Why no surface warfare sims in the past decade+?

Julhelm · 01-24-14, 01:50 PM

So if the sims consistently have flopped for the better part of a decade, is it because people don't care for the subject matter or is it because they don't care for the sim gameplay? Noone seems to have gone back to the proverbial drawing board but rather all effort seems to have gone into ever more complexity.

CCIP · 01-24-14, 02:19 PM

I think that the blame for that honestly lies with publishers and marketing departments and priorities in the industry - there was a time back in the early-mid 90s when simulators were by far the most popular genre of PC games. That's when we got the last great surface sims, too.

There's a billion reason for why, and technology and cost is part of it. For pretty much the entire decade of 2000s, the games industry was an "arms race" that was being won or lost with extravagant art budgets and promotional hype, and in that, simulators almost never had a chance. Making a good simulation the "old way" is probably gone for good, and IL-2 and SH-3 are probably the last titles ever to succeed in that. But I'm pretty optimistic otherwise - we might not see another "golden age" of sim games that lead sales charts, but they are starting to make a comeback via the indie scene. I think that's where the future is. I think it's now possible to sell games without having to compete with AAA art budgets, and it's possible to market them directly to niche customers without having to go through big publishers and mainstream game media.

Hopefully we'll see something come out of it soon!

And it's been so long since one of those games, that noone really needs to reinvent the wheel even - just take what worked about games like GNB, Fighting Steel or TF1942 and make it into something that looks servicable and runs on modern computers.

FightingSteel1 · 01-24-14, 04:21 PM

I understand that Sims are less commercially viable. Even so, I was just saying that Silent Hunter keeps being made (if they sell or not I guess) while we can't have a good, much less finished surface game or even a tank game - looking at T-34/Tiger there....

I guess it's too "Destroyer Command," but the framework is all there in Sh3, 4 or 5 to have a companion surface game. That's why I was excited about the Surface mod for Sh4, but that seems to constantly rise from the ashes, then die again with no release. I saw Atlantic Warfare, but since these projects don't seem to pan out usually, I'll just wait and hope that one goes somewhere.

As far as the games go, I like the squad level control. It strikes a good balance between being one ship or having a giant overview of the entire war. You could still have a view that puts you onto the individual ships during battle. You can really be only one vessel if you're the Graf Spee trying to break out in the Atlantic or if the AI is going to competently operate with you in a larger battle.

Perhaps a task force level of control would be the way to go, with a large grid map of the Atlantic or Pacific that allows you to direct those task forces around the war theater. A naval game could be both action packed in 3D battles, but also strategy/tactical by modeling a "Risk" style map forcing you to direct your fleets to oppose the enemy.

Julhelm · 01-24-14, 05:05 PM

The Battlestations games could've been really good if they had focused solely on the surface units and had somewhat more realistic distances. Certainly games like World of Tanks and War Thunder appear to be incredibly popular.

Schwieger · 01-24-14, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julhelm

The Battlestations games could've been really good if they had focused solely on the surface units and had somewhat more realistic distances. Certainly games like World of Tanks and War Thunder appear to be incredibly popular.

World of Tanks really shouldn't be brought up during discussions of realistic games. Except, perhaps, as a reference for what a game should not be, as far as realism is concerned.

With that said, I do hope that World of Warships can get their stuff together to create a realistic surface game. I'm waiting for WoWs and War Thunder's naval section, really, and will likely stick with the more realistic out of the two. Right now as it stands, WT appears to be leagues ahead of WoWs, as far as realism is concerned.

If we're looking for actual sims... ATWAR really is the direction to look towards. As previously mentioned, most (not all) of the recent titles are dismal at best, and some of the older ones... Well.. Aren't terribly compatible with current equipment, among other things.

Just my two cents.

Platapus · 01-24-14, 06:20 PM

I just think the simple answer is that there is not a large enough market for a game designer to risk the development costs.

If a Sim is somewhat realistic in the depiction of warfighting, there will be long periods of nothing happening. As a general rule, games where nothing happens tend to be considered unfun by a majority of the game playing market.

I love sub sim games, but to be honest SH4 has its dull parts. Going from Pearl to the Japanese theater even at 4K take a while and there is a good chance you will pop out of TC just after being sunk by an island, ship, or plane. When I play SH4, I usually have a movie playing on my other computer just to pass the time.

I imagine that more and more of the gaming community wants games they can play on their tablet/phone in between checking their status on face-space.

While there will always be a small group of weirdos like us who like Sims, I think the number of non-sim gamers is growing as their attention span shortens.

mapuc · 01-24-14, 07:50 PM

I, don't know if there are more than me, had a big wish when SHIII came out. I had high hopes about DC2

It's not just writting a few line to make a game it's a lot of work behind it.

