StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-11-28 01:39am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » Gaming, Electronics and Computers


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

Ace Combat: Assault Horizon

Moderators: Stofsk, Thanas, PeZook, Keevan_Colton

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 2 of 4
 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Moby Halcyon
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 06:32pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2009-10-22 05:28pm
Posts: 78
Location: Orlando, Florida
Another thing I noticed - the level pacing is horribly slow, a lot of time you find yourself waiting for the next set of bad guys to spawn. I might be in that one percent that enjoyed the chopper sections, but they were the worst offenders in the 'kill a group, wait for orders' category. Both of them are endless 'wait for the next spawn' fests. What's even worse is the Moscow chopper mission on ace. No health recharge + guaranteed damage for ten plus hinds makes me think the game wasn't really tested through on ace difficulty.

I really want to like this game, but the more I think it over the more flaws I identify.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 06:39pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
The spawns are worse than Freespace, a game where enemies literally appeared out of nowhere. Squads appearing in front of you at 5km after they say 'nothing on radar' = lol.
   Profile |  

Starglider
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 06:59pm 

Miles Dyson


Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Posts: 7754
Location: Isle of Dogs
I recall a while back back Stark was complaining about flight sims not being relevant to modern gamers because they you are just shooting dots / don't visually impress / they are too boring / too hard to get into / not enough plot etc. Well, it sounds like Namco tried to answer all that by making a visual spectacle of plane-themed minigames with a ClancyPlot for the 'casual gamer' crowd. Which sucks. I bought AC4/5/0/6 on release (actually got an X360 for AC6) but I think I'll leave this one until it goes on budget.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 07:11pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
It's more fun than otshot light games. The fake difficulty just sucks. The coop is excellent (and the stupid plot makes campaign coop impossible) but outside the excellent dogfighting there's still too much 'turn constantly firing missile' boredom and horribly broken plane stat-driven multi.

Sorry, radar simulators suck. :lol:
   Profile |  

Darksider
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 07:55pm 

Sith Acolyte


Joined: 2002-12-13 03:56pm
Posts: 5229
Location: America's decaying industrial armpit.
Beat the game, made a couple more observations.

Lining up gun kills in DFM is really fun. Especially the ones that go low to the ground and lead you through obsticles and such. I'm still not sure if you have to angle your plane to avoid debris or if it does it automatically, either way it's a harrowing experience.

Others have mentioned the useless wingmen and enemy's over-emphasis on killing you so I don't have much to add, except to say that some of the deaths i've had have felt really cheap.

All in all, I find it to be superior in most respects to 6, and a much more fun game to play. IMHO the only thing 6 did better was the immense scale of the battles, with multiple fronts and operations taking place all over the map. I don't want to compare it to the PS2 Ace Combat games, since I know i've built up a lot of rose-colored nostalgia for them, especially 4, but it might be better than them too.
   Profile |  

Starglider
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 11:21pm 

Miles Dyson


Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Posts: 7754
Location: Isle of Dogs
Stark wrote:
but outside the excellent dogfighting there's still too much 'turn constantly firing missile' boredom and horribly broken plane stat-driven multi.


This is an interesting game design problem; allowing normal players to do realistic-but-fun dogfighting with energy management is a tricky gameplay challenge. It is possible and quite satisfying to play some missions in AC0 and AC6 with fairly realistic air combat maneuvers; I also enjoyed the supersonic intercepts of bonus targets in AC4 (XB-70 & SR-71), where tail-chase was ineffective and you had to judge your trajectory. Unfortunately however this requires a spatial awareness that is really hard to maintain with just one enemy, it is effectively impossible in the multi-plane furballs, plus the 'turn hard randomly to foil constant incoming missiles' mechanic messes it up. So most of the time even skilled players resort to constant hard turning and pointer chasing.

Do you recall the 3D pointer/ribbon visualisation of aircraft flightpaths after the missions in AC4/5/0 ? In this view it would be relatively easy to do proper 3D dogfighting, because the relative positions and velocities are much clearer. I had an old Amiga public domain game that worked like this and it was quite good, although hobbled by low resolution and not using real 3D. Obviously though this is a completely abstract visualisation and not very visually impressive; you could dress it up but that would destroy the clarity of presentation that makes it possible to judge position/velocity easily. HAWX 'OFF mode' is something of a compromise in that it's zoomed out enough to get a better view around you, and the vapor trails are exagerated enough to act as trajectory ribbons, but you can still only see stuff in the forward arc that's relatively close. I liked it once I got the hang of it, but the zoom-out means you don't get the AC7 super-cinematic closeups, and it's way to hard for the 'casual gamers'.

