Unclear Description: Fackler Scale Of FPS Realism

I came upon this page most recently thinking that I would add the game Receiver to it, and I realized almost immediately that, although the page instructed the editor to add examples in the correct rank order, it was almost impossible to figure out where that was because the guidelines for what factors affect FPS realism are so vaguely defined.

I see two approaches that might be promising to repair this deficit:

1. Invent a series of classifications, like on the Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness.
2. Invent a point-score system for traits, like on the Sorting Algorithm of Face-Heel Turning.

Either one of these would make it straightforward to divide the page into brackets, each of which could be sorted more easily (or unsorted, but less fatally).

When it comes to defining the system, the first two paragraphs offer some properties which are characteristic of the 'classic' and 'realistic' ends of the scale, such as:

• Fast movement vs. slower/fatigue-restricted movement.
• Bunny hopping vs. crouching/going prone.
• Dominance of exploding weapons like rocket launchers vs. sniper rifles and assault rifles.
• Large health gauges vs. Regenerating Health or Instant Death Bullet vs. limited health (and bleeding).

(There's a bunch more in those two paragraphs, but they aren't paired with tropes from the other end of the scale as naturally.)

edited 13th Oct '13 7:54:50 AM by RobinZimm

I think having categories would probably be the simplest. Five is probably the best numerically speaking, as it has extremes, a middle, and areas that aren't that extreme, but still leaning in one direction.

You could still write up some sort of point system, though it'd probably be simpler than Sorting Algorithm of Face-Heel Turning. Maybe something like a three-point scale for health, movement, accuracy, and equipment complexity. Or something like that.

I concur, having a few layered categories is clearer than having a continuous scale like this.

Categories make the most sense to me. The current system is clearly not workable for anyone who hasn't played every single game on the list.

Classifications seems to be a better route here than what is currently on the page.

I'm thinking something like this. The related tropes are just an approximation where I think they fit in, though I'm only casually familiar with the genre. Give or take a level.

• Classic: No regard for Real Life physics. (Rocket Jump, Double Jump, Joke Weapon, Made of Iron, One-Man Army, Bottomless Magazines)
• Semi-classic: Some token signs to approach realism, but mainly anything goes. (Powered Armor, Hyperspace Arsenal, Improbable Aiming Skills)
• Balanced: An even mix of realism and gameplay/fun tweaks. (Acceptable Breaks from Reality, Concealment Equals Cover, One Bullet Clips, Regenerating Health, Regenerating Shield, Static Health)
• Semi-realistic: Mainly realistic with a few concessions to allow for playability. (Boom, Headshot!, Take Cover!, Limited Loadout)
• Realistic: As close to full realism as is achievable. (No healing, wounds, mostly lethal shots, ammo management, limited interface, accuracy depending on position/movement)

I lean towards three categories rather than five; it makes examples easier to classify.

• Unconcerned with realism
• Somewhat concerned with realism
• Strongly concerned with realism

One issue that occurs to me is that in some cases "realism" isn't necessarily the right word, especially when used in specific breakdowns like that one. I could, for instance, conceivably imagine a sci-fi shooter that features "unrealistic" elements like Powered Armor as part of the setting, but totally avoids gameplay-based health and aiming tropes.

I think the problem is not that there are too many categories — it's that the categories are only defined by "more cowbell" and "less cowbell", rather than with specific divisions.

I think the larger problem with the category system is that there are a lot of games which aim for major realism on some axes while accepting large-scale Acceptable Breaks from Reality on others. For example, which should be listed as more Fackler: Half-Life, which uses imaginary and science-fictional weapons, but justifies a lot of the Rule of Fun tropes, or Nazi Zombies, which uses real weapons, but is an Excuse Plot bulletfest which between the powerups, perks, Pack-a-Punch machine, and endless waves of progressively more unkillable zombies, doesn't even pretend to realism?

Realism is about emulating the real world as closely as possible. You can still do that in a Sci-Fi setting, but most of those make some concessions for gameplay reasons, as one point of Sci-Fi is to have elements you can't have IRL. As I said, the tropes I mentioned aren't as much definitions as guidelines for where something could fall.

I'm fine with three categories as well.

