation or shoot-em-up.

2.) It varies, I've seen some mil-sims that have gun-shaped blocks and GTA-style games where you can see the manufacturers mark on the receiver. I think it depends more on the platform you're playing on (PC v. Cellphone) and the game developer.

3.) No glaring problems that you can't attribute to adjusting for game play. I've noticed some nitpicky stuff, like being able to reload a LAW launcher, or 200 round drums for the Thompson M1928. :rolleyes:

4.) I don't really know; you can't really portray shooting a gun in a game unless its one of the military's million-dollar simulators (and it would be a stretch to call that a game).

Hoppy590
August 16, 2008, 12:36 AM
poor damage modifiers compared to real weapons.

games are either cant hit crap or pinpoint accurate while moving.

Red Orchestra is cool with its weapon details

added

as others said. you need to know how to operate the weapons in the game.
AK's. AR's etc do not cock on the left hand side, nor do they eject on that side. an AK does not load the same as an AR. an FAL handle doesnt reciprocate,

incliude an iron site mode you can move effectively with, not just shoot from the hips cross hairs

Sylvan-Forge
August 16, 2008, 12:58 AM
Greetings Scott,

1st off, let me welcome you to the THR .. Welcome!
2nd, let me say "bravo" for seeking input.
3rd, a lot of what I'm gonna say is likely not directly involved in your job descript, but it could be one day, or maybe you have some input above and beyond.. anyway..

1) I'm more concerned with the usage rather than the depiction. Why exactly is the gamer shooting avatars that represent a human life form? Whos the good guys, whos the bad guys and who are we really working/shooting for?
Is this a recruiting game? What's being sold? What are the underlying messages? Does this help or hurt our 2nd amendment?
Don't worry, I'm not going to get onto the whole "violent games are from the debil" kick, as it is ultimately the parents responsibility to vette media reaching their children, but it would be nice if the parents (esp. the ever so common single parent) could get a little help and have some enforcement on the front end .. enforcement of the age-restricted content at the retail counter. It would also be nice if parents had a selection of helpful and easy to use websites that give a synopsis of game content. Of course the last two would be outside of the industry purview, and probably outside the scope of your question.

2) The more visually accurate, the better! As long as the rendering doesn't slow down gameplay of course.

3) When holding the weapon at low-ready, and bringing it up for a shot, the POV usually renders the weapon looking like it's several degrees off from point of aim. And unrealistic ballistics, as mentioned.

4) See 1) Keep the stuff for kids honorable! Keep the "Ill" culture stuff for adults and market it thusly. I don't want to see an ad for "gangster land USA" run during morning cartoons or bannered at a kids website. (Don't really want to see it at all). No sneaky advertising schemes.. You get the idea ..

5) Red Dawn, Invasion USA, Independence day. War of the Worlds. Regular folks wake up and find they are being invaded! Get some firepower and get to work!

.

RavenVT100
August 16, 2008, 01:01 AM
Armed Assault (http://www.armedassault.com/) is probably further along the realism spectrum than most other games. Several militaries (including the USMC) use its military simulation counterpart, VBS2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2), as a training aid.

ArmA is a lot of fun, particularly in a multiplayer, cooperative environment. It makes COD4 look like an arcade game. It does feature ballistics, sound occlusion, realistic sound delay based on distance, supersonic cracks, and other very cool details that you wouldn't expect to see in a video game. And it's reasonably priced. Anyone who is a firearms nerd and likes military themed games would do well to check it out.

Thanks for your input! Ballistics are very hard to code properly because even the most powerful physics engine doesn't render the bullet like it should. It doesn't actually have "mass" in most cases, though in same games they do.

Physics algorithms used in real time simulation are going to make concessions to account for performance, but it's certainly doable. Physics models are just models after all; there's no way to duplicate real life using numerical methods. A close approximation is all you may need for any given game.

Most reloaders are familiar with ballistics software which takes into account not only the mass of the bullet, but its ballistic coefficient and atmospheric conditions as well. Using similar methods suited to real-time simulation is not much further up the technology curve; a good example of this are flight simulators. X-Plane, for instance, uses FEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis) for its simulation if I'm not mistaken. You don't need to go anywhere near that level of complexity to perform a basic simulation of a ballistic trajectory--even in real time in a distributed environment.

hankdatank1362
August 16, 2008, 01:06 AM
One of my all-time favorites was BLACK for my XBox. 1st oerson shooter, very little story, mostly straight gun porn.

Bads: sound was a little off, mags were twice standard capacity, and every weapon was mirrored so the ejection ports would be on the left side. (I guess being able to see the shells eject takes coolness precedence.)

siglite
August 16, 2008, 01:16 AM
Hmm... one of the best I've seen as far as weapons handling realism is True Combat Elite. The sight pictures are dead on. But there's a lot of environmental/handling stuff that game designers miss.

1. Firing without hearing protection. The gun should stay plenty loud after the first shot. But after that, all other sounds should be muffled.

2. Aiming/firing on the move. Even the most realistic games don't mimic the muzzle movement that occurs with each step. Yes, some of us can move very smoothly, and keep a muzzle fairly flat while we move. But there's definite muzzle/sight-picture movement.

In general, Call of Duty 4 gets things pretty good. As do the rainbow series games. Those are kind of my benchmark.

exar
August 16, 2008, 02:06 AM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?



Quite accurate, actually. I believe this will improve over time. But I'm a little older and remember my dad (back home in Knoxville) bringing home an Atari and I was hooked from then on in '84. MOH: Airborne is an excellent example of accuracy. It's not 100% perfect but it's close, and it is a game, so I most certainly allow concessions depending on what the game play is trying to achieve. BF:Bad Company, for example, has a gun (if I remember correctly some kind of smaller M4 variant:o) that is carried right handed, has a ejection port on the left that you can clearly see, and ejects to the right. The port never opens or does anything.



2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)



Beginning with BF:1942, guns have been looking great. I really enjoy the mods and new games like BF:Vietnam and the rest of the series. Those guns set the standard, IMO. COD is another one consistently improving. OH NO!!:what: I almost forgot. Counter Strike was one of the first ones that I took one look at and was like "Wow, that gun really looks and acts like the real thing". You could still play it over dial-up back then. Honestly, after examining some firearms that were in CS throughout the next decade, I have purchased a Sig P228, Sig 556, Bushmaster M-4, Remington 700 (don't remember if that was in CS) Remington 870. However, those are just fine guns that happened to be in the game. I don't have that kind of money to blow on a crappy gun just because it's in a game:rolleyes:. I certainly don't own an Uzi or Mac-10:rolleyes:.



3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?


Ballistics. I do understand that it would require an enormous amount of processor and memory power to achieve this on any kind of BF scale.

The effect of ammo is sometimes less than enthusing. I mean, come on, a .30-06 would blow a mans leg off at the knee or mangle it so bad it will come off. Just hit him twice in the ankle and he's dead:rolleyes:.

Quite simply, the most glaring problems are just too much power use and time consuming to probably be feasible for a good while. For now. At this rate, CPU's will be providing all our wishes here in just a decade or less.:D:D

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?


Just keep chugging out those WWII games and throw in some modern combat, as well. Just crank up the realism as high as it can be. Blood and sound, light. Utilize the fact that gamers will have surround sound, as it's comparatively cheap, and pound that bass for the blast of a rifle or thud of artillery and explosions. Some WWI games with trench warfare, if done properly, is a long awaited treasure to us gaming/history buffs.

brigadier
August 16, 2008, 02:47 AM
My first attempt at a profession was to be a scribe. I new how to create a 3-D story on paper but not how to sell it, so I failed at that. I have later attempted to push for some video game ideas but also haven't been able to make some headway and intend to push it with my own $ if I can ever afford it.

Likewise, the very subjects you are interested in have been a major interest for me and I have put allot of thought and work in to it.

