SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Can anyone explain to me why they're not depressed by games that always end in death?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

- - Can anyone explain to me why they're not depressed by games that always end in death? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114532)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK1044

In my view, for this to be a sim, 100 percent reality settings would need to be forced on you just as they were forced on the real guys. But if that was done, then most people would find the game too challenging and not enough fun.

I'll grab that paragraph and run with it even further.

This in my view means:

No time compression and no external camera at all :88)

Actually, as much of a wrench as it might seem, removing the external camera view adds massively to the feeling that you are trapped on the sub.

I'll admit, it takes a lot to click that option, but if you've never tried it, give it a go, you'll be surprised how much difference it makes to the thing. Although challenging, it might be a little bit too much reality for many, so I don't recommend it if you're purely in it for fun however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK1044

I'll grab that paragraph and run with it even further.

This in my view means:

No time compression and no external camera at all :88)

In 100 degree tempratures and 99% relative humidity mixed with the smells of stale food and body sweat for days, no weeks at a time.

Some of the sailors dident see daylight again untill there "tour" was over.

Without the good chance of "getting killed" aka Game Over why would anyone play ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beery

It seems to me that many simulation type games are often not very good simulations because they all overstate the chances of getting killed by a lot. SH4 is a good example. In reality the US submarine service had about 250 subs and each sub commander did around ten patrols. That's 2500 patrols. Submarines were lost in only 50 of those patrols. That means that the actual chances of a sub being sunk were one in 50 patrols. Now the average commander did only about five patrols, so his chances of getting killed during his tenure as a sub commander were around one in ten.

In SH4, in my experience, the chance of the player's sub being sunk is about one in every 5 patrols - that's close to a 100% chance of getting killed during a career.

10% mortality rate (in reality) versus close to 100% (in the sim) - there's a huge disconnect there.

I've never understood why players seem so willing to accept this. When I play a sub game I would prefer to watch my crew grow and then survive to retire, just as nine out of ten sub commanders did. But with the game as it is in the stock version it's virtually impossible to do that.

I've heard the argument about excitement - that players want to have a lot of stuff happening on patrol - lots of danger, close escapes, depth charges, torpedo impacts, sonar pings, tenacious destroyers etc., but in my view all that stuff is only fun if it's realistic, and all too often it's not. Plus there's the fact that endless excitement ends up in death, and death is boring and depressing. If all careers are virtually guaranteed to end in death it seems to me that all careers become an exercise in futility.

Don't other players find this depressing, as I do? Don't other players ever think that it would be nice to survive a career? Why aren't other players up in arms about this issue?

I'm with you man!

That's why my sub is equipped with nuclear Deck Gun ammo and Torpedoes that sink a ship from the 1st hit. Go me! :D
I love my crew too much to let them sink. What about their kids and wives? No way man! They gotta go back and tell all those stories about the "Good ol' days" to their kids, grandchildren etc!

YAAAAAAAAARRR! :arrgh!:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chock

Hehhe ive been saying that for months. :arrgh!:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK1044

In my view, for this to be a sim, 100 percent reality settings would need to be forced on you just as they were forced on the real guys.

No, sorry, in my view this is flat out false. Why are you trying to re-invent the wheel anyway? By your standards, not even Falcon 4.0 or Flanker 1.5 would have been a sim. That there might be OPTIONS which are OPTIONAL for the INDIVIDUAL to decide using them for it to DECONSTRUCT it as a sim doesn't mean that it cannot be a sim. Simple logic actually. And there wouldn't have been ANY commercially available sims EVER actually, by your reasoning, and that is just not a fact. If I can talk to a RL fighter pilot and he's asking me how I know about all this stuff and what my job is and he even thought it was confidential what I was talking about, then you simply cannot say "there are no sims" for the PC. It is FALSE.

I think I know where you are coming from though: What you are basicly saying is that if you seek a simulation, you will only find it in military training centers where they prepare you for the real deal. If you buy a computer game, you will never buy a sim at the same time, cause in the end, it's - well - a computer game.
But as I said, you are trying to re-invent the wheel here. Regardless how close a computer simulation game gets to its professional military counterpart, the fact is *of course* that there have always been computer games *for fun* since someone came up with the idea to provide entertainment via that grey box thingy, via providing GAMES for it. But another fact *also* is that SIMULATIONS were ONE GENRE of those games available.
And the ultimate goal for a SIMULATION within this computer game environment is to provide that entertainment via SIMULATING the REAL WORLD as closely as possible for those who enjoy that, as this is the NATURE of a SIMULATION and thereby of the SIMULATION GENRE. It is still about entertainment, but the verdict is that for those people, those simulation nerds, who buy simulations, the real world counterpart being simulated as closely as possible simply IS the ENTERTAINMENT. This whole realism vs fun (or entertainment) debate seems totally besides the point to me, as REALISM = FUN, because I, and any serious sim nerd, pretty much wants to get as close to real experience as possible, and this is where the fun lays. Realism and fun are not two things opposing each other - instead, for the true simmer, realism LEADS to fun.

And that's all I have to say about that. ;)