If you could design a perfect video game

Exactly. While I agree that they should model full auto fire a lot better, in particular muzzle climb, the sniping stuff is absurdly easy. And it sucks to have some dickhead running around quick-scoping, or sniping from across the map that you can’t see…

Look at it this way; the military trains thousands of middling intelligence and skill civilian teenagers and young adults to be fully-fledged infantrymen every year in about 5 months.

Snipers on the other hand, require your average soldier to already be a rated infantryman, meet certain test scores, and have achieved a certain rank. And on top of that, they have to be rated “Expert” in marksmanship, meet certain physical fitness requirements, meet certain vision requirements, qualify for a certain security clearance, pass a psychological examination, and finally pass Sniper School. Snipers are RARE. There aren’t snipers assigned to every company or anything idiotic like that- I suspect that your average Battlefield or Call of Duty player might see a sniper every 10th match or so at most if they were as uncommon as they actually are.

Seems kind of shitty to me to abstract all that away and let any and all garden variety players be ‘snipers’ just because they choose that rifle in the fit-out screen.

I’d say let them choose the rifle, but make it realistically difficult- in other words, you’re just some grunt who happens to be wielding a sniper rifle, and about as bad as your average grunt would be with it at 400 yards.

Which kind of leads me into my second thought; rather than let you choose a set of several classes out of the gate, a-la the *Battlefield * games (it’s been a while since I played the CoD ones, so I don’t remember how they worked), start everyone as that qualified infantryman I mentioned above. You know how to operate all the weapons and have a basic level of skill. Then, as you play, your skills would get better as you use them, and you’d accumulate XP, and be able to spend your XP when you gain each level. Enhanced gear would be essentially randomly found, but you’d have a wide variety of balanced ‘standard’ weaponry, etc… that you can take at any time. Accoutrements like ACOG scopes, extended magazines, cosmetic improvements, etc… would be purchasable with XP, but would basically be at the expense of skills if that’s the way you want to roll.

So you’d start out as the usual basic player, and if you were to throw a lot of grenades, your grenade skill would improve. If you fired a lot with your pistol, that would improve. Larger weapons would probably have a handful of skills that would be applicable- aim, control, recovery, etc… and different weapons would enhance different ones in different ways. So if you were firing something like a M14, that would tend to improve aim more than recovery or control, while firing a M240 would enhance control and recovery more than aim. Sniper rifles would enhance aim and control almost exclusively. Your average assault rifle would enhance all about equally. And so on - even with non-weapon skills like first aid, demolitions, rocket launchers, etc… . Basically you’d be able to get good at how you actually play, but wouldn’t necessarily be good at other roles.

Even at that, sniping wouldn’t be ‘easy’, just not quite impossible.

So if you wanted to be the second coming of Vasili Zaitsev, you’d have to pick that sniper rifle, but you’d also have to have built up your aim and control skills, as well as picked up some sniper-specific perks like “hold breath”, “camouflage”, “stealth”, or something like that, AND be actually good enough yourself to do it well (you’d have to have practiced yourself as the player).

So there would still be assholes who would be sniping from across the map, but chances are, most people wouldn’t bother with the level of dedication required to be a good sniper, and you’d know that your good sniper across the map paid his dues by having been a bad shot and easy to spot for a good while as he built up his skills.

It sounds like you want a mix of grand strategy, first-person shooter, and role-playing skill-ups all in one game. Be careful though, by giving established players an advantage with weapon skills and automatic aim assist, you are effectively raising a barrier to entry and putting a bottleneck on your multiplayer community.

~Max

It’s interesting that the prevailing assumption here is that the perfect video game is

  1. A first person shooter or RPG,
  2. That is even more immersive and realistic than current ones.

It seems to me that it is absolutely true that at some point realism is no longer desirable in a video game. One can enjoy a fully realistic, immersive combat experience by turning off the PS4 and driving to a recruitment center. Games are inherently escapist; they have to have some degree of unrealism to be fun.

“FTL: Faster than Light” is not a first person game and has blocks graphics, but is a better game than 99% of all FPS shooters and MMORPGs ever made. More and more realism and immersiveness might not actually be the right direction.

I’d be cool with that. Most multiplayer players are toxic 12 year old idiots or asshole foreigners to begin with. I can do without them.

I didn’t say automatic aim assist; I was meaning that your wobble would become slower and/or smaller in amplitude. I guess where I’m going is that getting loot and/or perks just because you grind is crap; there should be some consideration and choice involved- if you want that gold plated AK-47, that’s at the expense of being a better shot, for example.