First off, what I think we lack most isn't so much in graphics but in the interaction. We are doing a pretty decent job of making guns look and work like they really do in real life. The problem is that we haven't seen many engines that allow the player to really use a gun in a game as they would in real life from a psychological perspective.
I myself spent 2 years working on a way to do exactly that (on paper) which I believe I was very successful at and to be frank, I don't see the video game industry getting it figured out any time soon as the necessary methods to give of a realistic psychological affects are a full charge in a different direction then today's video game designers are going in.

I don't really encourage such a thing for a typical blood and guts game but if you want to do something new and special that will get peoples attention, then try a game where the affects of guns are realistic. For instance, .45ACP = gaging if shot in the chest, bleeding out the head if shot in the head, .308 = falls like a sack of potatoes if shot in the chest, pile of pink scrambled eggs on the shoulders if shot in the head etc.

If you guys are SERIOUS about making something great that will actually work, I'll be happy to throw my design at you. I don't want any $ for it but I WILL make sure (legally) that you can't pervert it as it's a sacred story, not just a typical game plot.

It has some similarities to GTA and Oblivion but it's set in the real world and is a highly in depth, highly realistic story about the underground in WW III.

BTW.

To give you one of my own trade secrets (not really a secret, but never been asked about it either) is to use a system sort of like Character Creation in Soul Caliber III and IV but in customizing weapons in stead of people so that you can, in the game, strip your gun down to a frame or receiver and rebuild it with acquired parts and accessories and hire smiths to enhance certain features such as stability, accuracy, corodability/refinishing etc. and in ways that will actually make a difference in game play.
I'd almost bet money that some of the gun enthusiasts reading this posts are drooling over what I just said.

jerkface11
August 16, 2008, 03:03 AM
The rate of fire for SMG's and Assault rifles always seems way too low. It really shouldn't take several seconds to empty the mag on an MP5 or an M16.

sco
August 16, 2008, 03:10 AM
Thank you all for your valuable input! I liked Sylvan-Forge in particular. I agreed very much with his response to number 1. It was closer to the core of what I was asking.
I've also had an issue with children being exposed to games of a higher content rating than they properly should be via advertising. Unfortunately we have very little input on advertisement and I when I see banners of massacres on PG-13 rated sites it makes me more than a little... :banghead:

@brigadier
Keep trying! Just remember (as I'm sure you know) no one is just an idea guy! Its what one of my teachers in my Major drilled into our heads. You need 5 skills if you want to be able to use two of them!


Ps: I'm aware your degree really only counts for your first job. After that its more of what you've done and the experience you gained. I worked before I went to school.

Regolith
August 16, 2008, 03:20 AM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

Depending on the game, it ranges from horribly inaccurate to close, but not quite. More on this later.

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

Most games do a relatively decent job at depicting real-world firearms as they are. After all, it's pretty damn easy to create a realistic 3d model when you can download the specs for most popular firearm models right off the web.

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

This gets complicated, because it varies from game to game. The biggest issues lie in ballistics, in that there is none in many games, including Call of Duty 4. About the only games that get close are the various Delta Force games. They are probably the most realistic when it comes to anything relating to firearms except for penetration issues. Call of Duty 4 gets really close in terms of aesthetics and the ability to shoot through walls/objects (although not quite; sometimes rounds penetrate where they shouldn't, and sometimes they don't penetrate where they should), but there are no ballistics.

The other big problem CoD4 has is that the stats on the firearms aren't realistically done. For instance in this game an AK74u, which fires a round that produces roughly 1,316 ft/lbs of energy in real life, produces almost as much "damage" in-game as the Barrett M82A1, which is chambered in a round that can develop as much as 14,895 ft/lbs of energy in real life. This is nowhere near realistic.

Now, I understand that that was probably done in order to balance out the various firearms, but it is ridiculous if you're trying to make the game as realistic as possible.

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

Much more realism. The game producers should at the very least do some minimum research about the guns they are putting in the game, and what they (and the rounds they fire) are capable of. Hell, even Wikipedia has enough information to use as a starting point. They could probably also hire a military weapons expert to advise on weapons usage. Hell, some video games these days have bigger budgets than movies; hiring advisers should be well within their budget capabilities.

Cosmoline
August 16, 2008, 03:33 AM
1) Most of the game firearms I've seen have owed a lot more to comic books than real life. There are many examples, from the double barrel pump action shotgun of Doom to the standard pump in HL1 you could somehow fire two barrels with.

2) They're getting better, gradually. I've noticed some slow improvements but with few exceptions the realism ends with the skin of the model. The firearm will look generally realistic, but its capacity will be wrong or it will be a strange mirror image of its real self.

3) The lack of bullet drop, the wild variations in power, and the outrageous ease of aiming. The ABSURD amount of arms and ammo one man can carry.

4) The suspense and thrill of many games could be greatly improved with increased realism. Limit the capacity, force deliberate reloads. Limit the amount that can be carried and force the player to choose.

5) The very best game I've played is Red Orchestra, an Ostfront simulation that seems to be more popular in Europe than stateside. That game is the closest I've ever seen in any game to actually firing the weapons in question. My experience with a Mosin translated directly to the game. They even have iron sights! The characters also don't get to carry thousands of pounds of junk.

Monkeybear
August 16, 2008, 03:43 AM
1. Shotguns. They should be effective much further out then most games let them be. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ultDKd97LiU&feature=related) Some games seem to make them completely useless past 10-15 feet. Another thing is that a lot of games make pumping the shotgun take way too long. Also the animation always has the shooter take the shotgun off target hold it diagonally to pump it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Nkg1lYUuk). Its very easy to pump quickly while the gun is aimed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbd8biIvNL0).

2.Pistols. Make the handguns usable by giving them excellent, easy to use sights so the player can use good shot placement and not by making them more powerful than the rifles or submachine guns.

3.Knives. Research the "21 foot rule". I would like to see the ability to use knives effectively in video games while sprinting. I think a fast un-wieldy gears-of-war-sprint that ends in either a 1 hit kill for your or your enemy would make a nice balanced use of the 21 foot rule in video games.

4.Weight. The more ammo and guns you carry the slower you can move.

5.Magazines. If I have 70 rounds of ammo and I change mags in game the guy on-screen will rip out the mag with 10 rounds, throw it on the ground, replace it with another fresh magazine and I will still have 70 rounds of ammo. If you throw it on the ground you lose it.

akodo
August 16, 2008, 04:11 AM
shooting 44 caliber rifles at my local gun-club with my dad once or twice a year just before I moved away to college.

I suspect you mean 22 caliber rifles

1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

Strongly innacurate

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)
most models are quite correct as far as the details, sometimes being a mirror image of reality, when the model is static. However, often the model is incorrect as far as how the gun acts. I have seen the forward assist on an AR-15 (M-16) treated as some sort of full-auto/semi-auto switch, and similar issues

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

A. Failure to understand that it is the cartridge, not the firearm itself, that determines the power. Possibly a short barrel would make a minor amount of difference. In general I am refering to different types of 9mm handguns, or different types of 9mm SMGs or different types of 5.56 assualt rifles doing different amounts of damage simply because one is newer. My example may be a bit outdated, but look at FarCry, the M4 carbine you start out with is much less powerful than the G36 you get later, even though they are both firing the same exact ammo. The M4s shorter barrel will impact that a tiny amount, but not really. The OICW has an even shorter barrel than the M4, which would be even less efficient at harnessing all the power generated by the gunpowder being burned, and yet that is even more powerful still

B. Failure to understand the huge difference between a handgun and a rifle. A famous saying is that the only purpose of a handgun is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never set down in the first place. Even a 'powerful' handgun like the desert eagle is quite short-ranged compared to even a 'weak' and 'short ranged' rifle like the M4

handguns suck. If anything, they should be treated like the knife in most shooter games, a last ditch weapon, heck give it magically unending reloads if you must (a knife will eventually dull and break too...eventually) Most assault rifles in games use 5.56NATO which has about 1250 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle, the AK family uses 7.62x39, which has about 1500 foot-pounds at the muzzle, but looses it's energy faster. In comparison, a 9mm cartridge like coming out of a M-9 handgun or a MP5 SMG, has about 350 foot-pounds of energy, a 45acp like used in an Mac-10, Thompson SMG or 1911 style "colt 45" has 500 foot-pounds of energy

B2. Knock off this silly 'guns akimbo' nonsense. Unless you have genetically engineered your eyeballs to work like a Chameleon so they can track indepentant of eachother, you cannot aim and fire two guns at once. IF you don't aim, you don't hit.