What categories do you suggest, then? And as for your question, I'd file a game that doesn't even pretend to be realistic at classic, or at the very best semi-classic, going by what I wrote. Using real names doesn't make something more realistic. Half-Life would probably fall in the middle. Those games make a decent stab at realism, but don't let it get in the way of fun.

edited 16th Oct '13 6:46:34 PM by AnotherDuck

I'm not sure. I'd had a few loose boxes I'd come up with, but wasn't satisfied with:

1. Classic: Rule of Cool out the wazoo — Quake, Unreal Tournament, Nazi Zombies, Serious Sam...

2. SF: More justification, less randomness — Unreal, Halo, Half-Life (not familiar with the later Half Life games)...

3. Realistic: Actually draws weapons from reality instead of the dev's imaginations, but keeps a number of Acceptable Breaks from Reality and is willing to play fast and loose with the actual properties of the real weapons, the effects of taking hits, and other simulation elements — Left 4 Dead, Call of Duty...

4. Simulation: Simulates the actual effects of the specific firearms as best as possible — Rainbow Six...

The thing is, every time I try to break it down into a linear progression from explosionfests to models, I immediately think of paradigm-breaking cases. For example, in the above, the only logical place for Receiver is in the Realistic category, even though the game is a weird mix of the videogamey (the protagonist is a One-Hit-Point Wonder, ammo is randomly scattered throughout the level, the enemies are all robotic drones) and the hyperrealistic (where less ambitious games merely avert One Bullet Magazines, Receiver actually tracks the full internal states of the firearm and all magazines, to the point where you can load a full magazine into a gun with a bullet in the chamber and have one more round than the nominal capacity of the pistol).

I like Another Duck best of the options presented thus far, but I think Robin's got a point in that examples aren't going to slot neatly into one category or another — the example I was thinking of was Metro 2033, which mixes highly realistic things with highly unrealistic things. For example, the game has:

• absurdly detailed reload animations; one gun is a shotgun with a revolver-style six-shot "clip", with the top round being in the chamber and the bottom round being blocked by the stock, so you can only actually reload the four on the sides — and the reload animation takes this into account, to the point of having the player character manually cycle the mechanism to expose empty slots if necessary. It's a bit hard to explain properly; you can just watch it here, though.
• damage calculations that take into account every layer of equipment and clothing in the location of the shot; armor and helmets absorb a lot of damage, obviously, but equipment like radios, flashlights, and gas masks absorb a fair amount too, and even clothing absorbs a little. Shooting someone in a pocket will do slightly less damage than shooting them just to the side of that pocket, because there's an extra layer of cloth there
• Regenerating Health. Slower than most games that feature it, but you'll still go from "near death" to "perfectly fine" if you find somewhere to hide without getting shot and wait long enough.
• Hyperspace Arsenal, at least with ammo. Especially with "military grade rounds" (which double as the game's currency), where you can be carrying hundreds of rounds without comment.

edited 16th Oct '13 9:10:44 PM by NativeJovian

That would fall under his #3 category I believe. I agree with the 4 point category, for what it's worth.

I'm most inclined to agree with troacctid's proposal. Everything else feels kind of shaky and/or seems to run the risk of turning into one of those irritating "Type A" tropes.

My only problem with that is that "somewhat concerned with realism" is going to be 90% of the examples and isn't a very useful category.

Yeah, this form of middle category is just too broad, I'm afraid. That's why I support a 4 class item.

Let's see, new proposal, with the default category for when you cannot absolutely contain everything:

(Essentially 4 categories + other.)

• Classic: Rule of Cool, Rule of Fun.
• Speculative Realism: Sci-Fi, supernatural, zombies, etc. that aims for some degree of realism or believability.
• Realism: Mainly inspired by Real Life, but makes concessions for gameplay.
• Simulation: Tries to simulate Real Life as closely as possible.
• Other: A mix of classic designs and accurate simulation, or otherwise uncategorisable games.

I think you avoid the Type X problem simply by giving them descriptive names to begin with.

edited 17th Oct '13 5:17:04 AM by AnotherDuck

Another way to avoid the Type X problem is to create sub tropes of each type, like Anti-Hero did/(is doing).

I've got a gut feeling that four is enough, but I don't like "realistic" as a category, because I think it will encourage misuse for tropers thinking, "I think the game is very immersive", accidently substituting the types of tropes involved for how "real" the game feels.

• Classic FPS: Rule of Cool, Rule of Fun.
• Speculative Fiction FPS: some of the basic premise or tropes involved aren't possible with current science, but a Hand Wave is sufficient to cover Acceptable Breaks from Reality.
• Semi-gritty FPS: Very few unrealistic elements are included, Acceptable Breaks from Reality are minimized.
• Simulation FPS: Tries to simulate Real Life as closely as possible. May include some fantastic elements, which are rendered just as carefully as the real science is.

