How Accurate are Video-Game Weapons?

[Fut004]

I know there are quite a few Gamers here at AO, so I thought I'd share this little article and see what you all think.



In real life, people rarely want to get into a firefight. But in many video games, particularly military-themed first-person shooters (FPS) like the just-released Rainbow Six Vegas 2, you can’t wait to step into the line of fire. After all, you’re an elite commando, and there’s no way not to fight—no button to press to call your nervous wreck of a wife or go hang out with the kids. It doesn’t matter how many bullets you take while gunning down whole platoons of terrorists and mercenaries, because this is red-blooded escapism at its geekiest. So shut up and starting shooting guys.

But unlike sci-fi FPS games such as Halo or Doom, military shooters have a tradition of so-called realism. Most of the in-game weapons are available now—or at least loosely based on designs that could eventually reach the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, as optimistic as game developers might be about a high-tech replacement for the M-16 assault rifle, there are no plasma rifles or rail guns in your arsenal. Firefights look and sound like something out of Blackhawk Down, with that unnerving, staccato crackle of modern-day warfare. And the damage inflicted feels more accurate, too: In games like Call of Duty 4 or Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, most enemies are vulnerable to a single burst, and a few incoming rounds can kill you easily. So as this successful genre continues to deliver best-selling titles, will increasingly powerful PCs and game consoles allow military shooters to become more realistic than ever?

PopularMechanics.com | Shooting for Realism: How Accurate are Video-Game Weapons? - Full Article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4255750.html)

The Article goes on to discuss some specific weapons and how the Creators develop them.



“I take these weapons, and look at what defines them, or what people think defines them,” Theiren explains. “For an Uzi, people think it fires lots of bullets, and it’s really inaccurate.” That, he knows, has nothing to do with reality—if anything, Uzis are considered some of the most reliable and accurate submachine guns around. But the 80s (and Miami Vice in particular) offered us the Uzi as a low-life villain’s weapon, spit-fire and out-of-control. “So I make it fire faster than it should. It’s about taking the personality of a weapon, and making it shine in the game,” Theiren says.


I actually think it'd be more fun to play games that are accurate as Possible.
Who cares if people think the Uzi is Uber-Fast and Inaccurate? Those people are wrong. They should make the guns true to life and people can see them the way they're supposed to be.

Or course, I'm talking about the extremely realistic games. With the more Arcadey types, they can keep the guns all whacky, because people play those for a different reason.

[Assassin X]

I always liked Americas Army. Its relatively realistic in all aspects including weapons. Games like Soldier Of Fortune had more real based weapons damage. I loved the second game!

[Crimepunisher]

I actually think it'd be more fun to play games that are accurate as Possible.
Who cares if people think the Uzi is Uber-Fast and Inaccurate? Those people are wrong. They should make the guns true to life and people can see them the way they're supposed to be.

Or course, I'm talking about the extremely realistic games. With the more Arcadey types, they can keep the guns all whacky, because people play those for a different reason.

I imagine it's a balance thing that leads developers to create minor inaccuracies in weapons. Think it's kind of expected in most games now for submachine guns to have shorter range than assault rifles (Which is kind of stupid, because in most games the bullets simply disappear after a certain point, where as in real life the bullet keeps on traveling). I really do support more realistic weaponry in gaming (Though I really do prefer the games with "throwback" weaponry rather than the modern XM8 and "Everything is made by H&K" mentality). Though I know I would be kind of pissed if some guy killed me on Call of Duty 4 with an Uzi from across the map.

[lycanox]

As a programmer of weapons in games there is one simple answer.

They are not realistic at all.

What really is important that you have a good game play, which means that you have to power up or down some weapons to keep things fun. And often things like kickback, weapon weight and reloading are completely take out of the game.


The truth is, an realistic weapon is simply too hard to code.

Either because the effect if a shot on the target is wrongly interpreted.
( Ever seen one of the enemies crawling slowly away with paralyzed legs , or unable to fire back because you fucked up his arm in a game.)

And because it is really hard to simulate handling and the path of a real projectile in a game.
( I cant count the times anymore my ye olde crossbow arrow ricocheted after hitting its target and went straight for my own head. An unwanted experience I have never seen while playing RPGs.)

And because there is a whole difference between firing a real shotgun to a real treat. And firing a Nintendo zapper to that silly dog.

[The Silence]

As a veteran of playing many types of FPSs, the Call of Duty series is one example of just how inaccurate many weapons are in games...though these are of course based on WWII weaponry. The SVT40 for example could have done better...though all the same it could have been worse. They even attempt to get the look of the weapon and the metal color and shine just right...and to be honest, I've felt that every war game I've played so far with the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine haven't done the best job with the reality of accuracy. Even so, the representation of such weaponry in Call of Duty based on the scenarios does tend to show what the weapon could and would have done.