C. Failure to understand the big difference in power between assualt rifles, which are defined as using 'intermediate powered cartridges' (read, pretty weak) compared to a 'true rifle' using full powered rifle rounds. It seems like games always have some modern 5.56 weapon as the pinnacle of standard arms (obviously not counting the laser gun or the rocket launcher) when in actuality, the 1950's era 'battle rifles' like the FN-FAL, M-14, AR-10, G-3 are all basically just like their smaller 'assualt rifle' brethern, except they have for the most part 20 round magazines and TWICE THE POWER PER SHOT. Most assault rifles in games use 5.56NATO which has about 1250 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle, the AK family uses 7.62x39, which has about 1500 foot-pounds at the muzzle, but looses it's energy faster. The battle rifles listed above use 7.62x51mm aka 7.62NATO, and that has 2600 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. It can blow through a brick wall no problem, blast through a car door, smash through a bullet-proof vest, punch thorugh a small tree.

In most places, the 5.56NATO and 7.62x39 are considered 'not powerful enough to hunt deer with'

See this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw&feature=related

D. Power of shotguns. You can pepper a guy all day 10 paces away with a shotgun and it does almost anything. Using birdshot at a big distance, yes, it won't to a ton of damage, re, dick cheney's hunting buddy catching a load in the face at about 100 yards (which is a LONG distance in video games)

But in 'combat' or 'home defense' people are going to be using 'buckshot' which is lethal for a very very long range. Aside from that, people use slugs, to turn the shotgun into a defacto rifle. When Timothy Treadwell got eaten by those grizzly bears, and the bush pilot who when to check on him saw the bears eating his corpse, he grabbed his 12 guage shotgun loaded with slugs, as did the game wardens who came with him. A grizzly weighs in the neighborhood of 1000 pounds. Remember the piddly little 9mm at 350 ft-lbs, and the 45 at 450 ft-lbs, and the 5.56 at 1250ft-lbs, and the mightly battle rifles with 2600 ft-lbs, 12 gauge slugs like the Remington Buckhammer and the Brenneke Black Magic have 3200 ft-lbs of energy.

They are so powerful they also make 'managed recoil' which are lower powered, 2000 or so ft-lb energy versions.

Most police departments use 'managed recoil' and 'low power' rounds often with the name 'tactical' because a 12 guage firing slugs or buckshot kicks like a mule and even at the low power rounds is INCREDIBLY POWERFUL.

If you want a 'close range' scatter gun, fine, put in a 20 gauge. 20 guage shells are universally yellow, and then you can be having a lower powered (1500 ft-lbs for slugs) 'birdshot' gun to match the developers desire for a gun that is really powerful if you are in spitting distance of your target, but not very powerful if the guy is a room and a half away.

But a combat 12 guage loaded with full power slugs, that should be performing the way the plasma cannon is performing.

See, there is no need for all these tons of fancy space-guns, when real guns, properly depicted, are going to be head-and-shoulders above the run-of-the-mill M-16 or AK-47

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?
This was covered somewhat above.

I'd further like to see a wider variety of guns. For starters, if you need a common 'rifle' at the early levels of a game, the old M-1 carbine is second only to the AK-47 in terms of how many were produced and out in the world. It isn't a super powerful weapon, having only about 900 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, so it woudl be a good thing to find right after you grab that 9mm handgun from a guard

or, what about 'pistol caliber carbines' http://www.cx4storm.com/ like that beretta storm carbine. Now you have something that is about the same power as a handgun, but capable of much longer shots. If you want something just a little bit better than the staring handgun, rather than instantly going to a 5.56 rifle like the M-16, stick em with that, then finding an M-16 a few levels later is going to be powerful.

or bring in the good old 30-30, or an SKS, etc etc.



Weapon Progression, I never liked the general gun progression in most games.

let's say you have 3 catagories, Power, Magazine Capacity, Rate-of-Fire, and each one is on a 10 point scale.

Your beginning pistol is going to be a 3-3-3. Normally, the next gun you find is some sort of 'bullet hose' where a 3 round burst does slightly more damage than the handgun (even though each single shot is about the same power) which would probably be described as a 4-4-4, after that you upgrade to an M-4 or somethign, which is depicted as a 5-5-4 and maybe later you get something more modern so it is depicted as more powerful with maybe a 40 round magazine, so then you are 6-6-4 and then you get a belt fed gun wich is 7-10-4 etc

I'd like to see getting guns that suck in some catagories (rate of fire, magazine capacity) but are great in others. Like a Mosin-nagant bolt action rifle (the gun the russians get in World War 2 games) a 5 shot powerful rifle that is very common, but it has a very low rate of fire.

So you start out with your 3-3-3 handgun, and then you find a 8-1-1 Mosin-Nagant and then you find an MP5 which is 4-4-4

So which is better? 4-4-4 or 8-1-1? Each one becomes situationally useful, so you desire to have them both. Later on, you get an M-16, a 5-5-4 but you still probably want to carry that Mosin for it's raw power even though it is slow and has a low magazine capacity, so now you have a hard choice to make.

I have heard boardgamed defined as the more 'interesting choices per minute' the better. Give people choices, make them hem and haw about which guns to keep and which guns to leave behind. Right now it is obvious, whichever new gun you stumble upon, ditch your old one for it, it must be better.

Don't force us to run room to room willy nilly spray and pray

All during Half-Life I was pissed that I got stuck with a pistol or a SMG, or a shotgun (or later on some sort of futuristic beam weapon) Some good old 1899 world war 1 and world war 2 rifles, which are still avialble by the crateload for roughly $75 right here in the USA would have been much better weapons for what was doing. I basically used my revolver as a sniper rifle, laugh! Why are games designed to have you run in and just wave a bullet-hose around. I much prefer being a bit tactical, taking headshots, retreating, etc. Thing is, most games don't have to change at all to do that, you just need to give them slightly different weapons. Why Gordon could find so many SPAS-12 shotguns, but no one from the resistance had access to some good old surplus rifles, or even some old deer hunting rifles, I just don't understand.


Okay, a little 'energy chart' summary at the end, so it isn't all mixed together

22LR (like you and your dad shot) = 100 ft-lbs
9mm = 350 ft-lbs
45acp = 500 ft-lbs
44 magnum = 950 ft-lbs
5.56NATO (M-16) = 1250 ft-lbs
7.62x39 (AK-47) = 1500 ft-lbs
20 guage =1200 ft-lbs (for 'short range birdshot shotgun effect if needed in gameplay, energy of slugs just for comparison)
7.62x51 NATO (battle rifles, hunting rifles) 2600 ft-lbs
12 guage 'low recoil' slugs =1500-1800 ft-lbs
12 guage 'standard' slugs = 2400 ft-lbs
12 guage 3 inch slugs = 3200 ft-lbs

akodo
August 16, 2008, 04:44 AM
check out this website for fun reading that will maybe give you some ideas

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm

especially this one 'locks of truth'
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot5.htm

Howard Roark
August 16, 2008, 05:31 AM
This game (http://arcade.mlb.com/t_02lm1/169_370/Sports/NRA-High-Power-Competition.html?products_licensing_offering=30m_nrahp1051)has real feedback and conditions. The sights are realistic and are not still, they move around and the wind blows the bullet around. It isn't a shoot'em up but is realistic in what the guns are capable of.

bogie
August 16, 2008, 06:35 AM
Lord only knows... 44 caliber?

So, what kind of rifles were these? Were these semi-automatic assault rifle machineguns?

