167 replies to this topic

[Conure]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

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.



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 a mechanical 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.

Well Nasa did when they put Curiousity down so...What are you talking about?

Anyway yes, back to the topic at hand. MWO is not a simulator.

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 07:18 AM.

[Adridos]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Well Nasa did when they put Curiousity down so...What are you talking about?

They put 1 or 2 rovers before that on Mars, and probes before the first rovers... so yeah, they did have some exoerience.

[Conure]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

They put 1 or 2 rovers before that on Mars, and probes before the first rovers... so yeah, they did have some exoerience.

The Skycrane was completely theoretical and have never been attempted before. This is redundant and you're trying to derail the thread.

My point was that this isn't a simulation, and, I believe, that isn't really up for debate.

[Kraven Kor]

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

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

I call it a "Sim" because I am wanting something that is closer to a sim than a typical FPS.

I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

Isn't it OK to want a little more depth, "realism," and "sim" in this game, compared to so many others?

Even just "not having a health meter" - locational damage and such - is a fairly expansive step towards "sim" over "shooter."

[Adridos]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

This is redundant and you're trying to derail the thread.

You ended your last post with a question aimed at me, even though I clearly stated you shouldn't because it would derail the thread an dnow this? For shame...

[Conure]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

You ended your last post with a question aimed at me, even though I clearly stated you shouldn't because it would derail the thread an dnow this? For shame...

Sorry, what?

[Thirdstar]

Kraven Kor, on 26 December 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

I call it a "Sim" because I am wanting something that is closer to a sim than a typical FPS.

I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

Isn't it OK to want a little more depth, "realism," and "sim" in this game, compared to so many others?

Even just "not having a health meter" - locational damage and such - is a fairly expansive step towards "sim" over "shooter."

There's two separate issues here. One is pedantic, yes we can safely call MWO a sim. Flight sim, space sim, submarine sim, tank sim, etc etc ad infinitum. It's an oft used descriptor for combat based games in this genre.

Now the second issue is HOW much of a sim is it? Well to be honest not much. MWO has a slower pace than it's contemporaries but it's still shies away from excessive complexity.

Ultimately, calling it a sim or calling it a Not-sim are both perfectly valid, from a certain point of view.

[Phalanx100bc]

Personally, I wouldn't mind it being more complex. That being said, I think the effort to call it a Sim is a well intentioned effort to ward off the XBOX kid mentality that many online games attract.

Any attempt to bring the game or it's players on a more cerebral level is welcome. I'm hoping that will be the case when this game is fully fleshed out.

Do you really want to deal with people like this in MWO?

http://youtu.be/kLGejbBamJ8

[Thirdstar]

Phalanx100bc, on 26 December 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Personally, I wouldn't mind it being more complex. That being said, I think the effort to call it a Sim is a well intentioned effort to ward off the XBOX kid mentality that many online games attract.

Any attempt to bring the game or it's players on a more cerebral level is welcome. I'm hoping that will be the case when this game is fully fleshed out.

Do you really want to deal with people like this in MWO?

http://youtu.be/kLGejbBamJ8

You clearly haven't played enough if you think people don't rage in MWO. Founders too.

[PurpleNinja]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

The game isn't a sim - playing this game does not make you 'superior' to other gamers. This game is a simple arcade game with robot lasers. A fun one, yes, but an arcade game nonetheless.

Is The Sims a sim?

[Conure]

PurpleNinja, on 26 December 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Is The Sims a sim?

Of course - it simulates bachelors leaving pizza on the floor and women breaking down, crying and ******* themselves!

[PurpleNinja]

Conure, on 26 December 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Of course - it simulates bachelors leaving pizza on the floor and women breaking down, crying and ******* themselves!

Good point.
MWO is also a simulation of a board game.
OP is wrong, period.

[thalamus]

Thanks for this topic.

