167 replies to this topic

[Jeff K Notagoon]

The same reason they call it a MMO.

The Cheese, on 26 December 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

They call it a sim because they don't know what a sim is.

[Mycrus]

it's a sim because i wouldn't get caught dead playing a twitch shooter or a MMORPG

[Conure]

Omigir, on 26 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

If you really want to be honest with yourself for a minute, 'sim' is just as vegue as 'arcade'

Arcade means Arcade games that are known for being simple, quick and able to be picked up by anyone. Often times a referance throw back to the 80's and 90's when arcades were still big.

Sim is short for Simulator Games which basically means, any game to simulate something in the form of a game is a sim.
Games like moon lander and any of those cheesy doctor games where you use the touch screen to perform medical procedures fall under the tittle.

I will give you that sim mostly pertains to real life tasks, like flying fighter jets, air liners, trucking and any other number of mundane real life tasks, I will purpose this to you: A simulator game that simulates tasks or procedures of the use of equipment that is either under development or is planning on development for the purpose of training, is it still a training simulation because that equipment does not exist yet?

Basically all I am saying is that Mechwarrior Online is striving to simulate what it would be like if Battletech and battlemechs were real. Eventual it will be more complex as the game is added onto (I.E. Joysticks, one of the biggest founding aspects of Mechwarrior from the past)

I understand where you're coming from, but the truth is, MWO doesn't aim to simulate Mech Combat. The only resemblance it has to any form of mechanised robotic combat is in the looks - underneath a cosmetic level and as a result of a lack of any kind of depth in systems or physics modelling, this game could be applied to tanks/battleships or any number of military based ground operations with ease.

[Adridos]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Because, like all systems, the neurolink could and (at times) would fail. At which point it's time to take manual control.

That is reality, but we're simulating a universe where this aspect never fails and when something does fail, you are screwed.

[Wolfways]

In its current condition i'd barely call it a game.

[Omigir]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

I understand where you're coming from, but the truth is, MWO doesn't aim to simulate Mech Combat. The only resemblance it has to any form of mechanised robotic combat is in the looks - underneath a cosmetic level and as a result of a lack of any kind of depth in systems or physics modelling, this game could be applied to tanks/battleships or any number of military based ground operations with ease.

I can see why you would say that in its current build. They took out collision physics when they went open beta. (it was glitched pretty bad that in a light I would trip on an assault mech that was 4 or 5 meters away.) And as an example of them removing sim like attributes from the game, they just took out rearm and refit.

So yes, in its current form and presentation, it does not feel very sim like. But collisions are going to be coming back, as well as Refit and Rearm. And they are going to only build and add to the game from here. So in a few months from now, we will come back and sit down and have this conversation again, im sure.

But to answer the original question, why do people keep calling MW:O a sim? That is because the mechwarrior roots is a Battlemech piloting simulation game. And that is the direction MW:O will be going which is closer to the games that the Devs and many of the fans of the franchise remember.

(if you get curious, sit down and look at some MW:2 mercenaries and some of the flight simulators of the time, you will find they look fairly similar. Both Mechwarrior and those flight sims were at the time limited by the technology they were founded on.)

[Conure]

Omigir, on 26 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

If you really want to be honest with yourself for a minute, 'sim' is just as vegue as 'arcade'

Arcade means Arcade games that are known for being simple, quick and able to be picked up by anyone. Often times a referance throw back to the 80's and 90's when arcades were still big.

Sim is short for Simulator Games which basically means, any game to simulate something in the form of a game is a sim.
Games like moon lander and any of those cheesy doctor games where you use the touch screen to perform medical procedures fall under the tittle.

I will give you that sim mostly pertains to real life tasks, like flying fighter jets, air liners, trucking and any other number of mundane real life tasks, I will purpose this to you: A simulator game that simulates tasks or procedures of the use of equipment that is either under development or is planning on development for the purpose of training, is it still a training simulation because that equipment does not exist yet?

Basically all I am saying is that Mechwarrior Online is striving to simulate what it would be like if Battletech and battlemechs were real. Eventual it will be more complex as the game is added onto (I.E. Joysticks, one of the biggest founding aspects of Mechwarrior from the past)

And also; this is exactly the point. You regard learning to fly a complex fighter aircraft or jetliner as a mundane task...Just because you can't immediately do it without spending some time reading books, does not mean it's mundane.