Lewis130
August 16, 2008, 08:07 AM
Never ending ammo annoys me. A typical video game pistol will come with about 70 rounds or more, about five to ten mags worth heavy brass and lead to lug around.
If I had to clear five or six people out of a building with a 1911 and only one or two mags, it would be a lot more challanging. And when I run dry, make me use some cheap, half empty snub nose.

Gtone
August 16, 2008, 11:22 AM
Ballistics. COD4 is awesome...but when I have to hit a guy twice with the Barrett...there's a lack of research integrated into the game.

General Geoff
August 16, 2008, 11:37 AM
Problem with accurately depicting muzzle energies and translating them directly to damage stats is that it neglects all the other "real world" problems of huge caliber guns.

In-game, if given a realistic damage conversion chart, everyone would be lugging around a .50BMG rifle all the time. One shot kills nearly all the time, goes through most walls, disables vehicles, etc. etc.

The problem is trying to reflect all the reasons that .50BMG rifles are not standard issue to real military troops, i.e. triple the carry weight of the most tacticool M4, big, heavy ammo, recoil that's impossible to manage when shooting off-hand (and that beats you up after several shots to the point where you really don't want to keep shooting it).

Without the purely human aspects of duty that a soldier experiences such as fatigue, pain, and recoil management, the advantage of huge caliber guns is just too great.

jerkface11
August 16, 2008, 01:17 PM
No look at Halo3 when you rip one of the mounted guns off it's tripod and carry it around it slows you way down. They could also make the super powerful guns useless unless you're prone.

Weezy
August 16, 2008, 02:24 PM
I want to see a game like Swat 4 made with more weapons, and better graphics (less blocky feel).

CoD4 was fun.

Low-Sci
August 16, 2008, 03:45 PM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

- I think they're progressing just fine. I think they should teach gamers the 4 rules though, because A) those rules should be known by everyone everywhere and B) lots of kids are impressionable as hell.

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

- Usually they're very good. The few minor complaints have already been mentioned, and enough shooter games are out that most games have it down well enough.

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

-A) Don't ever give me a weapon that can't reliably kill things. Don't send me through the gates of hell to rescue the president's daughter with the same gun that takes three shots to kill a rat or a basic, bottom-of-the-line headcrab. Give me guns that reflect my mission's purpose and importance.
B) Let me put whatever I want on it, but don't just put it all on all at once; let me make it my own. Modular weapons have rails all over them for exactly this reason.
C)Weapons have mass. Don't let me carry the M16, FAL, Rocket Launcher, Micro-Uzis, and quad-barrel shotgun all at once.
D) If I have a gun - almost any gun - I should never be told that a door is "locked". The gun is a master key, let me use it like that if I need to. You know I'm going to shoot the door out of frustration either way.
E)Once I have a gun I like, don't take it away from me "just because". If I just crossed 70 yards of machine-gun-strafed beach to pick up the trench gun, don't replace it with my stock Garand once the next level loads. Let me keep what I earn.
F) If I shoot someone - ANYONE - I get to take their gun if I want it. Unless their weapon is surgically attached to them, I should be able to take it and use it in a pinch, or even just for the hell of it.



4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

- I think a lot of games today need to move past the "gun porn" phase. They're awesome, don't get me wrong, but I want to play games where I have tons of options as to what I do, even if that makes the game a shade less pretty and the guns less realistic. Call of Duty 4 looks incredible, but all told it's every bit as linear as the older games. Give me options, make the world dynamic and vast, and let me use my wits to get by in it. I really can only handle running laps while shooting bad guys for so long before I get bored.

5) Anything else that comes to mind. Id love to hear it.

- Make a "Red Dawn" game. I mean a realistic one, not that ridiculous "freedom fighters" game that Eidos made. I shouldn't have to spend 2 mags of ammo to knock down one ruskie just because his fur coat is abnormally thick.

General Geoff
August 16, 2008, 03:52 PM
D) If I have a gun - almost any gun - I should never be told that a door is "locked". The gun is a master key, let me use it like that if I need to. You know I'm going to shoot the door out of frustration either way.

Yeah, unless it's a blast or vault door, I'm thinking a rifle should make short work of any "locked" door. :)

FieroCDSP
August 16, 2008, 04:11 PM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

5) Anything else that comes to mind. Id love to hear it.

1: Arcadish in most cases. Bad guys swarm, player shoots swarm. Even in war games. NPC interaction needs beefed up.
2:Accurate enough. A Mosin looks like a Mosin, etc. Red Orchestra did this very well.
3:Only recently has use of sights been better stressed. Delta Force: Blackhawk Down had okay implementation years ago. Red Orchestra has probably the best currently, as you can shoot without sighting, but it's likely to miss, even at short range. Damage is modeled okay, but not perfect.
4:Accurate damage modeling, including wall/object penetration. Visual cover is not the same as hard cover. HL2 had tritium sights on the pistol, but you never use them!!!

5: An IDPA/USPSA game would be great, especially in a FPS form. Player control of movement, as well as gun would be important, as simply being moved by the comp (a la Gun Club-PS2) sucks.

Shooter games that have stuck out in my mind are as follows:
-Trespasser: You actually had to align the sights on the gun with the mouse and hit a critical part of the dino to stop it. Action was not always fast, so this was possible. Damage modeling of weapons was relative. A rifle killed easier than a pistol. A 44mag killed easier than a 9mm. None would kill easily unless you get a head shot.
-Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis: One hit, you're usually dead. Ammo was stingy. Could hide in tree-line from tanks, but sometimes could be seen and then a platoon would swoop in to find you. Cons- Annoying that you can die so easily and often.
-Red Orchestra: Great implementation of visuals and realism, except barriers. A crate could stop rifle rounds, rather than penetrate through to the BG behind it. Lack of single-player campaign. Not everyone spends their day online.
-Call of Duty: Good campaign work, good visuals, allows use of sights. Damage modelling is arcadish.

The issue with making a game that meets the demands of gunnies is that it likely won't be appreciated by the casual gamers. Can you market such a finely tuned game to just Gunnies? Yes. Will it make ton of money? No.

-v-
August 16, 2008, 04:27 PM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

Fairly descent. Most games are a balance of realism vs fun. While hauling around a small armory of weapons is fun, its not very realistic, and while having to constantly compensate for bullet drop at ranges is realistic, it probably wouldn't be very fun to the majority of your target audience who is used to video-game guns functioning like laser-shotguns.

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)
Great!

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

I think what others have said regarding shotguns. They should be effective out to 50 yards or more.

The other thing that always has irked me was the depiction of rifles and assault rifles in games. They tended to act more like sub-machine guns with worn out barrels in terms of accuracy. If I have an AR I should be able to hit bad-guys out to 300 meters or so. Which, unfortunately, tends to be beyond sniper-rifle range in most games. Which brings up another issue.

Most of these epic shooter games seem to take place at ranges of 25-50 yards, on average. Even in Mass Effect, with its massive environments, an ultra-long range firefight was maybe 500 meters, with the range-finder on the tank maxing out at 300!! I would dearly like to see games with expansive environments also implement realistic ranges for weapons. My lowly grunt with an AR, AK, etc. should be able to reliably hit bad-guys to 300 yards. My sniper gun should be able to tag a bg at 1km, etc.


4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?
Modularity in firearms, which I think Crysis hit upon. Keep going with that, its a good trend!

Also, I would like to see more impact from carrying and using larger-bore firearms. I think one of the ways that you can get players to more strategically choose their guns is by introducing the mental component of shooting. After all shooting something that has "bone-crushing" recoil is going to sap your desire to move quickly, shoot it, and shoot it accurately, unless you are very used to it. Thus you suddenly have a choice. You can carry that battle-rifle, but its going to wear out your guy quicker, resulting in less accuracy and speed. But you have a lot of 1-shot wallop, or you can choose to grab that dinky MP5 or M4, which will have much less damage, but suddenly you can keep scoring hits out farther much longer.

Equally, weapons that are small are much easier to maneuver then large and heavy weapons. Turning on a dime is quite possible with a handgun, but if you're lugging a .50cal sniper rifle, you're not going to be a nimble ballerina.

akodo
August 16, 2008, 04:32 PM
The issue with making a game that meets the demands of gunnies is that it likely won't be appreciated by the casual gamers. Can you market such a finely tuned game to just Gunnies? Yes. Will it make ton of money? No.

