On Shooters and Realism

[thehoodedsmack]

Lead-In (disregard if you feel like it):

Last Sunday I was having a discussion with a friend of mine, on things I didn't like about the Call of Duty series. The topic du jour was the terrible climbing animations, and how it bothered me that they glitched out so much when you get killed mid-climb. The truth is that I've had a lot to say about Call of Duty, and why I don't much like it. I've been called a hater, a buzz-kill, and honestly, the only reason I purchased the game was to facilitate the regular rotation of games that my friend-group tends to play. But above all the awful maps, the terrible animations, and the underwhelming class system (subjective remarks, and not the issue in this thread), the one thing that makes me dislike Call of Duty most of all is that it is a realistic shooter.

Main Body (the important part):

I don't like realistic shooters. I find that they employ a type of doublethink in their very description and defense. Example:

"Why do I get killed by two shots to the chest?"
"Because this game is realistic."

"How come I can take no falling damage, produce no body heat, or run forever?"
"It's a game. It's not realistic."

Extrapolated and extended. My friend's favorite shooter is Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, and mine is Halo 3. I cite my reasons as being colorful, diverse maps, unique and interesting weapons, and characters that look cool. To me, modern weapons look ugly, modern military equipment doesn't interest me, and the idea of taking one pistol shot to the head and dropping dead does not appeal.

I like my shooters non-realistic. I like the cartoony look of Team Fortress 2, I like the ability to take immense amounts of damage, jump around all floaty, and fire a gun without aiming down the sights.

So I want to know, what is it you guys prefer? A game that has to try to be realistic, which will always have to make compromise to achieve that, or shooters of the imaginative variety, where their rules are accepted, and anything goes. Vote and post!

[Cagerrin]

The "hitting someone and not doing much of anything" to them characteristic of "non-realistic" shooters is, at least to me, more annoying than compromises of "realistic" shooters.

(I'd love to see a game with "realistic" mechanics that doesn't look "realistic", i.e. grey/brown/bloom/blood)

(also, "How come I can take no falling damage, produce no body heat, or run forever?", Neotokyo is basically the opposite of all these things, plus the "die in a few shots". 'course, it's also a pain to hit anything, but...)

[Timo]

I find both types really entertaining. Bad Company 2 really immersive (the sound, oh god the sound), and TF2 is just downright hilarious.

[ICEE]

I firmly believe that TF2 has the right balance of realism and non-realism. Realistic shooters are interesting, and if you're in the mood to pitch a tent they can be very fun and addictive, but it isn't creative. No matter how you oil up COD with perks, killstreak rewards and attachments, it is still sub par

[=sw=warlord]

At the moment, Crysis is right near the top of my list for favourite shooters.
Alot of people dislike it for one reason or another but they're usually looking at other aspects of the game to what I look for.
The abilities in Crysis that encourage me to play more are as below:

[]On the fly customization, I enjoy being able to adapt my offload to suit the situation at hand and not need to trundle back half a level just to change weapons out, but at the same time the customizations aren't overwhelming aka Call of duty.

[]Colour, These days there are way too many games that try to focus on one colour palette, Call of duty invariably follows a yellowish tinge in alot of the levels, the ice levels are for the most part grey and seem desaturated, GoW series are also pretty dull in terms of palette alot of brown and grey.
Reach although high in my all time favourites of the series also follows this route, It has ended up being given so much grit that it's lost it's colourful vibe.
Crysis how ever is extremely colourful, dark places are dark and light places are light, trees are a natural green while ice has a natural blue tinge to the thicker portions, for the most part the levels are very well lit and are just enjoyable.