It is my feeling that the players are calling this a 'simulation' in an (quite elitist but naive) attempt to appear more sophisticated than players of other games. Interestingly, this kind of parallels the use of words such as "console games". Whenever people deem something as being below their level (for whatever reason), it's called consoley. E.g., ten years ago, picking up health packs in Shooters was called consoley and people were reacting with glee to some features of autohealing, now it is the opposite way around. But this is just a very anecdotal observation. Essentially, I suspect some kind of fanboy-elitism behind calling this a simulation.


Personally, I think that MWO (and all the other titles of the franchise) are really just a slowish shooter with the addition of another two degree of freedom in movement (torsial rotation) compared to other products. I mean honestly, MWO simulates the physics behind nuclear fusion, particle projector cannons and 100 tons of steel running around about as neatly as Street Fighter simulates martial arts and Call of Duty simulates modern warfare. It is hilarious how some fanboys on some forums are again and again debating over how weapon system X isn't 'realistic' because in 1000 years they'll have technology Y, and also illustrating their points with footage from M1 tanks (I mean really? We're comparing reality to BT now? Faster than light travel, nuclear fusion, but projectiles can't fly further than a few hundred meters?). Well.



Seeing what is possible and what not of BT's lore is, however a very intriguing pastime and I've written quite a few wall of texts about what a neurohelmet could actually do, assuming a certain degree of conceivable technological sophistication (as that is the field in which I'm working). But having heated and insulting arguments about that as some people do, well... it appears that these people are blessed with lives that do not give them more serious concerns.



Take MWO for what it is. It is giant stomping machines shooting laz0rs and stuff like any other mecha game, but it has some more tactical depth due to the slow maneuvering and the variety of toys you can play around with.

By the way, if you want to see an interation with really a lot of tactical depth, take a look at Mechwarrior: Living Legends and how people play a match with combined arms, coordinating 'Mechs as well as aeros, infantry, and tanks, with more than 30 people on a map + stationary turrets. That demands to give your moves some thought, but it's still not a simulation. It's just a very tactical shooter.




Disclaimer: this post is not meant to step anyone's toes. But having played sims like Falcon 4.0 in my youth (and not done so very well, but enthousiastically) and many other very games such as Gunship! or the good old Flight Simulator, I share and appreciate OP's point that using the term 'sim' to distinguish MW:O from all those other 'bad, arcady, dumb' games is kind of an insult to the people that research, model and play the 'real' simulations.

[DCLXVI]

To be honest i dont see half as many people calling this a sim that i see saying they would not play this garbage if it simulated anything other than mechs.

"Military simulations, also known informally as war games, are simulations in which theories of warfare can be tested and refined without the need for actual hostilities."

Edited by DCLXVI, 26 December 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[CypherHalo]

Thank you OP, you make great sense. The closest thing we've ever seen to a mech sim was that old Steel Battalion game and I don't recall that one flying off the shelves. This is an arcade shooter with some very light sim elements. It has some great elements to it, like managing heat, torso twisting, etc. It is more tactical then a lot of games in that the pace is slower and you can shoot off body parts. I like all those things about it. I've never liked playing COD, too twitchy for me. Hawken is good, lots of fun, but is more like an FPS with mechs, you don't have all the options you do here. Ultimately though, this game just is not as much fun as I thought it would be. Right now, I think the main thing it needs is a respawn mechanic.

Some people do put themselves on a pedestal for playing this game and like you OP, I think that is misguided. it's just a game, you're no better then anyone else for liking a game like MWO vs someone who likes COD. Finally, it's foolish not to learn from a game like COD, the devs at PGI would probably drool all over themselves if they had HALF the players of COD, and they're nowhere near that right now. So, please PGI, enough with this insane insistence on no respawns. That will be one step to making the game more fun. You've done some, like removing RnR costs and the cadet bonus, let's finish it all the way. And no, you don't need 3rd person camera but I don't think anyone really cares too much about that, we just want a fun MW game. You also need a tutorial by the way, be friendly to the new players.

[Dirkdaring]

Go read what Btech 3056 MUSE was (or is if its still up - and all the others) and you will see why this is a sim.