Jovian's Metro example would be Simulation, I think.

edited 17th Oct '13 6:35:51 AM by crazysamaritan

Yeah, "realistic" is almost as often misused as "irony" these days. That said, I agree with the four-point scale as shown in and , although we may have to tweak the terms a bit.

On another note: I'm sure most users have no idea who Martin Fackler is, and he doesn't have anything to do with video games; google clearly shows that this is a term we made up that is not in use anywhere else (approx 600 google hits total). On grounds of Clear Concise Witty, I think it would be a good idea to shorten the trope name to Scale Of FPS Realism.

Oddly, I agree with dropping the Fackler, but for a different reason: because Fackler didn't actually have any connection to the content of the scale. (In the case of the two TV Tropes Mohs scales, the name is there Just For Pun — here, the name seems to be there just because Fackler was a cool dude.)

Jovian's Metro example has the Hyperspace Arsenal and Regenerating Health, though. Would it be possible to come up with a category for partial simulation, in which a game with major Acceptable Breaks from Reality elements also has high-detail simulation aspects?

That's why I suggested having an Other category. Some things just don't fit neatly into categories, and I think it's better to have a place for them rather than to shoehorn them into categories they only partially fit. If that Other category gets bloated we may have to think about a different solution, or see if there's a pattern to what appears there.

I'd agree with changing the name to Scale Of FPS Realism.

I don't like using the word "gritty".

edited 17th Oct '13 10:06:33 AM by AnotherDuck

I would file Zimm's example under "mostly realistic" - two Acceptable Breaks from Reality (and fairly widespread ones) seem a bit too little to take away from realism.

I disagree with the "other", because the categories will always be "shoehorned", by definition. If each category listed four tropes the work must use, then any work that only used three is a shoehorn. Even worse if they have two from one, two from another. The categories have to be loose. The "realistic" end has to accept some reality-defying aspects, and the "classic" end has to accept some reality-imitation aspects.

I don't really like "gritty", either. I used "semi-gritty" as a compromise. I feel that the FPS that try to be more "realistic" use the term synonymously with "gory death scenes", and play up the well-modeled body contortions as the character dies. Do you know of a less appropriated term? (that pothole was supposed to lead to the opposite of Sarcasm Mode... Sincerity Mode?)

In Real Life, we technically have Regenerating Health, just much slower than a game can make practical use of. The use of a barter system based on ammunition is also very practical. So I think those are concessions to the medium, rather than "Classic elements of FPS design" for that example.

edited 17th Oct '13 9:49:47 AM by crazysamaritan

If examples are shoehorned into categories by definition then the categories are bad. So no, I can't agree with the notion that they're shoehorned by definition. Using four tropes it must use is a rather arbitrary definition anyway, and no one here has suggested using that.

The idea is to try to figure out what identity each game has, and place them along that line. Does the game as a whole strive to simulate something, or just to entertain?

If you don't have an Other category, you'd basically have to take the average of what something is if it doesn't fit, which kind of makes it a cowbell scale.

I don't mind using realistic as a term, though.

I don't like "gritty", either. Too Real Is Brown, I think.

Thoughts on the following modification of crazysamaritan's scale?

1. Classic FPS: Gameplay is largely defined by Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun. Elements of the game might be inspired by reality, but never in a way which interferes with the game experience. Examples: Nazi Zombies, Unreal Tournament.
2. Speculative Fiction FPS: The game incorporates fictional elements and Acceptable Breaks from Reality that lead to unrealistic gameplay, but these elements and breaks are generally Justified Tropes. Examples: Half-Life, Halo.
3. Realistic FPS: The preponderance of game elements are either based on real equivalents or intelligently extrapolated from present technology. Some Acceptable Breaks from Reality are included, but enough Real Life factors (e.g. fatigue, limited carrying capacity, steadiness of aim) are included to make the gameplay experience generally resemble an actual firefight. Examples: Call of Duty, Left 4 Dead.
4. Simulation FPS: These games not only employ real-life or intelligently speculated weapons, but make a specific point of simulating major elements of gunplay in detail. There may be Acceptable Breaks from Reality included, but play will be radically affected by the modeling of reality programmed into the game. Examples: Receiver, Metro 2033.

(...I feel like the Realistic FPS description ought to make it clear that Simulation FPSes don't belong, but I'm not sure how.)

edited 17th Oct '13 10:16:44 AM by RobinZimm