Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.