I think just the opposite. "If you make it they will come" I think gamers would be drawn to the more realistic aspect of it. I mean, how often have you heard a gamer complain that the game was 'too realistic!'

no, gamers loved when designers started to institute things like crouching and crawling prone. Gamers loved it when designers started carefully modeling real guns. Gamers lived it when designers started to allow sights to be used, had move/stationary reflect accuracy, etc etc

Heck some go so far as to play with their character's health turned off and the crosshairs turned off.


One thing that was supposed to make it more realistic that in my experience backfired was COD4 or one of the other WW2 games, when the health bar was removed. Sure, you didn't have to always run back to get old first aid kits when you were hurt, you just rested a bit. Bit it got to the point that when I had a good gun, conserving it's ammo was more important to me than my health. I'd let myself get shot 3 times just to line up the perfect headshot on the Machinegunner across the alley. If I missed, I'd simply withdraw, heal, and try again.

"healing" in shooters will always be bizzare and unrealistic, but still, I'd much rather have a bar and health packs on the ground. Probably best woudl be the option to carry around 2 or 3 healthpacks, this helps meet the needs when different players have trouble in different areas due to different play styles. Player A is great at run-and-gun and is able to stock up on healthpacks provided there but sucks at belly-crawling around spotting the snipers, and needs every single one. Player B needs every single healthpack in the house, but once he is outside bellycrawling, he is always taking headshots and eliminating the enemy with ease. This allows him to build up his health pack supply

akodo
August 16, 2008, 04:46 PM
I'd love to see a shooter game designed where you can pick what character from a list of say 8 different people (maybe 3 at first, more choices unlock) but it isn't like most games where the characters just ahve different gun combinations.

i'd love to see stats like speed (how fast you can run) strength (how much you are slowed by a big load, or how many magazines you can carry) sneaky/stealth, medical skill (get more or less health from a first aid kit)

but most importantly different gun skills. Have a character who is a shotgun expert able to fire and pump his gun extremely fast, have a SWAT guy with an MP5 who is good at holding the gun more steady than most even when moving, etc etc

Lots of times guns will have a bit of zoom when aiming over the iron sights rather than using the crosshairs 'hip shooting' a character good with a certain type of firearms could get more zoom when using that type.

Area 52
August 25, 2008, 02:33 PM
I dislike how in some games, you can be carrying a pistol and be moving the same speed as if you carry a bazooka. Then there are ones where you can carry both the pistol and bazooka, but if you have the pistol selected, you move faster even though you are carrying the bazooka still. Lets see the guns have weight. Halo 3 did very well with this. Also having to do with weight: I do not want to be able to carry every gun in the game at once. If you have played C&C Renegade, you know what I mean. However, telling me I can only carry two guns regardless of weight is dumb. I should be allowed to have a smg, pistol, and shotgun all at once, however I should not be able to have 3 rocket launchers all at once.

Basically what I'm sayin is GIVE GUNS SOME WEIGHT! please.

FMF
August 25, 2008, 03:15 PM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/TECH/fun.games/02/22/black/vert.black.video.game.jpg

I think "Black" did a good job of depicting the firearms. I think their whole marketing pitch was the accuracy of their gun models. They all function, fire and sound very similar to their real life counterparts. Although ballistics aren't completely accurate at distance weapons like the UZI and SMGs aren't at all accurate in full-auto unless you're up close. Best guns in the game were the SPAS-12 for the close quarters and M4 w/M203 for reaching out and touching somebody.

a little in-game video for those who haven't played it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kynD2eBNQbQ)

JImbothefiveth
August 25, 2008, 03:42 PM
Well, I get really ticked off at stuff like GTA, or really anything that glorifies crime, especially when they throw in guns with it. :cuss::banghead: Heck, even in stuff like halo it's not tying it in with crime. I would like to see a videogame that glorifies responsible use of guns.(Halo might qualify, "save the humans" seems pretty good to me.) Cabela's has a few games, and I hear there is even a biathlon game in progress. So, if you can find a way to make a best-selling game that promotes responsible use of guns(Maybe have kids play as a cop) I think that would be excellent!

Odd Job
August 25, 2008, 03:56 PM
Hmm... one of the best I've seen as far as weapons handling realism is True Combat Elite.

+1

If you could have that gun handling with better ballistics and more accurate hitboxes, that would be ideal.

XDKingslayer
August 25, 2008, 04:07 PM
I'd love to answer this. Games and guns are two of my favorite hobbies.

1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

As technology has advanced so has the accuracy of the depictions. It's not just the graphic of the weapon, it's the sound and the way it behaves. Now, what most people don't understand is how boringly similair most military weapons are in performace and how that would make a game boring. So most inaccuracies that you see aren't because the game designers don't understand the weapons, it's to provide a unique experience for each weapon.

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

Again, as graphics technology has advanced so has image accuracy. The weapon skins in a recent game, like Call Of Duty 4, are so accurate it isn't funny.

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

Recoil. I think a lot of work needs done in the recoil area. The view through the sight picture and the way it effects accuracy. Few games have even come close. Again, sometimes it's left open for game playability and sometimes it's just a PITA to code for.

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

More long range sniper shots that are at least kinda accurate. The main sniper shot in COD4 was amazing.

Zip7
August 25, 2008, 04:16 PM
Make a "Red Dawn" game.

+1

I'm not a big gamer, but seems like every game in which you shoot, is always a military or paramilitary environment. How about you head to the hills and become a guerrilla resistance fighter with an extremely wide variety of weapons available - mostly hunting weapons, revolvers, or whatever you can steal from sporting goods stores, abandoned homes or dead Canadians/Russians/Chinese/Californians who just invaded the U.S..

Gunnerpalace
August 25, 2008, 04:24 PM
Please do not make games with bullet drop in them, while it is accurate it is a massive pain, taking fun out of the game.

It is a game and in the game gamers like to do stuff that is not possible in the "real world".Anyway, I do think that shooting someone in the foot should not be an instant kill, and picking up ammo could be a little more realistic, (have to pull the mag out of the enemy's gun).

DrDeFab
August 25, 2008, 07:02 PM
Lord only knows... 44 caliber?
I suspect you mean 22 caliber rifles

At the risk of thread creep, am I the only one who instantly thought: "Cool! Marlin 1894?" :D

HB
August 25, 2008, 07:09 PM
Guns are too accurate in some cases, MG's are too controllable, most guns are too powerful, and mag changes are too fast. I like most shoot in games tho, because I'm not playing a game to have it be like real life.

HB

Nero_Atrum
August 25, 2008, 07:12 PM
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. : Shadow of Chernobyl was pretty good with the guns. (Except that everything ejected to the left side.)

scrat
August 25, 2008, 07:17 PM
Good info guys. Scott i hope you let your friends know where you got this knowledge from. I think we can all give you a lot of knowledge. Yet just a handfull og guys are seeing this. I dont play a lot of video games. I guess my favorite is still pretty old and thats beach head 2000. Same as other guys though. the look of the guns and the sounds are very important.

