Since when does unintuitive gameplay = better sim?

[CaptHawkeye]

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.

Its human nature, your nitpicking at people nitpicking about the games. Not much difference imho.

Its your game, if you have IL-2 or Sh4 you play however you want, some people prefer having there game realistic as possible, and some have different views on realism. After all thats what the realism options are there for.

Yes its just a game, but those people bought that game with there money if they want to remove the surface unit control or the external views then they can, it doesn't affect you unless you play online.

[CaptHawkeye]

It does affect me when these people try to influence developers to follow their inane beliefs of what a "real sim" should be. A good sim has lots of options in every area. It wouldn't penalize the player for not going "lol max leetness = all realism options maxed".

Maybe i've just been to too many game forums these days? Somebody did once say that forums are the worst thing to happen to game development since the 83 crash.

This wouldn't be such a problem to me if developers didn't seem to be listening to them. I can't seem to find a problem with adding more gameplay features and options to any sim. For some reason, plenty of people do.

[Dowly]

I must disagree with you on the external view being realistic AND that you lose situational awareness even if you use TrackIR. I dont have TrackIR, but even with my joystick's hatswitch, I can keep track on stuff happening around me quite well. Heck, I could even go as far as saying that with or without TrackIR when external views are disabled, we still have better situational awareness than what the pilots had in real life. Our windshield is always clean, we arent tired, the weather, even in worst case is rather good in terms of visibility, we see the enemy as a black dot in the distance, no matter if he has a perfect camoscheme against the sky, we hear the enemy's engine when they are close and the list goes on. You need to remember that most of the downed pilots never saw nor heard it's hunter. Heck, if you ask me, I'd like to have even more limited views on IL2, for example not be able to look so easily to the back in certain planes (109 for example with it's very small cockpit).

Just my 2 cents on this.

[GlobalExplorer]

This topic is as old as computer sims. There were always people accusing others of cheating when they used external views. I can vividly remember the heated discussions on the GPL forums that the devs should remove the chase view from the game. Mind this was the one and only way for some people to get acceptable framerates and situational awareness.

I would say: ignore. When people are forcing a decision onto themselves, they have a nasty habit to attack others who do not.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

Maybe i've just been to too many game forums these days? Somebody did once say that forums are the worst thing to happen to game development since the 83 crash.

This is an interesting statement. I would be interested to hear what you mean in more detail.

Do you mean things like the - infamous - example of the engine sounds in Lomac going off once a plane goes supersonic? This was implemented though pilots had given definitely confirmation that you can still hear the engine, but the devs had already given in because of the forum smartasses.

Personally I would say the forums were the best thing and the worst thing at the same time same as game mods.

And what do you mean with "83 crash"?

[Sonarman]

Yes, it's a difficult balance sometimes a game will indeed be changed to it's detriment by forum suggestions and the quest for more realism, witness "Ports of Call XXL" a remake of the classic Amiga game.

The original Ports of Call I would describe as a highly playable strategy game from the 80's in which you run a shipping line. Although primarily a strategy game it featured small 2D "simulator" sequences which pop up when an action is required (dock a ship, avoid a collision, navigate though icebergs, reefs etc)

The original developers redeveloped the game in 2003 based on community suggestions. increasing the number of ships from about 12 to 200+ making the ports much larger and realistic... sounds great till you realise that the gameplay went down as the options went up .

The docking sequences of the original were each about 2 minutes now take about 10 minutes, which slows the strategy part down too much. The ports at the community's behest were redesigned based on the layout of real world ports and consequently are actually much easier to dock in than the original's ficticious ports, much less challenging, more boring.

The number of ships has led to confusion, there are now so many similar types, in the original game there were only about 12 and they were distinctly different you wanted the faster ship, the ship with greater cargo space, the ship with bow thrust, the ship with bow and stern thrust. With so many ships in the remake it made choosing a ship a chore rather than the exciting reward for your efforts that it should have been.

