What type of game you prefer?

[PsYkHoTiK]

Hmm... I never had a problem with not being able to see anything... If it was real, it wouldnt be a game now would it...

[Olle P]

Originally Posted by PsYkHoTiK

Hmm... I never had a problem with not being able to see anything...

I have, although the lack of realism makes it less of a problem. Still I'd find it more satisfactory if I could use those ATGMs at least out to half of their supposedly effective range...

Originally Posted by PsYkHoTiK

If it was real, it wouldnt be a game now would it...

No, it would be a sim. My issue with it is that it doesn't look like a game. If it behaves like fantasy, as BF2 does, it should look like fantasy. Clothes and equipment shouldn't look like anything that exist in real life unless it performs at least somewhat like the real thing. Otherwise it gets confusing.

Cheers
Olle

[PsYkHoTiK]

What makes sims any more realistic then any other game...
Just how realistic can you make any game. The phrase realistic game is a fallacy in my opinion. At the end of the day, its just a game. So till the day I decide to go battle it out for real, I'll stick with my keyboard and mouse and be as realistic as the game wants to be. If I do feel the urge to get realistic, I'll drive to a shooting range and squeeze a few off the .45 M1911A1 (awesome feel.)

If BF2 doesn't float your boat, then go try AA...

[Adrian Wong]

OT : Dammit Psy, no need to brag about your M1911A1.

You know I can't get one here.

Okay, back to topic.

[Olle P]

Originally Posted by PsYkHoTiK

What makes sims any more realistic then any other game...

Mainly physics. In a sim things are supposed to act and react just like in real life. In "any other game" you don't have those restrictions.

Originally Posted by PsYkHoTiK

Just how realistic can you make any game.

I think the keyword here is any.
Based on the games and sims I've experienced is that the key to realism lies in the development process. For a sim you should start with realism as the prime objective, and then deviate as needed to make the software able to run on an ordinary computer and have a user friendly interface.
This is how for example Steel Beasts and Combat Mission is done.

Most games are developed in the opposite direction; start with cool looks and and a user friendly interface. Add nice game play, adjust the game balance and then perhaps spice it up with a touch of realism.
Then the game engine doesn't allow for any sizeable amount of realism, so it will likely not go more than skin deep.

One interesting point to notice is how clueless players have praised Combat Mission: - The developers have managed to make it so well balanced!
Fact is; they haven't! At least not on purpose. They did it realistic, and as a result it became balanced.

Originally Posted by PsYkHoTiK

If BF2 doesn't float your boat, then go try AA...

I've done that. Not that much yet though, since I feel there are some key realism features missing there as well.
- The iron sight for the M203 can't be used.
- Bipods can only be used while prone, not supported while using a foxhole or other similar firing positions.

Cheers
Olle

[Chai]

Originally Posted by Olle P

Mainly physics. In a sim things are supposed to act and react just like in real life. In "any other game" you don't have those restrictions.
I think the keyword here is any.
Based on the games and sims I've experienced is that the key to realism lies in the development process. For a sim you should start with realism as the prime objective, and then deviate as needed to make the software able to run on an ordinary computer and have a user friendly interface.
This is how for example Steel Beasts and Combat Mission is done.

Most games are developed in the opposite direction; start with cool looks and and a user friendly interface. Add nice game play, adjust the game balance and then perhaps spice it up with a touch of realism.
Then the game engine doesn't allow for any sizeable amount of realism, so it will likely not go more than skin deep.

One interesting point to notice is how clueless players have praised Combat Mission: - The developers have managed to make it so well balanced!
Fact is; they haven't! At least not on purpose. They did it realistic, and as a result it became balanced.
I've done that. Not that much yet though, since I feel there are some key realism features missing there as well.
- The iron sight for the M203 can't be used.
- Bipods can only be used while prone, not supported while using a foxhole or other similar firing positions.

Cheers
Olle

I agree with you generally, that's why I've been playing games like Live For Speed with pretty outdated graphics. But that still doesn't mean simulations are not games, because they still are.

[Olle P]

Originally Posted by Chai

... that still doesn't mean simulations are not games, because they still are.

First I'd like to go back to PsYkHoTiK's previous post:

What makes sims any more realistic then any other game...

To me the keyword here is "other". Generally I don't have a problem defining the sims I use as games, but it isn't a black or white definition. It does have more undertones.

What (to me) determines wether a sim is a game or not is it's intended and current use. If the usage intended by the designer is recreational, then it's most definitely a game. If the intended usage is training, education and/or more serious applications then it's generally not a game, with the temporary exceptions when it's not used as such.