Nolo
August 25, 2008, 07:29 PM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

5) Anything else that comes to mind. Id love to hear it.
I will say, the accuracy of firearms in video games is going up.
I am not a game designer, but I am a designer, and I do like games.
As such, I often design them or examine the design that went into them.
In the days of Doom, which admittedly is sci-fi, guns were wildly inaccurate.
Today, much effort goes into getting the details just right (one such example is that of EA using the actual report recordings of the firearm in their Call of Duty series.
However, more is yet to be done.
The image of shotguns, for instance, have suffered from the game industry, both from efforts to make the weapon "balanced" and from technical inability.
In an effort to balance games, many makers shorten the range of the shotgun to ridiculous levels. This is understandable, as most multiplayer maps are very small areas, which means that the shottie would dominate if its power was not curbed some.
COD and a couple other games have remedied this largely by making the maps bigger. I find that larger, more complex maps (as opposed to just a big open box) make the game more interesting anyway, so that is something to continue.
Sadly, game makers have, as of yet, found no way to allow the player to access the full scope of the shotgun's capabilities.
There is more to that weapon than just buckshot. Some way to load the rounds you want would be appreciated.
The shotgun aside, the most depressing issue in games is when they try and create their own weapon systems.
They often get them flat wrong (though the accusations against the Halo 1 and 3 Assault Rifle's 5-inch L(ength) O(f) P(ull) are absurd; the accusers forget that the rifle was designed with heavy body armor in mind. So to that I say "good on ya!"). A good example of one of the great "misses" of the game industry was Half-Life 2's Assault Rifle. This rifle, designed by an advanced alien race, performs no better than a STEN, in both power and range (I estimate range to be even worse). In addition, the correct levels of power and range would not have made the AR a "wunderwaffen" in the game, by any means (though the HL design team's decision to include a 1 hit kill dark energy ball certainly did...).
In my opinion, every game has its low points, even the best ones.
In addition, games like Unreal Tournament 3, that don't even strive for realism at all, are fine doing whatever.

J Star
August 25, 2008, 10:27 PM
My biggest gripe with any gun game: You rush me with a knife from 10 feet. I put 3 rounds of .45 ACP center mass before dying instantly from a wild knife swing. You rush on to stab someone else. Huh?

I understand the need for reduced damage. Sitting out a 10 minute round because you got shot once sucks as a gameplay model, I get it. BUT, if I can't kill you with 1 bullet, your puny knife should NOT kill me with one swipe.

Nolo
August 25, 2008, 11:52 PM
My biggest gripe with any gun game: You rush me with a knife from 10 feet. I put 3 rounds of .45 ACP center mass before dying instantly from a wild knife swing. You rush on to stab someone else. Huh?

I understand the need for reduced damage. Sitting out a 10 minute round because you got shot once sucks as a gameplay model, I get it. BUT, if I can't kill you with 1 bullet, your puny knife should NOT kill me with one swipe.
That would be because you've been playing too much COD4...
Halo doesn't have knives. :neener:
Just kidding.
However, I think this statement is misguided:
BUT, if I can't kill you with 1 bullet, your puny knife should NOT kill me with one swipe.
Bullets sometimes don't work. But, then again, in the same instance, nothing short of cutting the person in half would.
The knife was a nice gameplay addition, though.
I understand the need for reduced damage.
I don't.
Either you play with realistic weaponry and make them all realistic, then find other ways to balance the game (WHY, WHY CAN'T YOU MAKE CARRYING AN M60 A STUPID IDEA!?!?!), or you don't even try at all, and follow the route of Unreal.

hangtime
August 26, 2008, 12:44 AM
from the standpoint of the weaponry involved was the Mechwarrior games from Fasa. Aside from the weirded out zero G ballistics which gave no bullet drop even in heavy gravity environments the weaponry was amazingly well thought out. Complex rapid fire autocannons were prone to jams and there was a significant weight penalty for carrying lots of rounds. Your mission loadout was weight restricted just like real life and heavy caliber weapons were only able to carry a few rounds without sacrificing things like speed and armor. Hit boxes and damage assessments were way ahead of their time IMHO and the designers were able to keep it fresh without a major redesign of the game engine. Even if the story line wasn't quite your thing the nuts and bolts kept you interested and waiting for the next release. I played in an online league for several years and this game is still the standard by which I judge all first person shooters. Vintage stuff but worth a look - check it out.

saspic
August 26, 2008, 02:34 AM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?
When they try to be realistic, they're a little too "tacticool." There seems to be a lot of HK love. In real life even a beat up full auto AK would be a hoot, but maybe that doesn't translate to a video game very well.
2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)
Pretty good, but I'm not picky.
3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?Inaccurate ballistics, unrealistic stopping power (too much or too little), indestructible cover, etc.

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?
Fixing the stuff in #3. Customization like the cars in racing games. It would be super cool if it went down to small details like, 20 lpi vs. 25 lpi frontstrap, Ed Brown vs. Wilson parts, etc.
5) Anything else that comes to mind. I’d love to hear it.
I would like to see two, wildly different types of realistic gun games:

SNIPER-A lifelike game where you try to hit targets at loooong range. 500 meters and up. Challenges would include mastering wind, caliber, different optics, etc. I think this would be fun even if the targets were inanimate (not necessarily immobile) objects.
Others might prefer a tactical, military style, "elimate the bad guy" type game, but if it's not "sniper only" with realistic physics, it would just be like any other game.
Action Shooting Sports Game-It would be cool to see an IPSC, USPSA, or even IDPA type game. I'm sure those associations would appreciate the exposure. Maybe you could even have deals with the gun manufacturers ("How do you want to customize your SVI, Shooter #1?").
Bonus points if the players can design their own courses. It would be fun trying your buddies nightmare scenario course, or just practicing skills for real life.

pdowg881
August 26, 2008, 11:14 AM
I know a lot of people are saying ballistics would be tough to do because of processing power, but does anybody remeber the Delta force games? They had drop and wind taken into account.

Another small detail i always liked was in the Americas army games where the muzzle would be pinted down if you turned to face a friendly. There are othe rgames too where the guns muzzle is tipped or moved up when you walk into a wall or object. AI always hated how you could have your face touching a wall in a game and still have a 4 foot rifle pointing straight out in front of you.

Tom Servo
August 26, 2008, 01:41 PM
The depictions of firearms, in games where it's important, is getting better. On the other hand, even the "sci-fi" guns in Gears of War and Half-Life are shown a convincing amount of detail.

Things like recoil, bullet drop and relative ballistics are lacking, but that's to be expected. The vast majority of CPU cycles are tasked towards graphics, rather than AI or ancillary effects.

Unfortunately, graphics are still the main selling point of video games to the general public. Convincing enemy AI and realistic interaction are secondary concerns, and I see few examples to the contrary.

It doesn't bother me too much, as I see video games as escapism in any case. In movies, it bothers me, but some of the coolest ordnance I've ever seen in video games doesn't exist, and in some cases, never will. :)

As for depicting gun owners, I'm not sure. I'm not particularly happy with the "thug life" depictions in games like GTA and Saint's Row, but those are part of a larger cultural malady that, unfortunately, makes money.

While I'd certainly enjoy IDPA Nationals: Miculek's Revenge, I don't see EA giving it priority over Madden next year.

What can be improved are damage modifiers. A head-shot from a pistol should be critical, and damage from submachine guns should fall off at range, for example.

Limiting the amounts of ordnance and ammo that the player can carry might be realistic, but then again, it takes some of the fantasy element out of the game. It's a tough call.

[FH]K96
August 26, 2008, 03:31 PM
1) How do you see the game design industry depictions/uses of firearms in games?

2) How visually accuracy are firearms used in games? (Please do not refer to sci-fi guns as they are doubtfully intended to resemble a realistic firearm.)

3) What would you say the most glaring problem in regards to firearms are in games?

4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

5) Anything else that comes to mind. Id love to hear it.

O ya. If you have any questions you would like to ask me, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

1- A mixed bag of realism and fiction. Some games are better than others.

2- If the artist making the weapon is knowledgeable and interested in firearms, then it will most likely be spot on depiction. There is the possibility of the artist being told to do such and such to make it "kool"

3- Yes! I want shotguns that can be effective at least to 50 yards... not 15 feet i.e. COD4, BF2, etc..

I work as an artist at a game studio.

XDKingslayer
August 26, 2008, 03:39 PM
SNIPER-A lifelike game where you try to hit targets at loooong range. 500 meters and up. Challenges would include mastering wind, caliber, different optics, etc. I think this would be fun even if the targets were inanimate (not necessarily immobile) objects.
Others might prefer a tactical, military style, "elimate the bad guy" type game, but if it's not "sniper only" with realistic physics, it would just be like any other game.

There was a sniper game out there. It was pretty realistic. But it was plauged with the same problem all realisitic games are: They're boring.