[]Enemies, in Crysis there is a pretty good selections of enemies, ranging from foot soldiers, snipers, specialist and super soldiers but at the same time you're never too far away from vehicles for the majority of the game.
If you disturb a enemy base camp the enemies will shoot flares into the air and call for back up, the aliens are a exception to this though.
They're actually one of the thing's I loved most.
They captured that flood moment from Halo CE where you are lead to believe "this is how the world turns" and whoosh the pinger's arrive.
The aliens are so different in they fly around you strafing you, charging at you and look nothing like the kind of thing you might see on earth.
For most sci-fi games, the aliens look somewhat similar to something on earth, Halo you have most of the aliens who are bipedal creatures, they have a visible head, arms, legs, fingers and even a culture similar in some ways to earth like cultures.
You have the elites who have a almost Japanese warriors pride, brutes who fight in packs almost like guerillas, the aliens in Crysis have none of this, their so alien you cannot figure out how to compare them to real creatures, most are in a robotic suit and with that probably communicate through electronic communications.

[]Environments. Alot of games follow one style of environment, this is where my entertainment of the halo series come's from, even in the very first Halo game there was a vast array of environmental designs ranging from UNSC to Forerunner to Covenant.
I enjoy going from level to level with different scenery, I don't enjoy games that just follow one design all the way through, Why would I want to spend 4-8 hours playing a game through up to 12 levels which all follow the same design, in the end that just feels like going from room to room and killing more enemies.
In Crysis you start off on a beach and eventually work your way through the island from jungles to caves, to alien warships to human air craft carriers, this keeps the experience fresh which encourages me to continue playing.

[]Player involvement.
All to often these days you get games which are on severe extremes of each other for how the game play runs.
I remember the day's where gameplay didn't all involve "destroy this objective to continue" or "kill so and so many of these to pass", there used to be games which you had to explore you're environments to find card keys to gain access to next stages and had to solve puzzles where you needed to find the right combination to unlock caches of health or weapons.

I sometime's wonder what happened to this mindset and why such thing's are now becoming an antique or novel experience.
Few month's back I purchased singularity for the Xbox and thuroughly enjoyed the various puzzles and devices to engage the user in the experience.
There's one part where you need to open a door and then freeze time itself to lock the door open and then run under the doors, there's also a achievement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcW5gBuAXk8) which made me smile on the inside for that it was truely a actual FPS puzzle, something I haven't seen since Duke nukem: Land of the babes.
The achievement involved getting a grenade launcher and using the fired grenade jump onto shelves roll along the ceiling and then navigate a maze under the floor and then explode barrel's behind a door.

For now that's all I can think of for what I'd like to mention, no doubt later I'l remember something so I'l edit the reply again later if I do.
I'm curious if there's other people who feel the same way for any of the point's I mentioned as well.
In any case hopefully it will further the discussion a short bit.

[paladin]

I don't think that its really a reality vs fantasy. There are good games in both categories. Its more, did the developer pull off that style of play.

[Rentafence]

I tried Project Reality. figured it would be p cool.

Shit was gayer than AIDS. I couldn't tell where anything was coming from, I just kept dropping dead. Whenever I did see an enemy it was fuck hard to hit him because you had to keep the fucking reticule still for an obnoxious amount of time to make the shot accurate, whilst being shot at yourself.

[=sw=warlord]

I don't think that its really a reality vs fantasy. There are good games in both categories. Its more, did the developer pull off that style of play.

It is actually.
Call of duty has tried to pull of a reality in that their trying to remove certain aspect's which were staples of FPS like the puzzles and what not.
Where as GoW is obviously not a game trying to imitate life but in the end fell in the same trap.
The point of my reply was that, if you try to make your game purely realistic, you will invariably have problems with certain aspects but on the other hand purely fantasy has the same issues, Crysis follows both sides, real life environments but fantasy enemies and situations with a few fantasy weapons thrown in for enjoyment.

[ODX]

I prefer being able to be shot and not die in a second, Halo 3-style mainly. I just love how more factors than just "who shot first" come into play; things like "who's standing where" and "what gun this guy has" changes everything. Skill and aiming also is taken into fair account and overall it just ends up being a more fair game.

If I may stray away from the gameplay portion for a second though, "unrealistic" shooters just deserve to have much more respect given to them. Seriously, who do you think worked their brains harder for innovation: Bungie or Infinity Ward?

Bungie created an entire story complete with custom characters, races, weapons, beautiful environments, and architectural styles that people have fucking learned how to make.
Infinity Ward probably just Google searched reference images and brought nearly no innovation or creative spark to the table aside from their gameplay ideas. Pah, as if those are any good after being reused through what...3 other games now?