Imagine joining a house and a unit, getting your own rank and mech. Imagine being on a massive world where it's being invaded by another house. Imagine going out on patrol, or escorting resource trucks from one place to another. Imagine running into a scout mech and after a long fight you blow its left torso off and win. Now you tow the mech back to your base and hand it off to the mechbay where they strip it of armor and parts to add to your houses stores. Your mech is down an hour for repairs when the alarm sounds that a heavy lance has been spotted heading for one of your supply stations...

Yes, this is absolutely a sim. That ^ is RealSpace.

Edited by Dirkdaring, 26 December 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Angus McBeef]

Adridos, on 26 December 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

If you simulate a world so far into the future they have neurohelmets that directly reproduce input of your thoughts into the mech's movement, it's kinda hard to see a 1000 page manual describing how to move like a normal human + a throttle, 2 pedals, eject button and a joystick. If anything, the amount of buttons in the cockpit is pretty misleading of the actual imput you have on the mech.

I think you might be confused about how neurohelmets work. I believe what you are thinking of is a Direct Neural Interface, a very rare and dangerous piece of equipment in the BT world. In most mechs, the sole job of the neurohelmet is to allow the pilot to interface with the balance system of the mech. This aid.s in the general task of keeping the mech upright and recovering from impacts, falls, etc. Advanced helmets also send sensor data directly to the brain. All other functions of the mech such as throttle setting, torso twist, firing weapons, targeting, etc. use conventional controls for input. Since none of the mechs we have currently are equipped with advanced helmets or DNI systems, the buttons, screens, and control sticks in the cockpits of the mechs in MWO are an accurate portrayal of canon concepts.

Edit: aid.s...wow...the kiddie filter astounds me.

Edited by Angus McBeef, 26 December 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[SouthernRex]

lmfao @ calling iRacing a sim. Go play a real race game, sheep.

[Conure]

SouthernRex, on 26 December 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

lmfao @ calling iRacing a sim. Go play a real race game, sheep.

Haha what the hell are you on about. iRacing is accepted by almost the entire racing community as the most accurate representation of motorsport available outside of professional grade simulators.

I think the testimonials speak for themselves?

http://www.iracing.com/testimonials/

Are you going to turn around and tell me rFactor is better? lmao.

Besides - and here is the point I'd like you to really engage with...Please, if you respond to any point of this post make it this one:

Just because you do not like iRacing, why does that make it any less of a sim?

Edited by Conure, 26 December 2012 - 09:30 AM.

[Jetfire]

MWO is intended to be a Sim. Remember there are many kinds and levels of Sims.

X-wing and Tie Fighter were Space Flight Sims, they gave you advanced controls to learn to pilot your fictional craft.

DCS Blackhawk and A-10 are Realistic Flight Sims, they give you the complete functionality of an actual craft.

Mechwarrior has always been to some degree or another a Mech Sim game, giving you advanced controls over a mech.

Metal Gear series is essentially a Tactical Stealth Sim, giving you multiple ways to control your situation and condition.

These types of simulators have additional levels of complexity beyond what would be found in arcade games or straight up shooters. Modern shooters have very streamlined and similar controls with little complexity beyond Reload, Melee and Switch Weapon. That is defining of the shooter genre and runs back to Doom and Wolfenstein. Hawken by my own experience is a dressed up Shooter. This doesn't make it bad, it is just what it is.

In present day, the crowd that liked the old Sim games is very small compared to the general gaming population and can only be expected to pull in single to double digit millions as opposed to the FPS market which can tap billions. The Sim elements of MWO, Star Citizen and the DCS titles are all that will keep them in business at all.

Simulator games vary from Casual (X-wing) to Complex (Gunship 2000) to Realistic (DCS games)

An Arcade game by comparison could be called a Zero Complexity Sim. What you see is what you get, point and shoot.

The fact MWO also requires aim and reflexes no more makes it a shooter than it makes the DCS games shooters.

Summary: MWO is a casual level complexity Sim Mech game and may increase somewhat in complexity as it moves through Beta.