I could do without the grand strategy part if the game designers would just rein in the grossly stupid stuff and make things like cover matter, sniper rifles less useful, and machine guns more useful.

I mean, if your peeve is campers, I don’t really see how that’d help - it’d only take a couple spotting rounds to know exact distance and which point of the scope is the “zero” from your vantage point to where you’re shooting. Then you just learn those by heart from map to map for your favourite keyhole spots.

That doesn’t solve the problem of camping bitches. At all.

What does is good map design that doesn’t *have *perfect keyholed sniping positions and lets people flank snipers who spend all of their time looking one way. That, or mortars - I remember having a lot of fun in multiplayer Vietcong, playing as the radioman class and calling pin-fucking-point off-map arty support. Which you did by pulling out a vague gridmap of the zone and guesstimating where the enemy was on it ; not modern warfare laser pointing ! You had to read the old timey map on your own.

Personally I prefer chess. My perfect video game may well be a puzzle or adaptation of a board game.

~Max

I think what happened was that some of us were describing the “perfect game” as a sort of hybrid- my example in particular was really 3 or 4 games that would be conjoined, much like Silent Hunter II and Destroyer Command were coupled so that one player could be the submarine, and the other could be the destroyer. Except in this case, each game would encompass different levels of command- the bottom level would be a FPS with maybe squad level command. The second game would be company, battalion and maybe brigade command, and the third would be division and corps command. Only the very first one would be a FPS.

But a lot of people play FPS games, and a lot of those play the military themed ones, so that’s a normal place to discuss game improvements.

For my money, one of the very best games to come out in the past 5 or so years is “Dead by Daylight”, which isn’t a FPS at all- it’s basically a horror movie survival game where you play one of several iconic movie (or movie-style) killers, or survivors, in a sort of netherworld setting. It’s awesome.

But the real issue is that a lot of what makes a video game “perfect” is game design and balance- for example, a game that’s very replayable is going to appeal to some, while others (like me) prefer one that’s really good on the first playthrough, and don’t give a crap about replayability. A perfect game would have both done well, or at least a balance between them.

That’s a good point. The complaints about sniping aren’t about sniping exactly. They’re about BALANCE. Snipers have a place in warfare, and a war game without snipers would be weird, but the problem is a lack of balance. There is a reason that in real life armies aren’t made entirely of snipers; snipers are merely a supporting arm, and would be easily defeated if you tried to win a war just with them.

What brings a game together can be a really immensely complex set of variables.

As a baseball nut, I play quite a lot of “Out of the Park Baseball.” The game is immensely complex, featuring realistic rules regarding players transactions, highly realistic game results, negotiating contracts with your pitching coach, and stuff like that. But they actually leave a lot of stuff out; you don’t, for instance, set the price of beer or baseball caps at the park, or spend money upgrading the clubhouse so your millionaire players like it more, or deal with PR disasters, or decide between hiring field scouts or hiring analysts, or negotiate a broadcasting deal, or bribe a city councillor to build you a new stadium, or a thousand other things. Those are things that really do happen in real life professional sports, and they can matter, but the OOTP designers - who’ve been doing this for 15-20 versions, at least - are trying to create a game that’s balanced. If the idea is you’re running a baseball team, you want to present the challenge of fielding a championship team within boundaries of professional sports that makes sense, like money limitations and the rules of how the league works, but you don’t want it to feel like an actual job or accidentally put something into the game a player can exploit to win the World Series every year. The game could be WAY more realistic above its existing amazing level of realism. But more realism of detail would not really make it FEEL substantially more realistic and immersive, and would add the risk of breaking its balance.

Exactamundo! It’s not necessarily the realism aspect of the games that makes them best; otherwise everyone would be playing ARMA III instead of Call of Duty.

But good game design, including balancing the various aspects is critically important. I’ve seen plenty of examples of great ideas brought low by bad execution and poor design (including balance), and a few examples of mediocre concepts uplifted by terrific and well thought out execution.

Honestly, if given the chance, I’d rather play the latter. A truly great game is one that has both a really novel/interesting concept AND is well designed and well-executed.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of larger games (AAA?) are trying to be all things to all people, and no game is going to be successful at that. I mean, Fortnite looks absolutely dismal to me, while I enjoy playing ARMA III from time to time. But something like a Battlefield game or Call of Duty game is trying to basically appeal to both sets of players to some degree, and is a compromise to both.

That’s an interesting point; the answer to the OP’s question is probably always going to be different from gamer to gamer. I have played thousands of hours of baseball simulation games, while some people have no interest at all in that, and an effort to make a game that would interest both me and the person whose tastes are opposite mine will probably fail to interest either of us.