[Spartan094]

ODX is all the rager when it comes to weapon animations and when he see's Black Ops very soon :allears:

But I agree with everything you say hood, I found Call of Duty fun for Single Player mostly.

[Warsaw]

I prefer being able to be shot and not die in a second, Halo 3-style mainly. I just love how more factors than just "who shot first" come into play; things like "who's standing where" and "what gun this guy has" changes everything. Skill and aiming also is taken into fair account and overall it just ends up being a more fair game.

If I may stray away from the gameplay portion for a second though, "unrealistic" shooters just deserve to have much more respect given to them. Seriously, who do you think worked their brains harder for innovation: Bungie or Infinity Ward?

Bungie created an entire story complete with custom characters, races, weapons, beautiful environments, and architectural styles that people have fucking learned how to make.
Infinity Ward probably just Google searched reference images and brought nearly no innovation or creative spark to the table aside from their gameplay ideas. Pah, as if those are any good after being reused through what...3 other games now?

While I agree that Bungie certainly wins the prize for innovation, who's to say that realistic games can't be creative, too? Who said that all realistic games have to take place between 1700 and 2010? I just think that there is a lack of so-called "realistic" games outside of that time bracket, and as such they are all stale. I've got ideas churning in my head that, given experience/training, time, money, and personnel, I feel could pull off a very compelling "realistic shooter" and it most certainly is not set in Afghanistan, Fortress Europe, or anywhere on Earth for that matter. Not even set in this millenium or time period (AD).

I also think there's a very distinct difference in the goals of a "realistic" shooter as opposed to an "unrealistic" one. A realistic one tries to immerse a player in a believable world with a believable story and believable technology and characters. An unrealistic shooter, on the other hand, focuses on unique gameplay and stylized artwork; they try to make the player lose himself/herself in fun as opposed to losing himself/herself in wonder. Does that make any sense?

[ODX]

Well a problem I'm seeing here is the differentiation between a 'realistic' shooter and an 'unrealistic' one...
Like, I think I killed it by mentioning the look whereas I believe you solely wanted to talk about the gameplay?

[annihilation]

I like both.
If you're gonna do a realistic shooter then do it right! I hate it when realistic shooters incorporate un-realistic features into the game.
Same goes for un-realistic shooters.

[Warsaw]

Well a problem I'm seeing here is the differentiation between a 'realistic' shooter and an 'unrealistic' one...
Like, I think I killed it by mentioning the look whereas I believe you solely wanted to talk about the gameplay?

No, you do have a point about looks. It seems that makers of games such as Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc. seem to think that the only colours in this world are drab and tan. Even Gears of War fell into that trap, however it looks like Gears 3 is going to fix that. Bad Company isn't quite so drab, I thought it was surprisingly colourful. Where you erred is when you implied that realistic shooters are always World War II or modern warfare. It's just that apart from Battlefield 2142 and Crysis, there haven't been many realistic science fiction shooters. Fallout 3 does not count.

[Dwood]

We need puzzle maps in Custom Edition.

[Warsaw]

Bring back Halo Ball!

http://hce.halomaps.org/images/files/lg/ACFD8.jpg

[t3h m00kz]

to be blunt, if I want realism I'll join the military

[Pooky]

Too many people in this thread are taking a single aspect of the FPS genre and saying that it's what makes FPS games good. As someone already stated, a quality game requires the developers to focus and perfect their chosen style, not for them to cater specifically to your needs.

[Lateksi]

I enjoy unrealistic shooters way more. I like realistic shooters like Battlefield in short sessions. BUT I need some good company to play these types of shooters as they rely on teamwork, which is great and makes sense but I find myself beating up the desk if I can't communicate with my playmates. And that happens too often. I love fast paced shit like Unreal and Quake where you don't necessarily have to have a good team to enjoy the game.

Halo has elements of both of these shooter types and that might be the reason I like it a lot.

