Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising is modern combat in stunning detail. The game authentically recreates conflict in a 360-degree theatre of war, which enables players to approach objectives from any direction. On this realistic battlefield, where one bullet can kill, players face the fear and mortality felt by soldiers as they are challenged to survive the rapidly evolving situations of battle throughout the game's single and 4-player co-op campaign.
Whether assaulting, flanking or suppressing the enemy, or calling on fire support to rain down from the skies, Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising demands players think on their feet, reacting quickly to any situation the game's advanced AI throws at them. In this theatre, every decision counts, every action has a consequence and every bullet can kill.
I do not need to have played every game ever made to draw basic conclusions about them.
It's been your assertion for this entire argument.
This is proven by the fact that the hacking in Bloodlines can be more immersive without being DOS itself.
Notice how small the market for the simulation genre is? Know why? Because while a certain amount of people will always be predisposed to enjoy work the same way most people enjoy non-productive hobbies, and some of those people do things (fly planes, race cars, etc) that have representations in the simulation genre, the vast majority of people do not have by doing things that closely, moderately or even come more than just a little close to work while they're trying to have fun.
Leaning does not offer enough of an advantage over moving partially around a corner to be worth the effort extra keystrokes for the same effect.
While we're on the subject, we might as well cover the fact that the implemention of leaning is, near universally, very poor and unrealistic in itself. You can't switch what shoulder you're pressing the stock of your gun to in nearly every game ever, which is something real soldiers do when they lean from one direction to another.
The fact that hitscan attacks don't usually come from where it looks like the barrel of the gun is from the first-person perspective should make this irrelevant, but all it does is add an extra psychological factor.
At no point did I say this is true of every game.
Every checkpoint-based game should provide this kind of functionality so that more casual gamers can enjoy the gameAgreed. Designing games only for the hardcore audience seems to be a bit stupid. I'm saddened by the dumbing down of games these days as much as the next BluesNewser but I also hate buying a game and not being able to enjoy it, let alone finish it, because I don't have the time or skill or patience to get beyond the first couple of levels. That's not a good way to spend £30.
The game can be bloody frustrating. It has no quicksave function, and yes, I do consider that a weakness. For the 10% boost in "realism" that checkpoint saves give (making you more afraid of death) they add 95% to the irritation factor, especially in a game where someone from 400 yards away can kill you with one shot. I play games for fun, not for realism, and would have appreciated the ability to quicksave. The hardcore realism guys could then ignore that function if they so wish.Why don't more games handle savegame frequency via the game difficulty selection? The Hitman series (at least starting with the second one... I can't remember how the first handled it) handled it perfectly - at the hardest difficulty you got no or one save per mission (depends on the mission I think), with each easier difficulty level providing more saves. Every checkpoint-based game should provide this kind of functionality so that more casual gamers can enjoy the game. It also doesn't affect the hardcore gamers who want to play without quicksaves.
Wait, so you're actually admitting to basing your argument around assumptions of how leaning is implemented in games, rather than actual experience using those implementations? This doesn't help your argument.
Incorrect. My claim is that immersion and reality are intrinsically linked.
That's not my assertion at all.
I'm saying that realism and immersion are directly correlated.
Oh brother. I was referring to simulations, not The Sims. You know, racing sims, submarine sims, flight sims, etc. The appeal of these games is how realistic they are. The less realistic they are, the less immersive they are to the players.
Sorry, that argument is flawed. When it comes to immersing the player in a game's world, first-person is the optimal perspective. It's the one that makes you feel most like you're actually in the game.
Too much effort? Seriously? Holding down a key is too much effort? I think holding down Q or E is well worth the benefits leaning provides. Here are the benefits I've experienced from the games I've played:
Your whole argument seems to be based on semantics and the flagrant misuse of the word "facsimile."
That's actually exactly what I'm doing, as I've said more than once.
It doesn't have anything to do with videogames, it has to do with your claim that immersion requires a presentation that adheres as closely as possible to actual reality.
Your assertion that fiction does not and/or does not need to make acceptable breaks from reality to be both decent fiction and to be immersive is incorrect.
The point still stands, because, again, it's not DOS.
