Since when does unintuitive gameplay = better sim?

CaptHawkeye · 04-07-08, 08:43 AM

Allow me to describe this. I've noticed in games like Il-2 their is an option to turn exterior views off, for what the game believes is added realism. But in all honesty, how is that realistic? We interact with the world in the game through a keyboard and TV screen. I can't realistically bend my head and control my view in the cockpit the way a real pilot could no matter what you do to facilitate it. (Even with TrackIR and whatnot.) When the player is in this position, he LOSES situational awareness. That's why whe someone asks me what is more realistic in a sim, exterior view off vs exterior views on, I say exterior views ON is more realistic. Because it simulates the player's situational awareness.

Now for some reason, some people don't take this too well. They complain that "REALL WW2 PILOTS CAN'T SEE THINGS VIA MAGICAL DISEMBODIED CAMERA" to which I retort "well real WW2 pilots also didn't have to interact with the world via 21 inch screen and keyboard. So their situational awareness was greater." This is just absurd to me, it is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE to claim that a simulation is more realistic when you make it HARDER TO PLAY. It actually becomes more unrealistic! (Cheating AI in many sims notwithstanding.)

Their is another complaint, one closer to home. I heard people had been complaining about U-Boat mission's "surface unit control". That it was "unrealistic" to allow submarine commanders that kind of control. But in all honesty, that's just absurd nitpicking. When did the sim community adopt some kind of religious standpoint on what a sim is and is not? Their is some kind of criteria now that a sim must meet or it is "not simmy enough". They seem to totally forget that no matter how you cut it, a simulation is a VIDEO GAME. It should be FUN to play. What seperates a sim from a normal action game like Halo is that a sim has increased emphasis on realism and actual physics than a normal game. Fundamentally, it needs to be fun. Or it's just worthless. Why should we reject clever gameplay features and good gameplay design just because it isn't 100% realistic? They could just as easily set Silent Hunter in the world of Ace Combat and give Yuktobania Shokaku and Yamato. So long as the physics and combat were realistic it would still be a simulation. That's the new problem with sims, people think that in order to be a simulation game the setting and enviornment must be completely true to life. Simulations aren't about that, a sim is about the MACHINES. Yeah, allowing a sub commander to influence surface actions crosses into unrealistic and absurd by the standards of the era. But attacking that is really just nitpicking.

04-07-08, 08:43 AM	#1
CaptHawkeye Weps Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 354 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	Since when does unintuitive gameplay = better sim? Allow me to describe this. I've noticed in games like Il-2 their is an option to turn exterior views off, for what the game believes is added realism. But in all honesty, how is that realistic? We interact with the world in the game through a keyboard and TV screen. I can't realistically bend my head and control my view in the cockpit the way a real pilot could no matter what you do to facilitate it. (Even with TrackIR and whatnot.) When the player is in this position, he LOSES situational awareness. That's why whe someone asks me what is more realistic in a sim, exterior view off vs exterior views on, I say exterior views ON is more realistic. Because it simulates the player's situational awareness. Now for some reason, some people don't take this too well. They complain that "REALL WW2 PILOTS CAN'T SEE THINGS VIA MAGICAL DISEMBODIED CAMERA" to which I retort "well real WW2 pilots also didn't have to interact with the world via 21 inch screen and keyboard. So their situational awareness was greater." This is just absurd to me, it is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE to claim that a simulation is more realistic when you make it HARDER TO PLAY. It actually becomes more unrealistic! (Cheating AI in many sims notwithstanding.) Their is another complaint, one closer to home. I heard people had been complaining about U-Boat mission's "surface unit control". That it was "unrealistic" to allow submarine commanders that kind of control. But in all honesty, that's just absurd nitpicking. When did the sim community adopt some kind of religious standpoint on what a sim is and is not? Their is some kind of criteria now that a sim must meet or it is "not simmy enough". They seem to totally forget that no matter how you cut it, a simulation is a VIDEO GAME. It should be FUN to play. What seperates a sim from a normal action game like Halo is that a sim has increased emphasis on realism and actual physics than a normal game. Fundamentally, it needs to be fun. Or it's just worthless. Why should we reject clever gameplay features and good gameplay design just because it isn't 100% realistic? They could just as easily set Silent Hunter in the world of Ace Combat and give Yuktobania Shokaku and Yamato. So long as the physics and combat were realistic it would still be a simulation. That's the new problem with sims, people think that in order to be a simulation game the setting and enviornment must be completely true to life. Simulations aren't about that, a sim is about the MACHINES. Yeah, allowing a sub commander to influence surface actions crosses into unrealistic and absurd by the standards of the era. But attacking that is really just nitpicking.