[t3h m00kz]

I think this youtube comment is relevant


HlgGanothSuckz
1 day ago 14
@OriginalBloodAce You really are a fucking idiot. Games aren't about realism they're about fun. In real life, you get shot once and you're out, sitting in an army hospital for six months. Then they have to amputate your leg because the wound got infected because your evac didn't get there in time.

Good fucking game. I'd definitely buy it.

[Kornman00]

to be blunt, if I want realism I'll join the military
Yeah, the military has some pretty neat sims...

Oh, and they have real weapons!

But I'm serious about the sims...

[Warsaw]

Too bad nobody in the military has unlocked the tactical nuke yet...

[=sw=warlord]

Too bad nobody in the military has unlocked the tactical nuke yet...
Tell that to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Warsaw]

That wasn't a tactical nuke. That was an air-dropped bomb.

[=sw=warlord]

That wasn't a tactical nuke. That was an air-dropped bomb.
They were used as tactical devices to end the fighting there and then.

[Mr Buckshot]

Interesting thread!

I find that I expect realistic combat only if the shooter is set during a contemporary or historical era, such as Call of Duty or Battlefield or CS, and no sci-fi or magic elements are woven into the plot. In such games, if I find that my grenade didn't score a kill despite being near to my target or that a single pistol headshot won't kill an un-helmeted target, it's nerdrage time.

On the other hand, if sci-fi/magic is the whole point, I tend to suspend most expectations of realism, i.e. Halo or TF2 or Half-Life. These are the kind of games where I'm not complaining if I have to expend 2 magazines of AR ammo to kill someone or be able to survive a direct grenade blast. The whole point of the game is not to be realistic, after all. L4D isn't really scifi/magic but a zombie apocalypse means intentional unrealism so I don't expect much realistic combat from there either.

But either way, I've come to expect environmental realism regardless of genre, thanks to ever-improving graphics and physics technology. After all, I paid for that fancy Radeon or Geforce card and multi core CPU, so I want to see buildings crumble to the ground realistically as I shoot them, I want to see bodies flying around realistically when explosions happen, I want to see the lighting react realistically, and so on. I want to be able to wreak havoc on my surroundings and see that my bullets and grenades have believable effects. For me this isn't just the case with shooters, it applies to racers and RTS's and RPGs as well.

[Cortexian]

I prefer realistic games, but I play non-realistic ones like Call of Duty when I just want to sit back and blast away at something for fun. Generally I find more realistic shooters a lot more challenging and that tends to weed out the newbie kids that only play non-realistic shooters as well.

[ICEE]

I prefer realistic games, but I play non-realistic ones like Call of Duty when I just want to sit back and blast away at something for fun. Generally I find more realistic shooters a lot more challenging and that tends to weed out the newbie kids that only play non-realistic shooters as well.

Out of curiosity, what games do you consider realistic?

[Cortexian]

One can't really consider any game realistic, though I prefer the games that are more realistic to the ones that are less so. For example, I prefer Battlefield games over Call of Duty and I enjoy ARMA over Battlefield (when it isn't being tedious as fuck).

Games are meant to be fun, I find that ARMA sometimes borders on the fun vs job level (just like EVE vs any other MMORPG). That said if it's fun and I like it, it's probably more realistic than a lot of games.

[t3h m00kz]

I prefer realistic games, but I play non-realistic ones like Call of Duty when I just want to sit back and blast away at something for fun. Generally I find more realistic shooters a lot more challenging and that tends to weed out the newbie kids that only play non-realistic shooters as well.

never played quake 3 have you?

[Aerowyn]

I like games that are un-realistic, for sure. Team Fortress 2 for example. I mean.... it takes the OMG SRS BUSINESS level down by about a bijillion.

I tried playing Red Orchestra and got kicked from the first server I joined for an accidental FF while getting acquainted with the controls. It's like, more realistic war games make it feel more dire, more serious, more real (obviously).

I play games for FUN, not to get bitched at for not doing what a 14-year-old pissy baby tells me to do.

[Rook]

I don't think realistic/unrealistic even matters. Is the game good? Is it fun?

[Cortexian]

never played quake 3 have you?
Would rather play Tribes.

