Video game guns have come a long way since the days of Doom’s double-barreled shotgun or even Goldeneye’s iconic Walther PPK. With greater processing power available to spend on physics engines, designers are now able to take factors like recoil and bullet drop into account when crafting their guns. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re plugging every real-world factor into their ballistic models. A recent article featured in Popular Mechanics explains why.

With many modern FPSs hitting the best-seller charts, it’s inevitable that gamers would wonder just how true to life these games are. Sure not many actual people (except maybe Curtis Jackson) could absorb the hundreds of rounds that most players soak up in the course of a single session – but are the guns gamers get to use in these games as accurate as possible? The answer is jointly yes and no.

Philippe Therien, a designer who worked on Rainbow Six Vegas 2, explains: “These consoles are so powerful, when you fire a bullet we could factor all of it in: windfall, range, everything about the history of that specific weapon, friction values for the barrel, how many times it’s been fired since it was last cleaned.” But the problem then becomes less compelling gameplay. Therien continues, “We could make it as anally realistic as possible. But we’re not trying to make a live simulator.”

So what about games that do aspire toward absolute simulation? America’s Army, an unapologetic recruiting game distributed for free by the U.S. Army, offers potential enlistees the chance to get a feel for real-world action. But it seems even here accuracy has taken a back seat, as developers admit that frame rate and the almighty fun-factor had to be considered first.

Gamers that would like a touch more realism in their shooters can certainly find it in several places. The popular Half-Life 2 mod Insurgency, available through Steam, features much more accurate representations of real-world weapons, as does Project Reality for Battlefield 2.