When I get time to work on the cold-war flightsim I'm making some more I may try to find a better way of presenting/visualising for this stuff. I was originally just going to clone/update F/A-18 Interceptor, but this is an interesting game design issue.

Quote:
Sorry, radar simulators suck. :lol:


Sure, the majority of players aren't interested in killing dots 100km away with super-BVR Phoenix shots. That's a case of realism detracting from the experience. What I want (and what a lot of other combat flight sim fans really want, even if they don't realise it) is enough time, space and spatial awareness to compose and execute maneuvers that will make a killer shot. In 2D platformers players compose a jump/wallhang/attack sequence, in 2D shooters it's a path through the scenery / bullets that will allow shots at enemies, in fighting games it's a combo string; all cases of a 1 - 3 second tempo of moves that is part improvised, part learned and part reactive. I can't say for sure without playing it, but it seems like the basic problem with AC7 is pandering to what gamers think they want; the ability to do cool looking dogfighting maneuvers without much practice. The experience is hollow though because the player isn't really doing it and the process is a bit too simple and mechanical to bear much repetition.

In short I think flight sims are lagging other games in having a proper game design analysis, incorportating all the player psychology stuff that is employed as standard by professional games designers now. Originally the process was just 'make a sim then reduce ranges / take out detail until it feels fun'. HAWX and now AC7 are a step forward in that the design is now focused on individual mechanics that are designed to give a little burst of fun/satisfaction, but they're 2.5D and kind of shoe-horned into a flight sim framework. Hopefully we will progress to re-imagining the whole experience in terms of opportunities for creative player fun while still feeling like a flight sim, by focusing on the 3D positional aspect. That's always going to lose casual players who don't want to learn skills or have poor spatial visualisation, but good riddance, they can go grief people in Duty of Gears of Modern Honor Evolved 15 instead we can always make an 'Arcade Mode' that dumbs things back down to the AC7 level for them.
   Profile |  

Stark
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 11:27pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Posts: 36168
Location: Brisbane, Australia
I think you're right on almost all counts. The 'dogfight mode' ACAH has in 80% of the appeal, since it's the 'fun' part of dogfighting (keep on tail, juggle range between easy to follow and easy to shoot, etc) without the requirement for excellent AI and very high player skill. In coops letting players trade in and out on pursuit gives a really strong cinematic sense without being actually scripted (although it is in campaign).

Regarding multi, I think people (Players) just need to grow up and stop expecting games to have huge stables of planes. 200 planes! 2 viable in multi! Wow!
   Profile |  

Edward Yee
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 11:31pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2005-07-31 06:48am
Posts: 3395
Darksider wrote:
Lining up gun kills in DFM is really fun. Especially the ones that go low to the ground and lead you through obsticles and such. I'm still not sure if you have to angle your plane to avoid debris or if it does it automatically, either way it's a harrowing experience.
Amusingly, apparently non-fatal collision with the ground breaks DFM -- which has led to some people deliberately doing this in hopes of causing their pursuer to fatally crash. :lol:

From what I understand, whereas AC6 multiplayer weighed kill points according to the disparity between the aircraft (i.e. a F-16C killing a F-22A = more points than the other way around), ACAH's method is to give the "lower-end" aircraft a shorter spawn timer.
   Profile |  

Losonti Tokash
PostPosted: 2011-10-17 11:33pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2004-09-29 03:02pm
Posts: 2915
Location: Lincoln, NE
Stark wrote:
I think you're right on almost all counts. The 'dogfight mode' ACAH has in 80% of the appeal, since it's the 'fun' part of dogfighting (keep on tail, juggle range between easy to follow and easy to shoot, etc) without the requirement for excellent AI and very high player skill. In coops letting players trade in and out on pursuit gives a really strong cinematic sense without being actually scripted (although it is in campaign).

Regarding multi, I think people (Players) just need to grow up and stop expecting games to have huge stables of planes. 200 planes! 2 viable in multi! Wow!