Flying a mission in a completely accurate rendition of an A10c with 5 others is far from mundane. You need to have complete situational awareness and understanding every aspect of your aircrafts abilities and systems is essential. This isn't all you need to know though. Where are your ground forces? And more importantly, is that Russian vehicle I can see in my TGP screen an SA-15 or an SA-8? It's important because one has a range of 7km and the other, 12 (keep in mind this slant range, how quickly can you convert altitude in feet + ground range in KM to a slant angle range? Usually you would let the distancing laser do this, but that also lights you up to the enemy). Which means I can utilise my Mavericks with one but the other will require contacting SEAD (suppress enemy air defence) F16s to take them out.

Simulations require advanced thought processes based on significant contact with the object being simulated and, unfortunately for many, this requires a certain amount of academic study.

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 06:22 AM.

[Conure]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

That is reality, but we're simulating a universe where this aspect never fails and when something does fail, you are screwed.

So they are sufficiently advanced to have a technologically advanced system which never fails, but launching a group of rockets can overheat the reactor ultimately leading to the vehicle blowing up.

Let's be honest; nothing here is simulated, it is completely made up, and made up with no real depth of thought. To call it a simulation is insulting.

Please keep in mind I have NOTHING against this game. I do enjoy it and I think it'll be great, but the confusion in definition from some people is annoying.

[Omigir]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

And also; this is exactly the point. You regard learning to fly a complex fighter aircraft or jetliner as a mundane task...Just because you can't immediately do it without spending some time reading books, does not mean it's mundane.

Flying a mission in a completely accurate rendition of an A10c with 5 others is far from mundane. You need to have complete situational awareness and understanding every aspect of your aircrafts abilities and systems is essential. This isn't all you need to know though. Where are your ground forces? And more importantly, is that Russian vehicle I can see in my TGP screen an SA-15 or an SA-8? It's important because one has a range of 7km and the other, 12. Which means I can utilise my Mavericks with one but the other will require contacting SEAD (suppress enemy air defence) F16s to take them out.

Simulations require advanced thought processes based on significant contact with the object being simulated and, unfortunately for many, this requires a certain amount of academic study.

Mundane is not synonymous of 'boring' its means normal, or average. Compare flying a A10c to oh say.. the space shuttle on re entry.. the A10c suddenly is Mundane in comparison. Its normal, average. There are more A10 pilots then space shuttle pilots. Likewise, there are more Space Shuttle pilots then Mechwarriors.

But if I had to choose between flying a air liner, KC-130 cargo mission, or a Big rig truck.. i would choose suck starting a shot-gun.

An A10c.. ok i could go for that. F-15? Sure. P-51 mustang escort mission? Hell yeah.

between you and me, we are not the same people. We have different views on things and different ideas. You may not consider Mechwarrior of any kind or fashion a simulator, but im going to go ahead and guess that you are the kind of person that thinks along the lines that if its not in line with your idea of thinking, then its simply 'not'. You are not here to be convinced, you are here to convince others. That is a lack of open mindedness that really kills how much good a conversion can do.

I hope you have a good day and good luck on your crusade.

[Aidan Malchor]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

And also; this is exactly the point. You regard learning to fly a complex fighter aircraft or jetliner as a mundane task...Just because you can't immediately do it without spending some time reading books, does not mean it's mundane.

Flying a mission in a completely accurate rendition of an A10c with 5 others is far from mundane. You need to have complete situational awareness and understanding every aspect of your aircrafts abilities and systems is essential. This isn't all you need to know though. Where are your ground forces? And more importantly, is that Russian vehicle I can see in my TGP screen an SA-15 or an SA-8? It's important because one has a range of 7km and the other, 12 (keep in mind this slant range, how quickly can you convert altitude in feet + ground range in KM to a slant angle range? Usually you would let the distancing laser do this, but that also lights you up to the enemy). Which means I can utilise my Mavericks with one but the other will require contacting SEAD (suppress enemy air defence) F16s to take them out.

Simulations require advanced thought processes based on significant contact with the object being simulated and, unfortunately for many, this requires a certain amount of academic study.

It is mundane if you don't give damn about that. I deal with enough of that realism at work. I don't feel like reading a manual the size of a dictionary to play a game. I want to simulate blowing up giant internet robots.

This is taken from the "video game genre wiki" while not by any means the end all be all of defination, this line lays it out pretty good.

