How realistically are guns portrayed in video games?

I think video games are still pretty far from realistically portraying guns. Video game shotguns are seriously underpowered. Shotguns in real life can be deadly up to 100 meters, yet most video game shotguns only do damage up to about 10-15 metes; then the pellets just magically disappear. I know it's for "balancing" purposes, but come on. And of course, sniper rifles aren't portrayed correctly most of the time either. With the exception of games like Sniper Elite, Arma, and Battlefield, most shooters just require that you align the crosshair on your scope with your target and then: Boom! Free kill! In most shooters, there are very few times where you would use a sniper rifle if those situations were in real life. Lastly, guns in Call of Duty are way too accurate and have little recoil, but what do you expect from Call of Duty? :P

These are just my observations. Most of my games are first person or third person shooters, so don't think I actually judge all shooters like this and refuse to play them if they don't seem "realistic". They're just games after all.

Anyway, what's your opinion on how guns are portrayed in video games? You can talk about the portrayal of guns in movies if you want too.

You have to realize something: Video games need balance or the gameplay will suffer (in before people say COD sucks). Realism with weapons would mess that up. For example, if MW3 weapons were realistic the Barrett would almost make bodies explode and the AA-12 would be the most powerful gun in the game.

In terms of appearance, they're quite realistic. Most of the time they're modeled off the real thing. Same thing with optics.

In terms of effectiveness, not really. An AK47 doesn't do more damage than a G36 in real life. While the round may be different, the ultimate deciding factor is usually shot placement. Which leads me to my next point:

Shooting people is hard. Like, lining up sights, trigger control, and trying to do everything associated with shooting while being shot at is incredibly stressful. The vast majority of people, even with a lot of training, are not going to be as good in real life as people in CoD are going to be at shooting. It's just too hard and too much work.

Well, I only play realistic games like Splinter Cell and GTA. So guns are portrayed just fine.

:P

Entirely depends on the game. Red Orchestra 2 is apparently incredibly realistic.

Depends...visually? Most are good, except some games which give ridiculous attachments or designs to a single gun, like "black", where a UZI had a double stock that would block the entire firing mechanism of the gun in real life.

In function? Most games suck at portraying it, COD of course is at the bottom, absolutely no recoil, ridiculous firing rates and perfect accuraccy. I remember in MW2 you had a .44 magnum availible, you could wield it akimbo and empty the 12 rounds on both of them in less than 3 seconds...yeaaah thats not gonna happen in real life, firing a .44 single handedly more than 2 times in a row will most likely knock it right off your hands, the force with which that weapon kicks in real life is simply brutal (and you'd understand why if you see the effects the bullet has on its target, it literally blows them up). Also in real life, you want take 3-4 .44 shots to die, you'll take 1, probably half if it was possible. You dont survive a .44 round unless it hits you in the feet and it misses the femoral.

Battlefield is a middle point, weapons barely have recoil, its relatively easy to aim, but theres bullet drop and other physical effects on bullets.

If you ask me, the game that nails it better is CS GO, realistic recoil on guns, shooting techniques (shooting while running is nearly useless), and range shooting, it gets them all pretty good.

Also I dont really agree with the shotgun part...though real shotguns do have longer reach (My grandpa uses shotguns to hunt birds, so that says something about their effective range), I really doubt its 100 meters. The problem with the shotguns is not that the pellets spread out and dissapear into thin air, but pellets are extremely small, and they're not as aerodynamic as a bullet, so they have a much smaller resistance to air and thus they fall to the ground faster.

Fun fact: a bullet fired at the level horizon will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet dropped simultaneously from the height of the barrel. Always.

That would be.....awesome.

Dat sarcasm

Unless it's real life. Theres a reason the geneva convention says you cant use .50 as AP rounds.

It's almost the same deal with the .44 (as I said), if you were to shoot a person in the neck with the .44, it would literally cut his head clean off.

Well yeah that's logical. At least in a windless space, otherwise the wind will probably affect the bullet a bit so they wont be simultaneous.

Otherwise no, the main deal is that games have either way too short range engagements (basically 99% of games right now) - modern assault rifles are effective out to 450 meters, lethal out to a kilometer. What modern games portray as sniper ranges are basically close quarters fighting in real life. Close quarters is about 50-100 meters, not hand to hand range that modern games make it out. Off the top of my head the only game that has realistic combat ranges is the ArmA and OFP series (until Red River).

The main issue with this is that engagements are far more lethal in games than in real life. In real combat most soldiers have no idea what they are shooting, and tactics are concentrated on volume of fire down range. It's not like in games where your opponent fills out your entire red dot reticule; most of the time the red dot will be just a bit smaller than the actual size of the target at that range. So generally even running out in the open isn't even nearly as lethal as it's portrayed in games.