Sometimes I dream of making a DC2 who will be able to play against either SHIII, SHIV or SHV

In the games welcome screen you will have following options

Single scenarios
Campaign
Mulitiplayer. When clicking on this you come to a new screen where you chose who you are playing against e.g SHIII or SHV

I know this will never happen.

Markus

01-24-14, 02:19 PM	#2
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	I think that the blame for that honestly lies with publishers and marketing departments and priorities in the industry - there was a time back in the early-mid 90s when simulators were by far the most popular genre of PC games. That's when we got the last great surface sims, too. There's a billion reason for why, and technology and cost is part of it. For pretty much the entire decade of 2000s, the games industry was an "arms race" that was being won or lost with extravagant art budgets and promotional hype, and in that, simulators almost never had a chance. Making a good simulation the "old way" is probably gone for good, and IL-2 and SH-3 are probably the last titles ever to succeed in that. But I'm pretty optimistic otherwise - we might not see another "golden age" of sim games that lead sales charts, but they are starting to make a comeback via the indie scene. I think that's where the future is. I think it's now possible to sell games without having to compete with AAA art budgets, and it's possible to market them directly to niche customers without having to go through big publishers and mainstream game media. Hopefully we'll see something come out of it soon! And it's been so long since one of those games, that noone really needs to reinvent the wheel even - just take what worked about games like GNB, Fighting Steel or TF1942 and make it into something that looks servicable and runs on modern computers. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

01-24-14, 06:20 PM	#6
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,373 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I just think the simple answer is that there is not a large enough market for a game designer to risk the development costs. If a Sim is somewhat realistic in the depiction of warfighting, there will be long periods of nothing happening. As a general rule, games where nothing happens tend to be considered unfun by a majority of the game playing market. I love sub sim games, but to be honest SH4 has its dull parts. Going from Pearl to the Japanese theater even at 4K take a while and there is a good chance you will pop out of TC just after being sunk by an island, ship, or plane. When I play SH4, I usually have a movie playing on my other computer just to pass the time. I imagine that more and more of the gaming community wants games they can play on their tablet/phone in between checking their status on face-space. While there will always be a small group of weirdos like us who like Sims, I think the number of non-sim gamers is growing as their attention span shortens. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

01-24-14, 01:50 PM	#1
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	So if the sims consistently have flopped for the better part of a decade, is it because people don't care for the subject matter or is it because they don't care for the sim gameplay? Noone seems to have gone back to the proverbial drawing board but rather all effort seems to have gone into ever more complexity.

01-24-14, 04:21 PM	#3
FightingSteel1 Bosun Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 63 Downloads: 60 Uploads: 0	I understand that Sims are less commercially viable. Even so, I was just saying that Silent Hunter keeps being made (if they sell or not I guess) while we can't have a good, much less finished surface game or even a tank game - looking at T-34/Tiger there.... I guess it's too "Destroyer Command," but the framework is all there in Sh3, 4 or 5 to have a companion surface game. That's why I was excited about the Surface mod for Sh4, but that seems to constantly rise from the ashes, then die again with no release. I saw Atlantic Warfare, but since these projects don't seem to pan out usually, I'll just wait and hope that one goes somewhere. As far as the games go, I like the squad level control. It strikes a good balance between being one ship or having a giant overview of the entire war. You could still have a view that puts you onto the individual ships during battle. You can really be only one vessel if you're the Graf Spee trying to break out in the Atlantic or if the AI is going to competently operate with you in a larger battle. Perhaps a task force level of control would be the way to go, with a large grid map of the Atlantic or Pacific that allows you to direct those task forces around the war theater. A naval game could be both action packed in 3D battles, but also strategy/tactical by modeling a "Risk" style map forcing you to direct your fleets to oppose the enemy.

01-24-14, 05:05 PM	#4
Julhelm Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Icy North Posts: 693 Downloads: 189 Uploads: 0	The Battlestations games could've been really good if they had focused solely on the surface units and had somewhat more realistic distances. Certainly games like World of Tanks and War Thunder appear to be incredibly popular.

01-24-14, 07:50 PM	#7
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,540 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	I, don't know if there are more than me, had a big wish when SHIII came out. I had high hopes about DC2 It's not just writting a few line to make a game it's a lot of work behind it. Sometimes I dream of making a DC2 who will be able to play against either SHIII, SHIV or SHV In the games welcome screen you will have following options Single scenarios Campaign Mulitiplayer. When clicking on this you come to a new screen where you chose who you are playing against e.g SHIII or SHV I know this will never happen. Markus