Yes, for me the perfect game wouldn’t be a FPS, but one that I know would be a niche game with very limited appeal.

My game would be a realistic Formula 1 racing sim along the lines of the Codemasters series, but with a career mode that would run over multiple historical seasons. You would start out as a rookie driver in the starting year of your choice and work your way up through the ranks over the years. The drivers, teams, and tracks would change over time, and the cars would evolve as they are developed to meet changing technical regulations, all as they did in real life. This time period would cover at least the last decade, but ideally any year in the history of F1.

Have you ever played Slugfest? The old man loved that one. It’s just like normal baseball sims circa 2005, but if you get angry you catch on fire and start beating the pitcher up. Plus, STL had a great lineup.

~Max

America’s Army did that back starting in 2002 (I haven’t played since about 08?, but it’s apparently on version 5 or so). You die, you’re out until the round ends. You can spectate or quit. Sniping was as easy as point and click sniping might ever be, but you were limited by team slots to only having a specific number of scoped rifles/medics/grenade or rocket launchers. That helped.

So did the second and third Rainbow Six games (Rogue Spear and Raven Shield). Sniping wasn’t quite so easy either; basically it took you a little while to get on target, and it was actually more difficult the closer you were, to an extent.

What was cool about those games is that while the canned maps were generally oriented toward having maybe a single overwatch sniper and an assault team, since they were just the single-player maps reworked in multiplayer, there was a map editor, and a whole bunch of super-cool player community-generated maps- I particularly remember one that was basically a kid’s bedroom and bathroom, but it was scaled such that the players were about the size of a GI Joe/Star Wars figure. So what you had was a mix of long-range sniper-centric maps, mixed maps with outdoors and indoors settings for snipers and CQB, and cramped CQB maps (a-la Nuketown in CoD).

This…would be awesome…

Total war:Battletech

real time commanding actual serious planetary assaults and or multi regimental mech battles.

Preferably with a campaign mode allowing
salvage and repair simulation
pilots gaining experience
needs for recovery of downed mechs and rescue pilots.
having to maintain fleets of dropships as needed to support invasions.
planets being large enough that enemy forces could actually avoid detection for a while if they make the effort or set up temporary bases to fall back to and repair/rearm far enough away to be annoying to find.

That sounds a bit like the open-world survival game DayZ (originally created as a mod for ArmA II). Death came with actual “risk” because you started with nothing and it often took a long time to “gear up”. It made for a really tense game as you never knew if another player was going to help you out or kill you and take your shit. Or you might just get your head blown off randomly by some dot on the horizon with a .50 cal rifle. Then you’re back on the beach with nothing.

A cool concept, but after 5+ years of development, they ended up with a deeply flawed game, both technically and playability. It’s like they never figured out the right balance of scrounging around eating twigs and berries by yourself for hours and Call of Duty on a giant map where half the players are in T-shirts and the other half are decked out like Spetsnaz commandos.

VR Planetfall.

I’ve started back into gaming after a pretty long hiatus. I’m currently immersed in the world of Red Dead Redemption 2. I love the amazing scenery and immersive worlds coupled with a story line that keeps you progressing.

I also love history, so I think video games that combined the two would be my preferred version (I liked how Assassin’s Creed did this to some extent).

For example, how about a Lewis & Clark expedition game? You are a member of their party who has to traverse the continent. There’d be tons to explore and do (e.g. you’d need to hunt for food or go up ahead of the group to locate native tribes) with whatever various missions (a fellow explorer gets lost going down the river, and you need to rescue him) that would ensure a linear story.

Similarly, how about a simulation game where you are a slave who needs to escape via the Underground Railroad? It would be incredibly important not to trivialize the experience, but I can imagine a game where you start out on a planation (and have to do various things to survive), then have to escape North. If done with respect, it could be a fascinating game that also serves a valuable learning experience.

Also, what about a game that puts you in the American Revolution? You can hit all of the big points (perhaps being a messenger for General Washington; you’d certainly need to be at the winter of Valley Forge, along with other key locations). I’d love a game like that. Same thing with the Civil War - let me interact with Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, et al while running missions or delivering messages.

To be historically accurate, an Underground Railroad game would have to be really, really hard: Only a couple of percent of runaway slaves made it to the end alive. And a really hard game to drive that point home might well have social value… but I’d have to think that making it realistically hard would drive popularity way down. Maybe have an adjustable difficulty scale that went Beginner - Super Easy - Easy - Medium - Realistic, or something.