[ICEE]

I don't think realistic/unrealistic even matters. Is the game good? Is it fun?

I agree with this. Though I think sometimes gameplay design begs unrealism (is this a word help guys), and in these cases I hate to see the developers choose realism over gameplay.

Aero pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[DarkHalo003]

I love unrealistic games. To me, the point of a video game is take you to places that are nearly impossible to go in real life. Halo, for example, is one of these games where I can do a lot of crazy stuff and at the same time not die every second like in realistic shooters. I like to have some protection and chance at surviving a scenario, not die because of being hit once. I just think realistic shooters are bland and uninteresting, while unrealistic ones like Halo are the best games out there. It's fun because it's different and the farthest thing from reality.

[Warsaw]

The Second World War is impossible to go to in real life. It's gone, past tense, history. I think realism is fine, it's just that the developers have to be responsible with it and implement a system that tells you that this game is meant to be an approximation of what might actually happen yet still make it playable and fun.

[t3h m00kz]

Would rather play Tribes.

point was, q3 is full of anything but "newbie kids" as you put it. quakeworld even moreso. you can't just "pick up and play" quakeworld without getting assrammed by someone insane motherfucker who's been playing quake since the 60s.

if anything, all the newbie kids are on xbox live shitting up the chats with their squeaker voices.

[TVTyrant]

I'm definently a big fan of the unrealistic shooters. Halo CE was my favorite game for a long ass time, and I don't think you can really recapture the magic of a game like that.
That said, I enjoy CS or COD as well. They can be alot of fun with some friends online or packed into a dorm room with a couple fifths of whiskey. But for all their harping on "realism", I still find it hard to believe that a guy can head shot me in half a second with a Deagle or knife me while I pump AK rounds into his chest :maddowns:

[Warsaw]

That's because CoD is not realistic. I consider games like Red Orchestra, Battlefield, ArmA, and Joint Ops to be realistic shooters. CoD and Couterstrike are for wimps who like to think they are playing a realistic shooter when in fact they are playing Unreal Tournament with iron sights.

[TVTyrant]

That's because CoD is not realistic. I consider games like Red Orchestra, Battlefield, ArmA, and Joint Ops to be realistic shooters. CoD and Couterstrike are for wimps who like to think they are playing a realistic shooter when in fact they are playing Unreal Tournament with iron sights.

+rep if i could. I totally agree, and thats why I still play those games. BTW Battlefield is amazing. Has to be my favorite "realistic" shooter.

[annihilation]

That's because CoD is not realistic. I consider games like Red Orchestra, Battlefield, ArmA, and Joint Ops to be realistic shooters. CoD and Couterstrike are for wimps who like to think they are playing a realistic shooter when in fact they are playing Unreal Tournament with iron sights.

Operation Flashpoint is pretty good too. STALKER is pretty realistic too aside from the whole mutant thing.

[Rook]

CoD and Couterstrike are for wimps who like to think they are playing a realistic shooter when in fact they are playing Unreal Tournament with iron sights.

As opposed to people who want to just play a game? BC2 is ok but maps that large suck shit and it's never fun to play a game like that alone.

[Yoko]

CoD and Couterstrike are for wimps who like to think they are playing a realistic shooter when in fact they are playing Unreal Tournament with iron sights.
Counter Strike with iron sights, hilarious (excluding AUG and SG552)

I like games that are un-realistic, for sure. Team Fortress 2 for example. I mean.... it takes the OMG SRS BUSINESS level down by about a bijillion.
Unless you play at a competitive level

I tried playing Red Orchestra and got kicked from the first server I joined for an accidental FF while getting acquainted with the controls. It's like, more realistic war games make it feel more dire, more serious, more real (obviously).

RO is too realistic, and that's why it's shit umad rossmum

[Warsaw]

It's actually not. ArmA II is too realistic. RO gets all the realism points that matter but keeps it playable, which is why it's No. 1 in my book for realistic shooters. You can't fault a game for people being dicks and kicking you after an accidental friendly fire; I've accidentally killed hundreds of team members, but I have yet to be kicked for that.