When someone playing the Sims has their sim do something that equates to work in reality, does the player actually do that work?
This is hardly objective fact. The argument exists, and I seem to recall an article about it linked on this very website recently, that third-person games are just as immersive as first-person games because, in sacrificing the more realistic viewpoint, they give you an awareness of what's going on around your character much closer to what you have in reality.
My original argument is that leaning does not fall under this, because it provides too little benefit (due to overall design philosophy) compared to too much effort.
Are you talking about the mission where you're stranded in a forest in the middle of nowhere and are being hunted by squads of infantry, tanks, Hinds and BMPs? If so, I loved that mission and the lack of quicksave was essential to that. Knowing that one careless move on my behalf could totally screw me over made the experience more intense than any other single-player experience I can remember. Consequences for failure are something sorely lacking these days. You guys complain about repetition but quicksave makes that all the more likely because you don't care if you die. "Oh look, a squad of enemies. I think I'll quicksave now. Whoops, I died. Quickload. Let's try that again. Damn, I died. Quickload." Conversely, if you can't save, you really have to think hard about every choice you make. Should you engage the enemies or just try to sneak by? If you do engage, how do you do it? Where do you position yourself, who do you take out first? Without quicksave, you put far more thought into your choices.
And that analysis is based on the games you've played, unless you're making assumptions about how leaning works in games you haven't played. In either case, you haven't provided a single example of an actual game to support your position.
What does this have to do with videogames? Dialog tends to be written in a melodramatic matter because that's generally more interesting. It has nothing to do with trying to be more immersive.
You sure? I seem to recall typing in commands for basic navigation too. It's like using DOS.
Sim fans would greatly disagree.
In any case, you've conveniently failed to address the matter of perspectives. First-person is the most immersive of all perspectives. I think everyone can agree on that. Why is it the most immersive? Because it most closely resembles how we actually view reality. This is NOT to say it's a perfect simulation. However, it's far more realistic than isometric, topdown or side perspectives.
No, my entire argument was based on analysis of how videogames often work.
Again, dialog is the go-to example for why hard realism is deliberately ignored in fiction. Spoken lines in fiction and in dramatizations of real events are never, ever written realistically unless the writer is consciously thinking about experimenting with going against the grain (mocumentaries deliberately put effort into subverting this, for example.)
Look more closely at Bloodlines; the only time you type in a command is when you've found the password somewhere else and you're typing in the exact password
It's not at all more realistic than the hacking in Fallout 3, which is just clicking on stuff, but it's more immersive because the facade is more convincing.
Let's also not forget the primary reason for why fiction modifies reality like this: reality is boring.
And before you say "Yes it does, it exposes less of you to enemy fire" again, I did address that when I discussed current game design philosophy and mechanics.
You realize that your entire argument is based on your personal experience
I disagree.
However, leaning makes the game more immersive. You can say it's a useless feature (based on your anecdotal evidence) but even if that were true, utility has very little to do with immersion. For example, in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, you have to actually type in commands when hacking. Is this a useful feature? Not really. Just clicking on stuff would be more efficient. However, actually typing commands is what hackers do in real life. Performing the same act in a game makes it more immersive as a result.
Your personal experience is not inarguable fact because I can't trust that how you perceive something isn't causing inaccuracy.
Immersion and realism are not irrevocably connected.
In fact, I'll add some more. You say that leaning isn't required for an immersive experience but it really is. In real-life, people lean. Why? To reduce the exposure of their bodies to enemy fire and also make them less conspicuous. A guy poking half of his head around a corner is far less obvious than a guy standing there with half his body exposed. If I'm playing a shooter that's supposed to be somewhat realistic, I expect to be able to lean. It's only natural.
If you're not actually going to read what I write, that's fine, but just respond with "tl;dr" instead of "here's more of my opinion instead of actual counter-arguments."
If you don't like the default key assignments for leaning, that's fine
Especially in single-player games where the enemy has unrealistic accuracy at ludicrous distances and leaning doesn't even help anyway.
Not in High Stakes mode.
Yeah I was gonna say, I was never able to aim around cover.
How is leaning useless? It lets you take shots around corners with minimal exposure.