History/Realism vs gameplay - Page 2

tater · 04-06-07, 02:24 PM

My point wasn't to be a realism fiend (though I am one), it was that realism is the best benchmark for the devs to shoot for, then gameplay tweaks should be variations on reality, instead of the engine being unrealistic, and mods required to hack in realism.

The bottom line is that if it were a perfect simulation (not possible, I'm talking theory here) then cause and effect would by definition "work." As certain simplifications are made, errors in expected outcomes happen. Also, sometimes game/SIM devs are strong technically, and try to "sim" too much and lose the forest for the trees. They get overly concerned with something like the exact hydrodynamics of a torpedo, and only give a cursory look into the ASW capabilities of the escorts to make sure they act in a way that makes sense. Il-2 has a lot of that. Technical stuff is very nitty gritty, but then some things are total cartoons of reality (damage models for all non-aircraft targets, for example, or the inability for their AI to fly certain planes the primary way they were used operationally (no minimum alt attacks are even possible for AI strafer-bombers in Pacific Fighters, all those 5th AF planes, and they can't do their jobs right).

So in general, I'd prefer the code to be written to be insanely realistic to the extent that is feasible/cost effective, then have it simlified for gameplay via difficulty tweaks. Everyone would still get the level of play they want, but the engine would have the hardcore "sim" as the guts.

tater

shad43 · 04-06-07, 02:57 PM

Hmmm, all faults aside Im pretty darn happy

SH4 beats the heck outta the first sim I ever played...it was a little round bead of light bouncing between 2 rectangular beads of light....I think we called it pong :hmm:

Cheers

tater · 04-06-07, 03:16 PM

What I see again and again is that when they aim into the "fun" target area instead of the "realism" target area, they tend to get neither, at least int he long term.

I thought of another disappointing example. I followed the early dev stuff regarding Pirates of the Burning Sea. They wanted the game to have the sailing model of the HMS Surprise simulator, only pretty and with a good user interface. They have dumbed it down instead. Now ships will be able to sail into the wind in the name of "playability." Nevermind that it would be possible to have a user interface, and even AI help that would make realistic sailing playable. They simply elected to let all ships sail in any direction at some minimal speed. Sounds like a simple compromise to prevent people from getting stuck in irons, or making sternway to tack (not at all uncomoon in that time period), but so much tactic nuiance is lost by even a 1-2 knot headway past close-hauled. Battle of the Nile? Impossible, the French just sail into the wind. Thinking seriously about when the right moment to tack is? Nah, no worries. So they'll end up in a game with homoginized combat reduced to broadside to broadside slugfests instead of maneuver and seamanship. So in an attempt to make the game accessible, they made it in a way that will result in quickly tiresome engagements.

Seems to me that replay value is also important. If it's too easy to sink loads of the enemy, it gets boring fast. Some of my best online ww2 aircraft flights have been gas tank draining affairs where I saw only one contact.

castorp345 · 04-06-07, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

I thought of another disappointing example. I followed the early dev stuff regarding Pirates of the Burning Sea. ...

a brilliant though, as you say, highly dissapointing example! 'couldn't agree with you more on this. i was really looking forward to PoBS until these 'gamey' shananigans ousted any sense of virtual seamanship...

scratch one customer.

tater · 04-06-07, 11:04 PM

Yeah, I've messed witht he surprise simulator, and I have no desire for that level of complexity. OTOH, I want the physics, the outcomes, to be realistic. Soo I'm perfectly happy with a slide bar for the speed I'd like the ship to make given the direction I happen to be going. Heck, I'd be fine with an AI Sailing Master. "Mr. Allen, put us 1 cable length from her on the larboard tack" 2 hours later, there we'd be, the computer would do the math

tater

04-06-07, 02:24 PM	#16
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	My point wasn't to be a realism fiend (though I am one), it was that realism is the best benchmark for the devs to shoot for, then gameplay tweaks should be variations on reality, instead of the engine being unrealistic, and mods required to hack in realism. The bottom line is that if it were a perfect simulation (not possible, I'm talking theory here) then cause and effect would by definition "work." As certain simplifications are made, errors in expected outcomes happen. Also, sometimes game/SIM devs are strong technically, and try to "sim" too much and lose the forest for the trees. They get overly concerned with something like the exact hydrodynamics of a torpedo, and only give a cursory look into the ASW capabilities of the escorts to make sure they act in a way that makes sense. Il-2 has a lot of that. Technical stuff is very nitty gritty, but then some things are total cartoons of reality (damage models for all non-aircraft targets, for example, or the inability for their AI to fly certain planes the primary way they were used operationally (no minimum alt attacks are even possible for AI strafer-bombers in Pacific Fighters, all those 5th AF planes, and they can't do their jobs right). So in general, I'd prefer the code to be written to be insanely realistic to the extent that is feasible/cost effective, then have it simlified for gameplay via difficulty tweaks. Everyone would still get the level of play they want, but the engine would have the hardcore "sim" as the guts. tater

04-06-07, 02:57 PM	#17
shad43 Frogman Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: six feet under Posts: 301 Downloads: 21 Uploads: 0	Hmmm, all faults aside Im pretty darn happy SH4 beats the heck outta the first sim I ever played...it was a little round bead of light bouncing between 2 rectangular beads of light....I think we called it pong :hmm: Cheers

04-06-07, 03:16 PM	#18
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	What I see again and again is that when they aim into the "fun" target area instead of the "realism" target area, they tend to get neither, at least int he long term. I thought of another disappointing example. I followed the early dev stuff regarding Pirates of the Burning Sea. They wanted the game to have the sailing model of the HMS Surprise simulator, only pretty and with a good user interface. They have dumbed it down instead. Now ships will be able to sail into the wind in the name of "playability." Nevermind that it would be possible to have a user interface, and even AI help that would make realistic sailing playable. They simply elected to let all ships sail in any direction at some minimal speed. Sounds like a simple compromise to prevent people from getting stuck in irons, or making sternway to tack (not at all uncomoon in that time period), but so much tactic nuiance is lost by even a 1-2 knot headway past close-hauled. Battle of the Nile? Impossible, the French just sail into the wind. Thinking seriously about when the right moment to tack is? Nah, no worries. So they'll end up in a game with homoginized combat reduced to broadside to broadside slugfests instead of maneuver and seamanship. So in an attempt to make the game accessible, they made it in a way that will result in quickly tiresome engagements. Seems to me that replay value is also important. If it's too easy to sink loads of the enemy, it gets boring fast. Some of my best online ww2 aircraft flights have been gas tank draining affairs where I saw only one contact.

04-06-07, 11:04 PM	#20
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, I've messed witht he surprise simulator, and I have no desire for that level of complexity. OTOH, I want the physics, the outcomes, to be realistic. Soo I'm perfectly happy with a slide bar for the speed I'd like the ship to make given the direction I happen to be going. Heck, I'd be fine with an AI Sailing Master. "Mr. Allen, put us 1 cable length from her on the larboard tack" 2 hours later, there we'd be, the computer would do the math tater