The second thing is that getting shot in real life is a big problem, even if it's "just" your foot. If you get shot you'll drop unless you're really high on adrenaline. You might pick yourself up and continue, but you're in no way combat effective anymore. Anything that hits center mass of a person is almost certainly permanently taking that person out of the fight, while leg and arm shots are pretty damn crippling.

Finally, the sound of guns is enormous. It's not the smoothed out poping sound you get in games, it's a very rough, abrasive, loud and shocking noise, especially coupled with the recoil and blast wave you feel.

But making every game like ArmA would be damn boring, and it brings up a bunch of other issues. So I enjoy that all the Call of Duties and Battlefields take creative freedom with how guns are portrayed and work.

I've only fired a .38, a .45, a .357, a M1 Garand rifle, and a shotgun (while hunting). I'm by no means an expert on firearms, but I've shot enough to say that no, games rarely are able to convey the gravitas and sense of power firing a gun gives. Even the ARMA series, which apparently models them very realistically, did a shit job of making them feel powerful. The only game I've ever played that had me really go "Damn, now THAT'S what shooting a gun feels like!" is The Last of Us. Mostly due to its superb sound design. They all had a good feeling of weight and each shot felt significant.

Even with regard to drag? What if the drag force is tangent to the path and is related to the absolute speed of the projectile? Does such drag not exist?

Not realistically at all, and I'm okay with that.

whoa....

On-topic: Speaking on a scale from 1-10, not realistic enough

I'd say they're terribly portrayed in modern shooters like CoD and Battlefield although the latter is slightly better. I'm hardly an expert on the matter but I believe Counter Strike really does portray guns with considerable realism. It takes ability to get a kill with the Ak-47 which coincides with what I know about it in real life. The gun's caliber seems to make a substantial difference too. In addition, the magnum sniper rifle is insanely hard to master, unlike sniper rifles in games like CoD where you just simply find yourself a half-decent cover like a bunker or a hill and manage to kill an entire platoon without breaking a sweat -_-
This may come off as odd to some, but Halo: Combat Evolved portrays sniping much better than most other famous and more modern FPS games do and its a pretty old games.

But I do agree with you TC the shotgun is a seriously under-powered gun. I wouldn't have much of a problem with its grossly underestimated range if its firepower were depicted properly. You're limiting its range for balancing purposes? fine at least make up for that by rendering its firepower decently enough. They end it underestimating both the range and the damage of the shotgun which results in an overall inferior weapon that no one cares about. I'm getting riled up here because the shotgun is always my weapon of choice whenever I can get my hands on one :P
There were times when I'd go through an entire FPS using nothing but a shotgun and a sidearm for more ranged kills lol

I'm not sure if I'm following you correctly, but are you saying that it takes a propelled bullet to come to rest the same amount of time it would take a bullet that has been simply dropped on the ground from the height of the barrel of the gun used to fire the former bullet? If so it doesn't sound very dazzling it just means that bullets are fast which is hardly mind blowing.

Drag can have an y component too.

Try playing Gears of War. Fucking shotgun fest those games are...

I never owned a console so I wouldn't know. But I did play the first GoW on PC for like 30 minutes or so and uninstalled that shit right away lol

I can't see how he meant to say this.

Actually, the who thing about using .50 rounds against dismounts being against the Geneva Convention is a myth. If it was true we wouldn't even have a Barrett in our inventory because it would be more effective to just use the M2 with a few 100 round cans of rounds for disabling enemy equipment over a sniper rifle with only ten rounds in the magazine.

When I went to Iraq in 2003 for the invasion there were Iraqi soldiers blown in half on the road after getting hit with Bradley and Abrams rounds, and there were people who had shrapnel from artillery strikes going clean through their bodies. A lot of that probably had a larger effect than a M2 or Barrett would had but in terms of warfare it was legal.

Just played Red Orchestra 2 and I've got to say this, that game's pretty realistic. The guns are the most realistic I've ever seen in a game.

Most don't even force the player to follow realistic loading procedures. Just push a button and you have more ammo.

I think the only game I can think of that I've come across that handles gun operation realistically (in the sense of the gun's use) is Receiver. It's a very basic game but it gets the operation down perfectly. You actually have to check your bullet count and reload the magazine manually. And you don't just walk around pointing it at everyone either.

@foxhound_fox said:

Most don't even force the player to follow realistic loading procedures. Just push a button and you have more ammo.

I think the only game I can think of that I've come across that handles gun operation realistically (in the sense of the gun's use) is Receiver. It's a very basic game but it gets the operation down perfectly. You actually have to check your bullet count and reload the magazine manually. And you don't just walk around pointing it at everyone either.