Thankfully the developers have realised this and have brought out another version (Ports of Call Deluxe 2008) much closer in spirit & size to the classic title. But it just goes to illustrate how "more" and "more realistic" are not always a good thing and are quite often detrimental to gameplay. Balance, judgement and restraint are, I think three essential elements of good game design.

[Tikigod]

In response to original question. I find the option to turn on and off external views reasonable. I like to play in 3rd person when playing single player and in coop, so I can just look around at the scenery or checkout the latest skins I downloaded for my planes. But, for multplayer campaigns and dogfights on hyperlobby, I like full realism with external views off. Not that it makes it more difficult or annoying. But, I like to learn and use realistic tactics for the time period which you really don't get a feel for if you have external views turned on.

Examples are:

• I like to sneak up on green pilots flying alone on patrol. (you can't sneak up on anyone if they are admiring their aircraft in 3rd person and there is no point to checking six if you can fly the whole time forward while looking backward)
• I like to use the sun to my advantage. (external view allows you to zoom in and out changing the angle of the light in relation to your plane making it easier to spot planes flying overhead in the sun)
• I like to fly as a team (not as an all seeing-self) There is a function to formation flying, the role of each formation, and for traveling in large groups) Take the four finger four formation: The Four Finger Formation was initially developed during the Spanish Civil War by Luftwaffe pilots, most notably Werner Mölders and his fellow airmen. The Schwarm (Flight) was made up of two pairs of aircraft called Rottes. Each Rotte was made up of a leader and a wingman. The formation allowed a greater view of the pilots' surroundings and the two separate Rottes could split up at any time and attack on their own. In WW2 pilots normally flew in V formations to check each others 6'oclock position to prevent enemy from sneaking up on them. The wider the formation the easier it was to maintain a visual on the other flights 6'oclock position. If you used 3rd person view there would be no point to flying formations other than to look cool and arrive at the same destination together.

[Slang]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

And what do you mean with "83 crash"?

I think he is referring to the 1983 game industry crash. In wich many large companies fizzled out.

Basically just after the huge arcade craze, home console gaming started coming out. Wich basically killed a large part of the arcade industry. It was big for a while, but then some really crappy games started coming out and sales plummetted to like 1\5 what they had been. Everybody lost lots of money, and all the retailers avoided console gaming like the plague.

Eventually Nintendo broke through the retailer bias and revitalized the gaming industry.

[TteFAboB]

While it's true that one or few square screens and mouse/keyboard/even track-IR views are far more limited than the real experience, aren't external views too much? You're not just compensating, you're getting an advantage. Just try shaking a bogey off your tail with and without external. Without it you'll suffer as you try to glimpse at him at those few opportunities you have while scissoring or whatever. With it you can see him the whole time. While a real pilot would have an easier time seeing the outside, he wouldn't be able to see the enemy the whole time. The same is valid if you're the attacker doing Boom and Zoom attacks from far above. With the external view you can track your target. With internal you'd have to roll to see it.

In singleplayer, I keep my external views because there's only me and no reason not to appreciate the graphics. But in multiplayer, with enemies that want to destroy me above all else and will use everything against me, limiting everybody's views levels the playing field somewhat. As there's no switching between external and internal, there's no advantage to be taken from that element, I won't die because I didn't switch fast enough or at the decisive moment.

It's even more dramatic in a first-person-shooter like Armed Assault. The external view allows you to see behind corners. If you had no way to peek briefly, maybe it would've been justified. However, you can peek. So it's silly to be able to see behind corners from 3ft away. ARMA levels it by making weapons innacurate from the 3rd person. You can't aim properly at anything more than 50ft away from you, and that long already takes into account your familiarity with the off-centered aim. But far from me to suggest a disavantage coded into external views. I like 'em and would feel extremely annoyed. I'd personally prefer ARMA's 3rd person aim to be just as accurate.