Aversions would be rare for video games. Some games may give the illusion of an aversion while mechanically functioning as the trope describes. Like for instance the STALKER series of games or some of the Tom Clancy themed games. Mostly the early Clancy games. The Swat 3 and 4 games would also count.
Tropes are flexible so if it reasonably looks like an aversion it can probably be counted as one. Just make sure it is an aversion and not a subversion.
Edited by 208.77.174.14 Who watches the watchmen?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I am partly to blame for this part of the entry and it is not necessary to explain the trope but would serve as a decent entry on a trivia or analysis page.
- The two chief mechanics for gunshot injuries are direct damage caused by the bullets impact and passing through the body. The other is caused by Hydrostatic shock
. Direct impact destroys the tissue directly leaving a wound cavity or channel that leads to profuse bleeding and any number of possible complications described above. Hydrostatic shock comes from the pressure wave of a high velocity round transferring energy into the fluid filled spaces of the body including organs, blood vessels, and soft tissue in general leading to ripping and tearing of tissues and organs as well injuries usually seen from blast waves in explosions.
Hydrostatic shock. I thought that one was disproven and actually invented in vietnam by medics who wanted to explain why their patients had died from non-fatal wounds when the real answer was incompetence?
Hide / Show Replies
Its real but I wouldn't rely on it. I'm not an expert.
Will I be informed if people reply to my discussion post?
Okay, what exactly is this trope trying to cover? That in games, guns do measured damage, rather than infinite? Of course they do; so do all other weapons. This isn't any more or less realistic in itself than swords doing measured damage.
If a game has guns doing puny damage, its Guns Are Worthless. If a game has guns doing ridiculous infinite damage, its Instant Death Bullets. If all this trope is, is some bizarre middle ground for all cases that aren't one or the other, I say it should go.
Hide / Show Replies
The point of the article seems to me to be that, in Real Life, gunshot wounds can have effects ranging from Guns Are Worthless all the way up to Instant Death Bullet, but in things like Video Games and Tabletop Games, guns usually deal some arbitrary amount of damage — which is why in most games guns tend towards one extreme or the other. The problem is, the article isn't terribly clearly written, and I have no idea what that thing about recoil has to do with anything. It could definitely use some clarification.
I believe the article is saying the higher the recoil, the more damage a gun should do, which while true in most cases, esp. handguns, does not apply evenly to guns with recoil dampening or dispersion. I thought the article wasn't about guns should do measured damage about where they hit, but about guns should do different types of damage depending on where they hit. Like a shot to the forearm might make someone unable to wield a gun but would still be able to melee, but a shot to the shoulder would either bleed out, flesh wound, or disable the arm. Considering the bullet spread and the size of body parts, such effects would be pretty much random in a game.
Will I be informed if people reply to my discussion post?
Are there any actual video game aversions where guns resemble (as much as possible) the characteristics of their real-life counterparts, and aren't intentionally changed for balancing/leveling purposes or off thanks to a lack of research? The only possible one I can think of is America's Army. Even looking at the data for the more ostensibly ballistically realistic tactical shooters indicates major discrepancies. It seems like the intro should mention that this trope is almost universal in video games.
Hide / Show Replies