"Simulation video games are a diverse super-category of games, generally designed to closely simulate aspects of a real or fictional reality"

So just because it doesn't fall into your narrow idea of a Sim doesn't mean it is not. I must be bored for responding to this but I can only imagine your bordem for even making this thread.

[Conure]

Omigir, on 26 December 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

I can see why you would say that in its current build. They took out collision physics when they went open beta. (it was glitched pretty bad that in a light I would trip on an assault mech that was 4 or 5 meters away.) And as an example of them removing sim like attributes from the game, they just took out rearm and refit.

So yes, in its current form and presentation, it does not feel very sim like. But collisions are going to be coming back, as well as Refit and Rearm. And they are going to only build and add to the game from here. So in a few months from now, we will come back and sit down and have this conversation again, im sure.

But to answer the original question, why do people keep calling MW:O a sim? That is because the mechwarrior roots is a Battlemech piloting simulation game. And that is the direction MW:O will be going which is closer to the games that the Devs and many of the fans of the franchise remember.

(if you get curious, sit down and look at some MW:2 mercenaries and some of the flight simulators of the time, you will find they look fairly similar. Both Mechwarrior and those flight sims were at the time limited by the technology they were founded on.)

Thanks for the thoughtful response - I know I am bordering on pedantic here but I was playing when collision were in the game and they consisted of "smaller mech falls over and gets up with the same animation" - though granted it's a step in the right direction, it'd be great if a jenner charging into the legs of a larger mech could do a bit of damage to the legs and somehow cause a hydraulic leak which (over time) would result in a loss of pressure and ability to move. Though I think with those type of calculations they'd have to really tone down the graphics and 95% of the player base would leave...Simulation and balance just don't go hand in hand!

Omigir, on 26 December 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

Mundane is not synonymous of 'boring' its means normal, or average. Compare flying a A10c to oh say.. the space shuttle on re entry.. the A10c suddenly is Mundane in comparison. Its normal, average. There are more A10 pilots then space shuttle pilots. Likewise, there are more Space Shuttle pilots then Mechwarriors.

But if I had to choose between flying a air liner, KC-130 cargo mission, or a Big rig truck.. i would choose suck starting a shot-gun.

An A10c.. ok i could go for that. F-15? Sure. P-51 mustang escort mission? Hell yeah.

between you and me, we are not the same people. We have different views on things and different ideas. You may not consider Mechwarrior of any kind or fashion a simulator, but im going to go ahead and guess that you are the kind of person that thinks along the lines that if its not in line with your idea of thinking, then its simply 'not'. You are not here to be convinced, you are here to convince others. That is a lack of open mindedness that really kills how much good a conversion can do.

I hope you have a good day and good luck on your crusade.

Fair enough on the definition of mundane. The reason people won't be able to convince me that this game is a simulation is, because...it's not. Are you seriously arguing it is? Let's throw away any definition of the mundane etc, and just answer this:

Is Mechwarrior Online a simulation, and why?

I've given my reasons for why it is not, and I am yet to see any reasons for why it is.

(ps, thanks for analysing my personality however that's just not true - I would happily debate whether flaming cliffs 3, a Carenado aircraft, or Formula 1 2012 are simulations; it is completely possible to have simulation based sci fi games - even a game like X-Wing Alliance modeled power consumption from a reactor which had an effect on the other ship systems).

I think Star Citizen will probably also be a simulation in some aspects because it simulates the physical effects of space and weapons on an aircraft in a feasible manner. Mechwarrior Online is not a simulator in any way whatsoever, and the reason for this is not the fact it is sci fi.

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[Adridos]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

And more importantly, is that Russian vehicle I can see in my TGP screen an SA-15 or an SA-8?

Russians... you can't get less serious than that. Making that vehicle beneath you an UFO with AA range of 1000 km is of the same simulation value.

In RL, Russian and US forces never engaged in combat and probably won't by the time A10 will get replaced.

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Let's be honest; nothing here is simulated, it is completely made up, and made up with no real depth of thought.

If you call a "depth of thought" a vision, that 1000 years into the future, we won't be able to make a device that actually works? If anything, applying depth of thought you shoudl get to the conclusion there is even less things to do in such an advanced vehicle.

