History/Realism vs gameplay

[tater]

I replied to a post regarding aircraft swarming a player in the other forum. He said that he got bombed a lot, but their accuracy was so lousy he'd not get damaged. I suggested that they (the devs) might have nerfed the accuracy because the bomb loads were so rediculously high.

Got me thinging about history/realism vs gameplay.

There have been a few discussions regarding realism, and I think there is a good reason that history and realism be the baseline state for a game such as SH4. The plane example above works perfectly.

Example 1: The devs don't bother to get the realism right regarding proper japanese bomb loads. They chcuk in the grossly wrong figures we see in vanilla SH4. In playtesting, they get sunk constantly by aircraft. So they make the planes aim poor. Alternately, they might nerf the bombs themselves such that a near miss by a 500kg bomb does less damage than it should.

That's an example where it would be better to start with the "clean slate" of accurate bomb loads and bomb damage, THEN tweak for gameplay.

Example 2: Escort AI. There have been many tweaks/mods on this already because of the perception that the AI stinks at ASW. The tweaks DO make ASW more effective, but the perception of incompetance on the part of the AI could also be because the AI levels on the vast majority of escorts is set to "novice" in the campaign mission files. Perhaps the devs dropped convoy ASW AI levels because they were too hard on competant, veteran, or elite. That might well be true since so many convoys are escorted by multiple fleet DDs, something that would have been rare even in late war. If the Task Force escorts are set to "elite" (and they almost all are), then the same DD types should be "elite" on convoy duty, the ship, officers, and crew are all the same, even if they get detached to convoy duty for a couple weeks. So ignoring history results in too many DD escorting each convoy (and too many convoys of too large a size). Because there are too many DDs, the AI is nerfed to make it easier.

There are more examples, but the basic idea is that the best starting point is accuracy because when things are realistic, we know what the outcomes SHOULD be. As soon as things are moved away from reality, cause and effect become less reliable—tweak this, then somethign downstream breaks, which requires another alteration, etc, ad nauseum.

tater

[castorp345]

well said, tater!

[joea]

:up:

[Ducimus]

Post title = http://uplink.space.com/attachments/407643-can_of_worms.jpg = http://www.wild.com/assets/fans/Gump.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

:rotfl:

[nfitzsimmons]

The problem is partly because of potential loss of sales. I first saw this with Gran Prix Legends. It was extremely realistic, but the realism made it so difficult to play that only the truly hard-core who were willing to spend every waking hour practicing could come close to succeeding at it.

Not that many copies of it were sold because of this. If SH III or SH IVwere 100% realistic I wouldn't want to play it because, particularly in SH III, I don't really want to invest in a game (sim) there's a 75% chance you're gonna die, no matter how good you are. Like playing Russian roulette with 5 chambers loaded. Why bother?

If you don't sell a certain number of copies you're going to lose money, and you won't develop the next product to lose money. For some games 100% realism just don't cut it.

[Wave Skipper]

I see we are back to making ubi excuses. HAVE WE EVER HEARD OF SETTINGS? Options. Easy, Medium, Hard.

Uh, duh

[nfitzsimmons]

That was my point. I won't play a game for very long that isn't fun for me, no matter how accurate and realistic. As a old ex-Marine friend used to say, "You don't have to practice being miserable."

If you want realism in Silent Hunter, play while having a friend or spouse pour buckets of cold salt water over your head.

[Jungman]

tater, I like your idea.:sunny:

I want a simulator, not an arcade game. We have enough of them!

[Egan]

That was my point. I won't play a game for very long that isn't fun for me, no matter how accurate and realistic. As a old ex-Marine friend used to say, "You don't have to practice being miserable."

If you want realism in Silent Hunter, play while having a friend or spouse pour buckets of cold salt water over your head.

Would say the same thing about a sim like 'Falcon?'

It sometimes feels as if those of us who want realism and historical accuracy were to say the converse of that such as 'If you don't want realism or accuracy go and play 'Battlestations Midway or something.' we would get labelled as realism Nazis or similar.

I want my sim to actually simulate something. Otherwise, why bother?

[Egan]

Oh yeah: I AM a realism Nazi by the way..Just in case anyone was wondering...:p

The thing is. I would love all the boring stuff: Trim dives, proper navigation (or at least simplified so I can ask my naivgator to take a star/sun fix etc) and, yes, I would not be bothered If i died way 75% of the time - i frequently do anyway. And I'm happy about my career ending after half a dozen patrols and getting shipped to a desk job.

I like getting an idea from the sim what it was like in real life. A tiny idea, granted, but an idea nevertheless.

[akdavis]

The problem is partly because of potential loss of sales. I first saw this with Gran Prix Legends. It was extremely realistic, but the realism made it so difficult to play that only the truly hard-core who were willing to spend every waking hour practicing could come close to succeeding at it.

Not that many copies of it were sold because of this. If SH III or SH IVwere 100% realistic I wouldn't want to play it because, particularly in SH III, I don't really want to invest in a game (sim) there's a 75% chance you're gonna die, no matter how good you are. Like playing Russian roulette with 5 chambers loaded. Why bother?

If you don't sell a certain number of copies you're going to lose money, and you won't develop the next product to lose money. For some games 100% realism just don't cut it.

Problem is that there are a lot people whose egos get hung up on that number 100 and feel that whatever realism level they are comfortable with and enjoy should be the benchmark for the number, and will even argue for aspects of the game to be stricken rather than made as additional options so that nothing cuts into their 100%. (I've seen it with Il-2 for years and I've seen it here already). Even though these same individuals' standard will creep higher as they play the game more and seek more challenge, they will never acknowledge that they were not at "100%" before. Then there are the die-hard elitists nuts who care more about competition than an immersive experience and go around using the same arbitrary number to club people about the head who they don't consider worthy to play the sim.

