Can anyone explain to me why they're not depressed by games that always end in death?

[heartc]

Oh dear. Some people here didn't get the point of this thread at all. I'm pretty sure Beery is not really "depressed" about "death" in computer games from a psychological / philosophical standpoint - instead this thread is a follow up to a realism debate which was previously coming up shortly in several different threads and now was time to get its own one to share opinions on the matter. The matter being real life sub loss rates vs. sub loss rates in the game. If people would have read Beery's initial post in this thread instead of just the header this would have become clear, too.

[vindex]

I read the initial post (hence my comment about my own death-rate), but like so many threads this one also went off in another worthwhile direction. No biggy.

[daft]

I think Beery is on to something. Of all the mechanics that makes a game work, deaths are the least explored I think. From the run-of-the-mill action games to hardcore sims such as the SH-series, we seldom get penalized in any way for dying. There is no sense of loss other than a little dent in our pride after having been outsmarted by some stupid AI destroyer. Of course, the penalty cannot be too severe as that would scare people off, but having an option that would in some way make us curse and actually fear in game death would add a whole new dimension to gaming I think.

[vindex]

Well, I'm not really sure HOW you could be penalized for dying in a computer game. Anything they put into the game itself would simply frustrate people and could be worked around.

The same problem crops up in military training exercises. I remember running around the woods shooting my M-16 and not REALLY taking cover and concealment THAT seriously because the worst thing that could happen would be my little beeping device would go off if I was hit. The unreality of the situation actually has a very distortive effect on tactics. There is no such thing, for instance, as real suppressive fire, because nobody is actually ducking bullets.

All simulated combat, computer or otherwise, permits risk-taking that would find no place on a real battlefield.

[TDK1044]

I think the answer to Beery's original point is that the WWII sub Captains didn't have those historical figures to relate to because they were creating those figures with each mission.

They went to sea in the hope of sinking as much enemy tonnage as possible and then getting themselves and their crew home safely. Some would have taken greater risks than others. None of them knew if they'd survive the current mission.

The reason I state over and over that this is a game and not a simulation, is because we can alter the parameters of each mission or career to fit our mood or our needs.

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.

Therefore, we use a mixture of reality settings and mods to make this game what we want it to be. We tweak things like the number of radio mesages we receive, the number of air strikes, the srength of our weapons, the accuracy of our sensors, our fuel consumption, our battery discharge rate, how good the enemy is at detecting us etc.

Silent Hunter 4 is a $49 video game targeted at people who want to play at being a WWII Submarine Captain and go to sea and sink enemy ships.

Enjoy it for what it is.

[Ducimus]

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

[Chock]

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.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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

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 ?

[heartc]

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.

[daft]

Originally Posted by vindex

Well, I'm not really sure HOW you could be penalized for dying in a computer game. Anything they put into the game itself would simply frustrate people and could be worked around.

The same problem crops up in military training exercises. I remember running around the woods shooting my M-16 and not REALLY taking cover and concealment THAT seriously because the worst thing that could happen would be my little beeping device would go off if I was hit. The unreality of the situation actually has a very distortive effect on tactics. There is no such thing, for instance, as real suppressive fire, because nobody is actually ducking bullets.

All simulated combat, computer or otherwise, permits risk-taking that would find no place on a real battlefield.

That's up to the developers to decide I guess. Personally I think death is a subject that needs to be explored further by games developers in order to evolve gaming in general. If implemented in an optional way it would be really cool to have some sort of "death penalty" imposed. Make death something you want to avoid and it would add to my experience. Personal taste I suppose.