I honestly wouldn't consider that to be "unrealistic", I mean, in real life you also dont have to push several buttons to make a reload, how is pushing a single key to make a reload unrealistic? I agree that reloads are unrealistic in games that make things like pumping a fully loaded shotgun after reloading, or where the slide is not actioned after emptying an entire mag (or the opposite case: when the slide is actioned/gun is cocked every time you equip it, CS does this for balance purposes though).

But to say that a reload is unrealistic because you only have to press a key? that seems pretty invalid, since most games do follow the reloading procedure just fine.

Flight simulators have realistic gun modeling as well as computer systems designed around combat.

You learn this; you can fly and engage in combat with a real air vehicle.

@GazaAli: I tried to get into and love the Gears games online but just couldn't for that exact reason. Getting one shotted constantly gets boring fast. Onslaught mode in Judgment was fun as hell though!

Because there are several actions required to get the empty magazine out of the gun and put a fresh one in.

1. Press magazine release to drop old magazine.
2. Open pouch and grab fresh magazine.
3. Put fresh magazine into gun.
4. Cycle slide/action or press cycling/slide release button/lever.

That's a lot more than "press X for full mag".

Pretty much. Just to add to your thought, @foxhound_fox, games even lose much of the nuances of a reload. For example, handling an HK or Walther style lever mag release is different than a button on a Glock. Same can be said about an AK vs M4. Your hands are doing different things for each. Yet in many cases, regardless of manufacturer or even handgun vs carbine, on a controller/keyboard, it's all just one button for all guns.

But hey, at least they have lots of the animations correct. For a video game, they really only need the visual. And that's fine. I don't think I'd want an uber realistic representation of guns in any mass market video game if it gets in the way of the fun.

Yes but your character in game does all that, he doesnt skips a step (well thats assuming the game has realistic reloading animations). So they do portray weapon reloads realistically.

You make it sound as if the guys simply cycle the slide and already have a new mag inside (like in gta4)

And even if what you're going at is that you should push an individual button for every action required (dumb argument btw, I could say exactly the same with anything video game related "oh you push a button and your character punches, there is no individual control for every single knuckle, wrist placement, and arm movement! you should have a button for every single muscle your character moves or else its not realistic!") It's still no different than pressing a single one. In real life reaching for your magazine pouch will actually take time and getting the mag into the slot might be a bit hard under pressure. On the game you mentioned as realistic, all you gotta do is push a single button for a single action and the action is still performed perfectly. your argument is flawed.

So we get a COD style game, with a kinect like device to track the user's position and weapon barrel, wii fit board to track balance and stabilization, amiibo guns that are modeled to look, feel and weigh just like the real thing but can also track your gamertag and stats on that weapon and at least 2 insertable magazines. The problem I'm having to resolve is the recoil. How do you simulate that without a overbearing air compressor? What do you guys think?

I like it when games try to add something to the effect of the stress of combat to the element of the game. In Battlefield 3 taking suppressing fire causes loss in visibility, creating a panic induced fog, it kind of plays into what you're talking about how someone else trying to kill you will diminish your combat effectiveness.

One element in one game I wish other games would utilize was in the last Hitman game. Accuracy in the game required a steady easy squeeze on the trigger or pulling too hard would decrease accuracy. Wish more games would utilize it. I think bringing such to a hectic and competitive FPS games would be a great feature.

Now, of course video games will never be really real in but it's nice to notice these nice touches and talk about them, maybe if we as gamers did this enough other developers will take notice and include these small fine details in their games.

Aww man, that feature wasn't in the PC version

Seeing how I had to sell my gaming PC a few months ago I may give the first GoW another go. I'm in no position to be finicky at the moment lol
I can't take anymore CSS...

As someone who doesn't feel satisfied playing Euro Truck Simulator 2 without a Logitech G27 and running a range splitter shifter, I can tell you that there are people out there who don't feel satisfied without being able to control every aspect of operating a gun.

If any shooter claims to be a "sim" or "realistic" it should not have one-button reloads.

I'll stick with Big Rigs Over the Road Racing thank you very much.

I wont argue againts the satisfaction behind a realistic gun, but multiple button reloads are not realistic either, unless you design some sort of power glove thing where you actually have to do the reload process yourself, it wont be realistic, there is no difference between pushing one button and have the character play the animation and pushing multiple buttons for different stages of the animation.

It's not entirely realistic, but it's more realistic than "press X for full mag". That was my point. Some people want something as close to real as possible. Others just want a "game" experience. The topic of this thread was asking how realistic are guns portrayed in video games and my answer was, not very well. Anyone who has handled a real weapon knows this.

try ArmA if you want realism