Edited by Adridos, 26 December 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[Thirdstar]

The point I am making is, I often see people saying "this game isn't for the COD idiots, it requires brains" and then putting themselves on a pedestal of superiority - sure, maybe it requires more tactical thinking than COD, but I wouldn't argue for a second that it requires more than Counterstrike or Battlefield 3.

I think this section of the OP's post is the central argument here and the thread has veered dangerous close to being offtopic. So, the gist of the post should be that people should stop using the word 'Sim' to belittle other players.

[Adridos]

Thirdstar, on 26 December 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

So, the gist of the post should be that people should stop using the word 'Sim' to belittle other players.

But he does exactly the same...

Hurr durr I can fly an AC10 like nothing, and you can't prove you can pilot a futusristic, made-up machine like nothing thus you are inferior.

I'd rally love to see how he'd respond if he was placed in the real plane and actually realised his simulation is as good as ours.

[Thirdstar]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

But he does exactly the same...

Hurr durr I can fly an AC10 like nothing, and you can't prove you can pilot a futusristic, made-up machine like nothing thus you are inferior.

I'd rally love to see how he'd respond if he was placed in the real plane and actually realised his simulation is as good as ours.

That the point goes both ways doesn't make the point any less valid, just saying.

[Adridos]

Thirdstar, on 26 December 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

That the point goes both ways doesn't make the point any less valid, just saying.

Well, then it's over for me in teh specific discussion, because I've actually never said or implied I'm superor than XY, because I play something more simulating than he does. ut I agree there are a few people that do so, especially when Hawken gets into the discussion.

[Conure]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

But he does exactly the same...

Hurr durr I can fly an AC10 like nothing, and you can't prove you can pilot a futusristic, made-up machine like nothing thus you are inferior.

I'd rally love to see how he'd respond if he was placed in the real plane and actually realised his simulation is as good as ours.

First: Who's talking about he AC10?

Second: One of the devs were put in the A10c simulator in Nevada which real pilots use and was able to take off, destroy targets and RTB no problem. That's the benefits of study; you get a good theoretical understanding of something which can be applied to the real world.

Three: I would fare a good chance, I have a PPL and a number of hours in jet aircraft (granted nothing like an A10). Though I would not rate myself in the real aircraft if I hadn't ever flown a plane before because the simulation lacks too many real world variables like fear factor and the feeling of flight.

Somebody with 250 hours in A10c would have a far easier time flying that aircraft IRL, than you would learning how to pilot a mech from this game...You wouldn't even know how to power the mech up.

Don't be offended, this just isn't a simulation..

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Thirdstar]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Well, then it's over for me in teh specific discussion, because I've actually never said or implied I'm superor than XY, because I play something more simulating than he does. ut I agree there are a few people that do so, especially when Hawken gets into the discussion.

Not just Hawken, you must never ever compare MWO to anything at all or the fanboys will descend on you and tell you to return to your heathen game instead of sullying MWO with your casual filth*

*note poster may have made use of 'minor' hyperbole

[Conure]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Russians... you can't get less serious than that. Making that vehicle beneath you an UFO with AA range of 1000 km is of the same simulation value.

In RL, Russian and US forces never engaged in combat and probably won't by the time A10 will get replaced.




If you call a "depth of thought" a vision, that 1000 years into the future, we won't be able to make a device that actually works? If anything, applying depth of thought you shoudl get to the conclusion there is even less things to do in such an advanced vehicle.

Wow you're having a serious logic fail here; when did I say a simulation has to relate to a real world event? Please think before you post.

Perhaps you will also engage with the reason that the mech overheats and blows up when it fires too many missiles before you suggest the mech is advanced beyond failure...

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[Adridos]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Second: One of the devs were put in the A10c simulator in Nevada which real pilots use and was able to take off, destroy targets and RTB no problem. That's the benefits of study; you get a good theoretical understanding of something which can be applied to the real world.

Just judging by the fact those Russians are developing flight simulators indicates they actually have some flight experience. You can't simulate something just by manual and get actually good results.

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Perhaps you will also engage with the reason that the mech overheats and blows up when it fires too many missiles before you suggest the mech is advanced beyond failure...

That is not an engineering failure. "When the plane crashes, it gets destroyed" is actually the same thing and nobody would even suggest that is an engineering failure.

P.S. As stated above, it is kinda off-topic, so if you can, try not to expand this branch of the discussion too far.

Edited by Adridos, 26 December 2012 - 07:17 AM.