FuzzyBunny
August 26, 2008, 04:20 PM
I did not read all the posts in this thread but I do have comments.

I am very active in Call of Duty: United Offensive. The group I play with is FKR. Yes the same group that did the FKR weapons mod. It is set up where firing from the hip is not accurate. When you pull the weapon up and use the sights the rounds are spot on! This, to me, is a very important thing. It forces the player to seek cover and actually aim to hit a target at a distance!

Accurate weapons are very important. I have not upgraded to any of the other COD games because I am waiting for the COD that is coming out in November. I'm sure we will mod that weapons package too.

Weapons that are on target when aimed are like real life. Weapons that never hit the target when aimed or weapons that hit when fired from the hip is not fun at all!

Thats the only comment I have and I hope I have not repeated what others have said. I play very often (daily) and if you want to PM me with a question feel free to do so. I have spent more time than I should playing FPS type games and may be able to let you know what dedicated players are really looking for.

Cheers
FuzzyBunny

givo08
August 26, 2008, 05:21 PM
The COD series does it the best, although there are a few flaws as others pointed out. My biggest complaint about COD4 is that you have firearms that fire the same round (i.e. M4 carbine vs. M16 vs. G36) and they all are rated at different damage levels. Another pet peeve of mine is that the game by design only allows you to have one add on to your weapon. Realistically, you could have a red dot, a grenade launcher, and a silencer on one weapon, but the game makes you choose just one.

I think COD has it nailed on the head with shooting while moving (i.e. being less accurate), being able to aim down the sights being more accurate but making you less mobile vs. shooting from the hip, and bullets passing through soft objects like walls.

I can't stand in games like Half Life 2 where you hit exactly what you're crosshair is pointing at. In fact, the handguns in that game are more accurate than the rifle in that game which is very unrealistic.

J Star
August 26, 2008, 05:48 PM
The COD series does it the best, although there are a few flaws as others pointed out. My biggest complaint about COD4 is that you have firearms that fire the same round (i.e. M4 carbine vs. M16 vs. G36) and they all are rated at different damage levels. Another pet peeve of mine is that the game by design only allows you to have one add on to your weapon. Realistically, you could have a red dot, a grenade launcher, and a silencer on one weapon, but the game makes you choose just one.

That bugs me too.

And the knife thing is from several games. COD4, CS, BF2, etc...

CZ.22
August 26, 2008, 06:18 PM
1. Fairly accurate.
2. Freakin awesome.
3. Like it or not, some weapons are more powerful than others. I don't want a .308 rifle to take the same number of hits to kill someone as does a .45 pistol. Ballistics, especially weapon-specific ballistics, are very important. Also, give shotguns longer ranges.
4. Pretty much good here.
5. I'd like to see a WWI game. I'd also like to see a late ninteenth century game, set in Africa or Asia, not the American West. Both FPS on the COD engine.

Great shooting games like Halo often have crappy driving engines. If you're going to have the player drive, he should be using a driving engine similar to NFS. If he needs to shoot, he can use on of the buttons on top of the controller for that.

I'd like to see more melee stuff, and not just smash n' bash.

ShakyJ
August 26, 2008, 07:19 PM
My wish list for the perfect 1st person shooter would include:

1. Realistic damage relative to weapon fired (a .50 Barret will cause more damage than an AR, an AR more damage than a Beretta 9mm, etc)

2. Characters react according to where they are damaged (character shot in the leg will fall down, but can still return fire. Head/CNS shots result in immediate incapacitation)

3. Provide a variety of weapons (I hate when games utilize the same few weapons for all characters). Same goes for optics.

4. Realistic reloads. I hate games in which you perform multiple tactical reloads and magazines which should be partially loaded are magically topped off.

5. Use realistic gear. COD4 is a great game, but I doubt if real SAS operators and Marines are going to utilize $50 optics.

6. Utilize common sense with regard to amount of weight carried. When a character carries 2 heavy rifles, 12 mags each, explosives, handgun and various other gear, it makes the game much less realistic. Weight should be limited. Also, a character's movement should be relative to amount of weight carried.

7. Cover should be relative to rounds fired at you. Cars shouldn't blow up just because they are shot.

ctdonath
August 26, 2008, 07:38 PM
One "game" to consider is _JFK_Reloaded_, which went to great lengths to model both external ballistics (flight of bullet thru air) and internal ballistics (dynamics of bullet in body), among other unusually realistic factors. Google it and you'll find a free copy somewhere (the game company got so much flack for it they basically abandoned it to the wild).

silentpoet
August 26, 2008, 07:47 PM
How about having to clear a malfunction?

41magsnub
August 26, 2008, 08:05 PM
I have to agree that except for a couple of minor exceptions STALKER nailed it. The exceptions off the top of my head are the left side ejection, bullet drop, and variable power for guns that guns the fire the same cartridge.

One thing that is missing from all these games to me is an actual M203 sight on a M16/M203. I can fire the real thing with a quadrant sight and nail a 55 gallon drum at any range that was marked, at least I could 12 years ago when I qualified expert with it twice. I'm worthless with the thing in every video game thus far.

As a game play consideration my favorite mission in any game is the left behind mission in Operation Flashpoint and I have not seen anything like it since. Your entire squad is dead and you have to make it to an extraction point through heavily enemy occupied territory. You have to do a mix of sneaking and selective firing to make it and the route is up to you. In that game I do love how you can pick up the gun from any dead enemy. On longer missions one of the first things I would do is ditch my M16 and pick up an AK just so I can resupply easier.

Grantman
August 26, 2008, 08:06 PM
4) What would you like to see implemented in the future of games in regards to firearms and the culture surrounding them?

Realism.

Gas systems blocking, barrels glowing and actions seizing after excessive and sustained firing depending on the weapons reputation and environment.

crawling in swampy area = real bad idea for gun

shell casings to stay around permanently or at least a lot longer

charging handles manipulated manually i.e. with middle mouse button and released manually after reload.

Visual manipulation of fire select, semi auto, auto, burst - depending on the firearm.

left/right up/down accuracy to vary depending on the weapon's moa capabilities even if ballistics itself isn't included.

catching weapon on foliage = chance it could go off if safety isn't on.

dust debris etc to shake off of things and when large cal weapons are fired. For example high powered rifles disturb dust from walls, and cause dust to rise off the ground depending on the environment.

The list could go on and on. The hard part is to add realism without making the game a pain in the neck. The thing with having a gun in a game is the ability to manipulate it manually as in real life. That really gets the gun salivation going.

41magsnub
August 26, 2008, 08:07 PM
How about having to clear a malfunction?

STALKER does that, you have to reload to clear the jam. The condition of your weapons deteriorates as the game goes on so you have to replace them or risk more and more frequent jams. I guess nobody ever cleans a gun in a video game!

hrgrisso
August 26, 2008, 08:30 PM
:neener:

I love video games but some of my criticisms may be off because I swore off PC games (aside from Warcraft 3, Diablo etc) in favor of the box and the 360 recently. However I will say that many of the major issues have been addressed previously. Ignore the part about muzzle movement, IF I'm playing super soldier bad :what: I probably practice enough that it's a non issue.

for example
carrying of weapons. I love Halo's limits on volume of firepower but I hated that I could only carry 2 so when COD4 changed tactics to one pistol,smg, rifle I was stoked. Soon I realized though that was also frustrating. Give me the option of a side arm and any two LONG GUNS i.e. anything with a stock that I see fit. don't limit me on SMG vs. shotgun rifle.

As to the knife thing keep it, look up the tueller drill. An edged weapon is awesome (or a blunt smashing object) at close ranges is lethal! I especially liked Halo's close range charges but was sad to see it rarely mimiced in other games.

As to bullet drop maybe a little for insane sniper shots (see COD4 centerpiece sniper shot) but otherwise it's a non issue.

You've given us the ability to shoot through walls, AWESOME!
Now adjust power levels for the weapons we use.

