They didn't participate in the TRS, and there was no consensus that I can find to do the revert. I'd put a report in Ask The Tropers.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Can someone explain to me why Aliance of valiant arm,a game know for having specail heroes character better at anything(even a striperific heroe having better armor than a armored soldier), A zombie mode where you need entire mags to kill anything, and a gameplay mainly based on gun and run and jumping arround to evade the ennemy aim being on the SIMULATIONIST category ?
Why is counter strike even here, with it's "hip fire 100% precision" and money system, which often make the less equiped than the terrorist, or battlefield with it's "one man pilot a tank", regenerating health, and squadmember poping out of nowhere in the middle of a fight here too ?
All those games are not even trying to be realistic, only hollywood style realist. why are they so many games on section that not even remotely enter the description of the section ?
Fear me
Who or what is Fackler? The article doesn't say what the scale is named after.
Hide / Show Replies
From the archived discussion
"Dr. Fackler was a military surgeon in Vietnam and has written extensively about various aspects of medical treatment of gunshot wounds".
Where do Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and its mods come in in this list?
Hide / Show Replies
I looked up this page today thinking about adding Receiver, a miniature indie FPS focused on the mechanics of gun operation, and I realized quickly that it would be basically impossible for me to sort the entry onto the page.
I know this is a subject for the Trope Repair Shop, and if TRS weren't full I'd be posting it as a thread there ... but would it be possible to come up with some sort of point-score system for classifying examples? Or at least some reference points to fit the examples into blocks? And if it is, would you be willing to lend a hand?
Hide / Show Replies
It's strange to see "basic level design" cited as lack of realism in Doom and similar games, when more recent "realistic" First Person Shooters like Call of Duty are notorious for No Sidepaths, No Exploration, No Freedom.
Why are Gun Z, Gears of War, Total Overdose, World of Tanks, and Mafia on a list dedicated to FPS games when their gameplay is third-person by default? We should either remove these examples or change the name of the article to "Fackler Scale of FPS and TPS realism" to accommodate more TPS games.
Hide / Show Replies
If you can change the title in that way, go ahead. I created this page, and it's my fault for overlooking third-person-shooters, though I hope most understand the similarity between the two subgenres.
Why is there a example under realistic? the example should be OVER realistic, whoever edited that could use some reading skills.[no, its not the examples under "other".] I had to remove the example under realistic, which is why its gone
Edited by Snippyshelf7
This list really isn't ranked. Placement is going to be pretty subjective, but it doesn't look like most entries even made that much effort.
Subjectively, there's a fine line between a Troll and someone who lives just to piss you off.
I'm sorry, I just don't understand why we even bother having the "Realistic" banner. Nothing is under there, and it's unlikely anything will ever be. The page looks kind of strange with this entire section that is totally empty.
Edited by TheNoun Hide / Show Replies
Read the last paragraph of the article; nothing is supposed to be under Realistic, that's just the opposite end of the scale from Classic.
Subjectively, there's a fine line between a Troll and someone who lives just to piss you off.
E Kono Mai has objected to the TRS thread consensus
in the following edit reason, 17th Feb '14 11:33:44 PM, which was attached to a major restructuring of the page:
Given the amount of effort said troper put into resorting the page, I think it behooves those of us who supported the TRS consensus to be willing to reopen the discussion and allow E Kono Mai input over the final form, but I also believe that no one person, however passionate, should have the right to unilaterally overturn a TRS-thread decision — even one with as weak a consensus as this one had.
Edit: It must be noted, however, that no note indicating the existence of a TRS discussion was placed on the page after the redefinition; if errors were made, that was the first one.
Edited by 96.255.225.223 Hide / Show Replies