Also, CoD is only CS with irons if you are playing Search and Destroy, which literally is a carbon copy of the Demolition mode in CS.

@Rook: when was the last time you ran into a bunch playing CS and CoD who simply wanted to play a game? I have yet to run into that, it's always been "OMG MODERN WARFARE 2 IZ SRS BIZNESS! GET OUT FAGGOT!" and similar for Counter-Strike. I encounter more people playing for fun in Red Orchestra alone than I do in those two games combined. Teamwork is typically better in Red Orchestra and Bad Company (without mics, no less), so they appear more serious. I will admit, Rush has LOLHUGE maps, but Conquest is plenty manageable, and Squad Deathmatch is even tinier. Once you get magnum ammo, the game is much more enjoyable because now you are on even footing with 99% of the current playerbase.

@annihilation: I just got Call of Pripyat, and I love it. The different available ammo types for a particular calibre is an awesome feature to have, as is the attachment system. Health isn't ridiculous, and body armour makes sense. It makes Fallout 3 look like a baby's game.

[Donut]

i just want to play a shooter thats fun and doesnt have a large number of bullshit moments. for this reason, among others, i can never enjoy a cod game again. a game like farcry 2's single player is really in tune with the sort of thing i like. iv kind of been bending the rules a little with halo reach recently. the majority of the time i crouch walk around assassinating people, sneaking up on snipers, and generally being stealthy. the whole effect is kind of ruined when im constantly being outgunned and outnumbered in fights. the thing is though, i hate how you die from 2 or 3 shots in cod. if you get snuck up on, theres really nothing you can do, whereas in halo you at least have a chance to turn around a fight back. but on that same note, a two on one battle in reach is almost impossible to win, so i really have to think on my feet with my play style.
ultimately, i find i enjoy shooters, but i have yet to find one that really caters to how i like to play. i think its just that im an overly competitive son of a bitch that makes it really difficult for me to have fun with anything other than a single player game.

i find i enjoy realistic shooters a little more than non-realistic, mainly because i just love being able to use guns that operate more or less like real world guns. also, i have a hard-on for m60s and m249 saws, so theres that.

PS: can anyone think of a game i might enjoy? team fortress 2 has been suggested a few times already.

[annihilation]

Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is pretty good, Donut.
E: Most Tom Clancy games are very fun.

[t3h m00kz]

CoD and Couterstrike are for wimps who like to think they are playing a realistic shooter when in fact they are playing Unreal Tournament with iron sights.

or for people who, you know, just want to play an fps and kill fools in their downtime.

>unreal tournament with iron sights

no, sorry. they are completely different experiences.

[Rook]

@Rook: when was the last time you ran into a bunch playing CS and CoD who simply wanted to play a game? I have yet to run into that, it's always been "OMG MODERN WARFARE 2 IZ SRS BIZNESS! GET OUT FAGGOT!" and similar for Counter-Strike. I encounter more people playing for fun in Red Orchestra alone than I do in those two games combined. Teamwork is typically better in Red Orchestra and Bad Company (without mics, no less), so they appear more serious. I will admit, Rush has LOLHUGE maps, but Conquest is plenty manageable, and Squad Deathmatch is even tinier. Once you get magnum ammo, the game is much more enjoyable because now you are on even footing with 99% of the current playerbase.

As if you gotta look at the chat in MW2, as for CSS don't go to shit servers? I could give a few off my favorites if it's too hard to look for a few. CSS is really a great game.

[Pooky]

I propose a new classification for shooters like CoD and CSS, 'Semi-Realistic'. This classification would include shooters that are at least based in reality, however loosely, but don't conform to the strict standards of purist games like RO.

Now we can stop the asinine bickering over whether CoD is 'realistic' or not.

[Warsaw]

As if you gotta look at the chat in MW2, as for CSS don't go to shit servers? I could give a few off my favorites if it's too hard to look for a few. CSS is really a great game.