My big grudge is more a story bit it bothers me in movies to:

When I'm a counter terrorist agent why the scared name of amun ra and I carrying a mac 10? Or I'm a terrorist in the middle east trying to kill jews and I've got an Uzi? WTH!?

Please oh please give us some realistic weapon assignment for what character I'm playing.

Oh and chase off the HK sales reps from the game studio's. They are clowns. Every game does not need to be PACKED with Hk's. Give us glock, cz, sig!

In COD4 I was dying for a 226 or a hi power in Lt Price's hands. Instead the brit was packing a 1911 (probably the super secret HK one we've heard myths about).

What do we want in games? How about a revolutionary war game. Muzzle loading challenge anyone? :D

I think the sighting systems etc of the new games is pretty well done, especially all the add ones with sights etc.

Let us know when your first one hits stores, I'll pick it up just to see how much you listend to us! :neener: Feel free to direct your buddies here with more questions should you choose, I'm sure you'll get tons of info.

Sam1911
August 26, 2008, 09:35 PM
Great ideas abound here!

Some thoughts on realism:

I think the general problem can be summed up by saying that, in real life, a great many things are HARD. In a realistic game, these same things would be hard.

1) Hitting your target with a gun is not an easy operation. A scientist who starts out swinging at things with a crowbar (Yeah, HL is cool.) shouldn't even be very good with that -- at least at first (more on that in a bit). But an M9 pistol? Better be D&@N CLOSE! Shotgun? Well, sure, he can make hits, but wild misses just as easily if he's not concentrating and taking his time. Two points here: One is that an aimed shot takes time. I don't think that the player should have to align the sights manually, but he/she should have to give the character time to get as set as he is able in order to make the best shot he can. Maybe a second for an aimed pistol shot, and a couple of seconds to steady a rifle. And a shot while moving is something like 5 times harder. But here's the rub (and point two): his best is none too good, at first, but I think he should improve. Perhaps in the old manner of character or experience points from the old RPGs, a character's skill with a weapon should improve with the number of shots taken -- gaining relative skill quickly at first and then more slowly as he/she advances to more mastery, and maybe even with the number of AIMED shots taken (rather than spray and pray). It would be quite an incentive to keep a weapon your character has used a lot. His/her abilities could increase in general, but much more significantly with that weapon. I might shoot a 1911 fairly quickly and fairly well. That doesn't mean I can hit my own car from the inside with an RPG-7. And what about the bad guys? They're trained (to one degree or another) soldiers/combatants, too. Why should they not be as good or even better than you are at this? That is a real issue. One generally develops a sense of super-humanity in a lot of these games. Play should realistically balance your cunning, stealth, and *maybe* like *one* special skill against realistic mitigating factors (complacency, tiredness, distraction, etc.) that your enemies might possess.

2) We've covered the problem of carrying 15 large weapons and several 1000 rds. of ammo. But, truth be told, most of the games I've seen provide so very much ammo just lying around that they lack any kind of credibility. I mean, even on a military base, you aren't going to find crates of ammo, grenades, rockets, etc. in hundreds of spots just waiting to be found. This is sometimes dealt with a bit more realistically (robbing the dead or breaking into storage areas) but it should still generally come with choices: "I'm almost out of 5.56. If I kill this "terrorist" I can take his ammo, but it's 7.62x39 or 5.45x39, so I'll have to take his rifle, too. (See section 1. What if I'm really good with my M-4? I'll lose a lot of my experience advantage if I change platforms.) If I take his rifle, will I leave my M4 behind or try to struggle along with two? What if I have to set down something important in order to do so? What if I can't run very fast with all this extra gear? Etc." It would be quite realistic to start a scenario with one weapon and maybe two mags and if that isn't enough you'll have to improvise and/or take what you need from your opponents. Not just look behind that stack of tires in the motor pool and there's 4 open ammo cans of your choice stuff.

3) We've discussed how sound is a lost concept in most games. I LOVED the idea of loud gun shots making ambient noise suppressed for a LONG time, but maybe you could find realistic gear like ear plugs that could help with that. Seems picky, but you are going to be in a distracting amount of pain after firing too many bursts from that M240 inside a concrete building without some ear protection -- and you won't hear your enemies advancing as well as you could before.
But, on another topic, gunshots are loud and very discernible to anyone trained with weapons. If I fire a .308 on a street, everyone for about 4 blocks in all directions should know about it. Fire a pistol indoors? Well, folks outside should have heard it at least, and the enemy within earshot should react immediately. (This could be modified to great effect by the loudness and type of ambient sound, too. Is it a quiet spring day in the woods or a thunderstorm at night in a foundry?) You just alerted them to your position and gave them a pretty good idea of your position. Further, it is hard to imagine a modern scenario wherein they wouldn't use their communications gear to let their whole chain of command know. Sucks, but that's the way it really is. (It's hard/frustrating, like I said.) You've alerted the neighborhood? Well, then you're going to have to vacate. If your movements are covered by a further barrage of gunfire (that doesn't kill EVERY enemy in the area), you're going to have an even harder time losing your trackers. This greatly restricts game play, but the story line could be written to work with it and it would be much more realistic.

4) Again on wounding: Yes all guns should have wounding potential roughly equivalent to their realistic capabilities. But getting wounded SUCKS! Yeah, you've got your Level III vest on and can't run all that fast, but you just got shot in the LEG by a guy with an MP5. Ok. Assuming it missed the femoral artery (and/or you got medical attention immediately) you aren't dying and probably killed off that guy, too. But, you shouldn't then be running around like nothing's wrong. A lot of people have complained about hitting someone in the foot with a .50 cal and he dies (or doesn't). Well, he sure is VERY NEARLY out of the battle for good, unless he has no choice but to fight on, but his level of effectiveness is going to be 1/2 or 1/3 of what it should be and if he does fight on, it will probably become WORSE, not better. And that works for both good guys and bad. Shoot a bad guy in the leg and he should require assistance just to move very far/fast. And guess what? You got shot in the face with a .380? Dead. That's it. Your trauma plate didn't help. Yeah, that's a very lucky shot (or a close up surprise) but that is how it works. Blown clear of a vehicle by an IED? Well, your armor didn't *just* soak up quite a shock. It may have saved your life, but your body is in a seriously compromised state and without help, you will probably not make it out alive. You probably can't hear or see. Maybe ever again. Certainly, you won't be in fighting trim.
And, if you're in a combat situation and are are still fighting after 10 or 20 hits to your armor and various minor wounds, well, that's amazing, but your days are numbered. No amount of med-packs and health-ups will put you back to 100%. And, throughout the course of the campaign, your "MAX" condition should reflect that. Sad but true.

5) Chaos SUCKS: Bullet don't penetrate when they should. Or do when they weren't expected to. As noted before, wounding hits may be very serious, even if you're wearing armor and the caliber was small. Shrapnel might kill you, wound you, miss you (blast damage is another topic) but them's the breaks. Wind gusts deflect bullets, as do foliage, obstructions, etc. Guns jam. Sometimes they break for good. Sometimes objects just don't work right or at all. Surfaces are slippery, sometimes you trip over things or become entangled. Vehicles run poorly (especially with damage -- and then, not for long). Etc., etc.

These are VERY challenging points to design a game around. But when someone figures out how, boy will they have the game world by the throat! But, as someone pointed out, there would be a lot of folks who would not feel it was "fun," so it would get a bit of bad press, too.

Whew! Come on folks, there's more like this! Help me think of more!

-Sam

akodo
August 27, 2008, 01:02 AM
To any game designer reading this, note some items repeated in almost every post

#1 shotguns are tremendously powerful compared to handguns and assault rifles. With buckshot they ar quite long range (moreso than handguns), with slugs they are VERY long range

#2 pistols are weak, not supergood. Weapons that shoot the same basic ammo type should have equal damage.

#3 Guns aren't easy to shoot, defineately not hip shoot but when used properly even crappy guns are deadly accurate.

#4 bullets go through all sorts of stuff like locks, walls, doors, cars, bushes, etc. The bullets will deflect some, but anyone right behind such objects are toast.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Game Design Industry and Firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!