I even in Metal Gear Solid thought that the Stinger missile system was really off...of course our heavy weapons always do the best job in video games so far as "accuracy"...just look at the RPG-7.

[Mezurashi]

before I got into FPS games, well, before they existed, I used to hunt. with rifles at first then with bow after I got sick of long range trophy hunters (100 yards is not hunting - it's the Mark One virtual reality version of hunting). I've also had the opportunity to fire a range of handguns, sub-machine guns and high powered rifles - though most of those experiences occurred in the US since a lot of those guns were and are still illegal in Canada.

I'm sure an FPS with 'realistic' weapons physics and effect would be of interest to 'purists' and the obsessed (I'm a bit of both) - but the general mass who are spoon fed media versions of cause and effect would quickly grow bored of not seeing their targets explode or fly away, spinning and spraying blood. I remember when a friend's younger cousin (14 year old gangster wanna be) first watched the clip of the police chief of Saigon shooting a suspected Viet Cong through the head (it's out there but I'm too lazy to link, sorry) from the fall of Saigon. I had already seen it as a teen myself so I watched the kid's reaction and saw his eyes widen, then grow confused because he hadn't ever processed what a real execution was.

an FPS with 'real' weapons effects (let's not get into recoil, realism there would just generate a shitload of litigation from weak wristed types all over) would probably sell from novelty then quickly die off - at least that's my gut reaction.

also, there's the possibility that someone out there might not want there to be such realism available to the general public - like if everyone actually Knew what killing was really like then there wouldn't be enough volunteers for the armed forces ...

but if we get into superrealism I'd like to see a game that could transmit, somehow, the inner knowledge that comes from killing something. that karmic, aura, shakra, soul, whatever disturbing factor that informs you that you've just taken a life - be it a deer, pheasant, what have you. a lot of people I've known who thought of themselves a hunters sure didn't like it much once they killed something - and only a couple of them kept on with it, with a much greater respect for not only what they were doing but what they were doing it to.

and ... maybe if that game could transmit the soul wrenching feeling of murdering another human being ...

[DontBeAfraid]

As a vet and a gamer I can atest to the fact that Americas Army is the most realistic game in existance as far as weapons go. They look, sound and behave exactly as I remembered them. OK, so the sound was turned way down but it was still the same sound. Each gun type has its own recognizable pop and Americas Army matched them perfectly. The game had the same rate of fire and the same challenges of firing accurately. I had to do it the same in the game as I had to do it in real life. No walking while firing, no running, hell not even any standing for the most part. The truth is that you really need to be in a supported position if you want to hit anything with a rifle. Americas army accurately modeled almost the entirety of what it means to be part of an army fire team.


As a programmer of weapons in games there is one simple answer.

They are not realistic at all. That depends entirely on the game my friend.


The truth is, an realistic weapon is simply too hard to code.It used to be.



Either because the effect if a shot on the target is wrongly interpreted.
( Ever seen one of the enemies crawling slowly away with paralyzed legs , or unable to fire back because you fucked up his arm in a game.)These "features" are actually being integrated into most new games. COD4 comes to mind but most of COD4 is very mkuch arcadish so its not a great example. Possibly the new alan wake game.

[Assassin X]

Yeah AA is pretty much the only game that has realism all around including weapons. Although its really violent simply because its made so everyone can play it. Most hate the fact its realistic because you don't take a whole magazine before you die lol.

In "unrealistic" terms I also like Rainbow Six Vegas 2. Maybe the weapons aren't realistic but then that the rest of it feels so real with the graphics and all the other options. Never got into COD 4. To silly with having options that increase things that make it feel like some RPG or something. I hate games where you become a super soldier or can call in magical airstrikes a billion times. With the exception of Shadowrun. While the game sucked with its lack of maps it had a really good concept going.

[Skynet12]

As a programmer of weapons in games there is one simple answer.

They are not realistic at all.

What really is important that you have a good game play, which means that you have to power up or down some weapons to keep things fun. And often things like kickback, weapon weight and reloading are completely take out of the game.


The truth is, an realistic weapon is simply too hard to code.

Either because the effect if a shot on the target is wrongly interpreted.
( Ever seen one of the enemies crawling slowly away with paralyzed legs , or unable to fire back because you fucked up his arm in a game.)

And because it is really hard to simulate handling and the path of a real projectile in a game.
( I cant count the times anymore my ye olde crossbow arrow ricocheted after hitting its target and went straight for my own head. An unwanted experience I have never seen while playing RPGs.)

And because there is a whole difference between firing a real shotgun to a real treat. And firing a Nintendo zapper to that silly dog.

Aye-couldnt have summed it up better by me onesies. Nonetheless, Silent Hunter 3 and 4 are fukkin realstic. I mean, Ive never been in a WW2 sub in the middle of battle, but I have watche Das Boot since I was 2 years old! : P.

Sky