That's like telling someone not to go and get mugged. Sure the neighborhood is pretty, but some asshole will always be there to ruin it Don't get that in Red Orchestra. Can't comment on ArmA II. Battlefield has a fucked spawn system and magnum ammo is bullshit. Games like CoD and CS:S are also simple twitch shooters where you get good only by memorizing the recoil patterns and tiny tidbits like that, eventually learning how to take advantage of the system. In "realistic" games, the only thing you can memorize is the ballistics for a certain bullet. I can't think of a single instance of someone taking advantage of the system in Red Orchestra. You can't even spawn camp in the game. Now I've played my fair share of CS:S, and I was pretty decent at it for awhile (not stellar, but passable), it's just too much of a twitch for my taste. I play it every now and then because it has pretty mods and the BF2 soundpack is amazing on Source, but beyond that I find its predictability gets boring very quickly.

@t3h m00kz: And that's your opinion. I've played both and as far as I am concerned, Call of Duty game-play consists of a bunch of hooligans running and jumping and diving around with rapid fire guns having up to three power-ups at a time, completely disregarding objectives for the most part. Cases in point? Search and Destroy. Domination. Except for UT having things like Jump Plates and teleporters, it's really not at all different. Halo is much the same way. If you think Call of Duty is fine fun and all, that is your prerogative. I was more targeting the hardcore CoD players with that statement anyways, the ones who think it's the shit and that no game can surpass its realistic glory and then they go and play a true realistic game and toss the keyboard and mouse in a rage because the crap tactics that work in CoD don't fly. That type of player has, in my experience, been the majority of the player base.

Also, Pooky, I think the general consensus in here is that CoD is not a realistic game, but a "I don't feel like worrying about shit, let's kill bitches" game.

[t3h m00kz]

unreal has dodging, double jumping, 100% perfect accuracy regardless of any situation even when unscoped with sniper rifles, plasma, slime guns, teleporters, teleporter guns, miniature nuclear devices, jump pads, no reloading, no off-hand grenades, no killstreak bonuses, weapon and powerup pickups placed around the map, ability to carry all available weapons, no off-hand melee, no classes, splash damage everywhere, very few hitscan weapons, and health that does not recharge.

the only real similarity to cod that it has is it's a shooter. a cod fanatic would get destroyed their first time playing unreal.

[Warsaw]

And an Unreal fanatic would get destroyed their first time playing CoD. Even footing.

Using UT3 as my basis (though if you alter a few minor details for the other UT games, it doesn't change the argument):
The guns in UT either spread or are so pinpoint accurate that they take a hell of a lot of practise to use efficiently. As for the rest, it's all semantics. There are mechanics in both games that make-up for the something that the other has. Quickscoping BS eliminates the whole lack of accuracy for unscoped sniper rifles. The guns in UT are comparatively weak per shot, so it justifies no reloading. Double jumping compensates for drop-shooting. The alt-fire on most of the guns is some kind of explosive, matching the off-hand grenades. Kill-streaks are unique, but also counter-intuitive. Perks replace powerups on the maps. Nobody lives long enough in UT to collect all the guns, and you can swap weapons around in CoD to compensate for your limited armoury anyways. If you melee in CoD, you already aren't shooting at the target, so you might as well make it analagous to charging the enemy with a hammer in UT. CoD doesn't have real classes, they are just weapon sets; again, replacing pickups on the map. CoD has tubers out the ass and grenades every two seconds, so it has plenty of splash damage. ALL the guns in CoD are hitscan except for RPGs and tubes; in UT, only the shock rifle, sniper rifle, Link alt, stinger primary, and enforcers are. And don't give me that shit about nuclear devices: hardly anybody ever gets killed by a Redeemer and the Tac-Nuke is extremely hard to get, meaning hardly anybody ever gets killed by it (technically, nobody gets killed by it).

[t3h m00kz]

There are many features that are in fact very similar, but the way they're implemented changes the overall feel of the gameplay. Despite their similarities, even Quake and Unreal feel like two completely different experiences.

[Rook]

http://www.amazon.com/Adult-Reusable-Cotton-Poly-Diaper/dp/B000BF5JFK/?ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&

http://bacon.modacity.net/img/images/1291275589353.jpg

[t3h m00kz]

more like call of doody hurr hurr