Sometimes I wish that number said 100% no matter what options were selected. It would save us all alot of grief and conflict, and maybe allow the devs more latitude to include "full real" features that might not have broad appeal (at least at first).

And I'm a full real guy who's number says 88% and doesn't give a damn.

[nfitzsimmons]

Actuallt I don't give a damn what anybody else's realism number is. I was just pointing out that if you make the bar too high to begin with a lot of people won't even try. And the won't buy the game. And UBISoft (or whoever) won't write more games.

I'll play at a realism level that lets me enjoy the experience, and I hope that everybody else will do the same, whatever realism level that happens to be.

I just bought SH III, installed it, and didn't even load it before I installed GWX. I've never even seen the base game. I just finished re-reading Iron Coffins (read it first about 18 years ago) and at this point I have realism settings set lower so I can learn how the game works without dying on the first patrol.

Iron Coffins reminded me how easily German submariners died in real life. Sailing out pr port and dying in the first 24 hours four times in a row ain't my idea of fun, and it doesn't give you a chance to LEARN anything.

As I get better I'll crank up the realism until I'm not having fun anymore, then I'll turn it down a little. And I'm sure not going to look down on anybody who wants to play at a lower level than I am.

I don't mind have the increased difficulty available, but please lets hope that the developeers leave the game accessable to novices or casual gamers. Not everybody wants to make it a career.

[nvdrifter]

Good post Tater. I think each player here wants a different level of realism in SH4. I think the main problem is that SH4 was rushed during development. It would have taken the dev team too much time and money to do serious historical research to make this game ultra realistic. But also, it's about money. Arcade games sell the most. Hard-core sims are a dying breed. But I think players should be given choices. There really isn't a right or wrong way to play SH4... there's just opinions.

[nfitzsimmons]

Good post Tater. I think each player here wants a different level of realism in SH4. I think the main problem is that SH4 was rushed during development. It would have taken the dev team too much time and money to do serious historical research to make this game ultra realistic. But also, it's about money. Arcade games sell the most. Hard-core sims are a dying breed. But I think players should be given choices. There really isn't a right or wrong way to play SH4... there's just opinions.

I agree with you; that was the point I was trying to make. Just didn't do it very well, I guess.

[tater]

My point wasn't to be a realism fiend (though I am one), it was that realism is the best benchmark for the devs to shoot for, then gameplay tweaks should be variations on reality, instead of the engine being unrealistic, and mods required to hack in realism.

The bottom line is that if it were a perfect simulation (not possible, I'm talking theory here) then cause and effect would by definition "work." As certain simplifications are made, errors in expected outcomes happen. Also, sometimes game/SIM devs are strong technically, and try to "sim" too much and lose the forest for the trees. They get overly concerned with something like the exact hydrodynamics of a torpedo, and only give a cursory look into the ASW capabilities of the escorts to make sure they act in a way that makes sense. Il-2 has a lot of that. Technical stuff is very nitty gritty, but then some things are total cartoons of reality (damage models for all non-aircraft targets, for example, or the inability for their AI to fly certain planes the primary way they were used operationally (no minimum alt attacks are even possible for AI strafer-bombers in Pacific Fighters, all those 5th AF planes, and they can't do their jobs right).

So in general, I'd prefer the code to be written to be insanely realistic to the extent that is feasible/cost effective, then have it simlified for gameplay via difficulty tweaks. Everyone would still get the level of play they want, but the engine would have the hardcore "sim" as the guts.

tater

[shad43]

Hmmm, all faults aside Im pretty darn happy :D SH4 beats the heck outta the first sim I ever played...it was a little round bead of light bouncing between 2 rectangular beads of light....I think we called it pong :hmm:

Cheers :up:

[tater]

What I see again and again is that when they aim into the "fun" target area instead of the "realism" target area, they tend to get neither, at least int he long term.

I thought of another disappointing example. I followed the early dev stuff regarding Pirates of the Burning Sea. They wanted the game to have the sailing model of the HMS Surprise simulator, only pretty and with a good user interface. They have dumbed it down instead. Now ships will be able to sail into the wind in the name of "playability." Nevermind that it would be possible to have a user interface, and even AI help that would make realistic sailing playable. They simply elected to let all ships sail in any direction at some minimal speed. Sounds like a simple compromise to prevent people from getting stuck in irons, or making sternway to tack (not at all uncomoon in that time period), but so much tactic nuiance is lost by even a 1-2 knot headway past close-hauled. Battle of the Nile? Impossible, the French just sail into the wind. Thinking seriously about when the right moment to tack is? Nah, no worries. So they'll end up in a game with homoginized combat reduced to broadside to broadside slugfests instead of maneuver and seamanship. So in an attempt to make the game accessible, they made it in a way that will result in quickly tiresome engagements.

Seems to me that replay value is also important. If it's too easy to sink loads of the enemy, it gets boring fast. Some of my best online ww2 aircraft flights have been gas tank draining affairs where I saw only one contact.

[castorp345]

I thought of another disappointing example. I followed the early dev stuff regarding Pirates of the Burning Sea. ...

a brilliant though, as you say, highly dissapointing example! 'couldn't agree with you more on this. i was really looking forward to PoBS until these 'gamey' shananigans ousted any sense of virtual seamanship...

scratch one customer.

:down:

[tater]

Yeah, I've messed witht he surprise simulator, and I have no desire for that level of complexity. OTOH, I want the physics, the outcomes, to be realistic. Soo I'm perfectly happy with a slide bar for the speed I'd like the ship to make given the direction I happen to be going. Heck, I'd be fine with an AI Sailing Master. "Mr. Allen, put us 1 cable length from her on the larboard tack" 2 hours later, there we'd be, the computer would do the math :)

tater