Would you call the million dollars flight simulators used to train airline pilots on new aircraft "games"? I don't, unless thei're used for recreational purposes, which happen very very rarely.

MS Flightsim series, on the other hand, is intended for recreational purposes and therefore is a series of games.

SB Pro PE can be rated as a game when used as such (as will be the predominant civilian usage), but that's neither the usage intended by the designers nor the dominating overall use of it.

Cheers
Olle

[Chai]

If that's the case, you have been contradicting yourself.

1. You assumed that a PC game can be a 'sim' because you were expecting BF2 to be one, judging by the graphics. But in actual fact, it's a game and meant for recreational. And you got disappointed because of that. That's completely your fault, because BF2 has never meant to be a sim, and will never be because no FPS games are even remotely close to 'sim'.

2. Sims are not necessarily graphically accurate or realistic. I believe real simulators are not that realistic to look at, not especially the older ones.

3. What you have said in the previous post meant that anything for PCs are games because 99% of them are recreational.

So I don't see why you should be whining in the first place. Just because it's not up to your expectation doesn't mean it's wrong. It's a GAME!

[Olle P]

Oh how I love a nice debate...

Originally Posted by Chai

1. You assumed that a PC game can be a 'sim' because you were expecting BF2 to be one, judging by the graphics. But in actual fact, it's a game and meant for recreational. And you got disappointed because of that. That's completely your fault, because BF2 has never meant to be a sim, and will never be because no FPS games are even remotely close to 'sim'.

Let's see... WRT sims I put software into three categories:
- Pure/professional sims, such as SB Pro. Realism is everything.
- Simulator games. Realism is the main feature, but user friendliness is also important.
- Non-simulator games. Any form of realism is almost accidental.

I've never ever expected BF2 to be anything but a non-sim game, but since Dice put up such an effort to make equipment look photorealistic like real, existing items, one could at least expect those items to behave within the same ballpark as the real thing. Some do, but some of them doesn't even come close, which is confusing.
IMO it's part of the user friendlyness to make things that doesn't behave like anything real also not look like anything real.

On the other hand there are a couple of FPS games that do come close, like OPF and AA.

Originally Posted by Chai

2. Sims are not necessarily graphically accurate or realistic. I believe real simulators are not that realistic to look at, not especially the older ones.

Don't I know it... Steel Beasts (from 2000) doesn't look very real, but it's an excellent sim game. The reason for the "crappy" graphics is that realistic graphics would use up too much of the CPU power that's needed for the really important stuff.

The point still is that you can't tell a professional sim from a game just by a couple of screenshots.

Originally Posted by Chai

3. What you have said in the previous post meant that anything for PCs are games because 99% of them are recreational.

I've never stated otherwise. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Chai

So I don't see why you should be whining in the first place. Just because it's not up to your expectation doesn't mean it's wrong. It's a GAME!

I can't believe it's only my expectation.

- If, in a FPS, I see something that looks like a...
... pistol I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... rifle I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... machine gun I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... car I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... boat I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... hand grenade I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... door I expect it to behave like one, and it usually does! (Sometimes it can't be opened.)
... tank I expect it to behave like one, and it's usually within the right ball park, but in BF2 it isn't even close! (As a matter of fact that part is better in BF1942.)

As a game, it's supposed to be fun and user friendly. These occasional deviations from the "norm" set up by all the other features in the game definitely detracts from my interpretation of user friendliness and fun.

Cheers
Olle

[Chai]

This is a useless debate because you keep contradicting yourself.

SB Pro PE can be rated as a game when used as such

- Pure/professional sims, such as SB Pro. Realism is everything.

- If, in a FPS, I see something that looks like a...
... pistol I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... rifle I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... machine gun I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... car I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... boat I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... hand grenade I expect it to behave like one, and it always does!
... door I expect it to behave like one, and it usually does! (Sometimes it can't be opened.)
... tank I expect it to behave like one, and it's usually within the right ball park, but in BF2 it isn't even close! (As a matter of fact that part is better in BF1942.)

So what exactly do you not EXPECT? All of them are your expectation, which doesn't mean a thing to certain people.

Just like how I argued about how crappy NFS:U series are, because it didn't meet my expectation in anyway, so what? It's still a game and too many people are enjoying it. It's not programmed as sim, so live with it, or without!

You know what I expect of you? Nitpick on every single damn topic you are interested in.

I'm out of here.