Or at least if you're gonna be pulling that shit, you need to be semi-creative about it. Don't have your standard mode just be an opportunity to throw F4s against F22s. Try a matchlist of Vietnam-era planes, or a small team of advanced fighters against a larger team of relics. Instead we just get "lol deathmatch."
   Profile |  

Tasoth
PostPosted: 2011-10-18 04:44pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2002-12-31 03:30am
Posts: 2815
Location: Being Invisible, per SOP
Beat it on hard, and towards the end of the last stage, I got this sinking feeling. When I see the unlock screen, what do I get?

Ace mode.

Fuck you Namco, fuck you in the ear.

As for multi, Coop is a lot of fun. Competitive is like letting a professional martial artist kick you in the groin. Repeatedly. Until you pass out. And then kicking you back awake. Everyone is either in a F-22 or, if they've unlocked it, a PAK-FA. The closest plane you're going to get to match those two is the Berkut, and it is crippled on stability. Couple this with the people dominating the match having a huge lead on what skills they have, and your super planes become combine harvests on rockets. You can create a session though that lets you limit it to low tier and no skills, but I suggest doing it to the multirole too if you do as the Lightning 2 has impressive stats.
   Profile |  

CaptHawkeye
PostPosted: 2011-10-18 05:15pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2007-03-04 07:52pm
Posts: 2910
Location: Korea.
I really feel like Japanese developers don't grasp the importance of balancing. Especially in multiplayer.
   Profile |  

Edward Yee
PostPosted: 2011-10-18 11:35pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2005-07-31 06:48am
Posts: 3395
Tasoth wrote:
You can create a session though that lets you limit it to low tier and no skills,
This is actually the most fun mode because said "low tier" planes also have the shorter respawn timers.

Note for those of you trying to A-rank the Free Missions -- not only do the Pilot skills improve your scores with the corresponding aircraft, but apparently Ace Mode also gives you a higher score.
   Profile |  

Tasoth
PostPosted: 2011-10-18 11:59pm 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2002-12-31 03:30am
Posts: 2815
Location: Being Invisible, per SOP
Yeah, in order to get the only A I have in the free missions, I cranked it up to the starting hard mode and flew the crappiest plane possible.
   Profile |  

Scottish Ninja
PostPosted: 2011-10-19 12:21am 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2007-02-26 07:39pm
Posts: 937
Location: Not Scotland, that's for sure
Edward Yee wrote:
Tasoth wrote:
You can create a session though that lets you limit it to low tier and no skills,
This is actually the most fun mode because said "low tier" planes also have the shorter respawn timers.

Note for those of you trying to A-rank the Free Missions -- not only do the Pilot skills improve your scores with the corresponding aircraft, but apparently Ace Mode also gives you a higher score.


How do I unlock the Fighter Pilot and Multirole Pilot skills? I got Attacker Pilot by A-ranking the shipping attack mission, but I haven't a clue how to get the others. Machine-gunning everything when you do ground attack also racks up a lot of points, too, which makes Pipeline fairly annoying in that I can't use the A-10 or the Su-25 where they would be most useful.
   Profile |  

Marko Dash
PostPosted: 2011-10-19 01:28pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2006-01-29 04:42am
Posts: 531
Location: south carolina, USA
i guess i'm in the opposite here in that only being able to kill enemy's in DFM killed my interest in the game. it's like so many games recently that added scripted button pushing to defeat your foes instead of allowing you to do it free form. i think they also gimped the missile range further but i'm not sure of that, it's annoying having to close to nearly gun range to get a missile lock.
   Profile |  

Vanas
PostPosted: 2011-10-19 02:22pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2005-03-12 06:31pm
Posts: 1803
Location: Surfing the Moho
I'm forced to agree there. While DFM mode is very cinematic, it's not very... well, interesting. You don't really have to do a whole lot. And the fact you pretty much have to use it to kill TGT_Leads is really quite annoying. And yes, Marko, it looks like standard missile range is down to 2000m or less. The mission variety is nice, with the other play styles and the graphics are pretty good but other than that, I'm not liking AC:Modern Warfare as much as the rest.
   Profile |  

Sephirius
PostPosted: 2011-10-19 03:26pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2005-03-15 12:34am
Posts: 1093
Vanas wrote:
I'm forced to agree there. While DFM mode is very cinematic, it's not very... well, interesting. You don't really have to do a whole lot. And the fact you pretty much have to use it to kill TGT_Leads is really quite annoying. And yes, Marko, it looks like standard missile range is down to 2000m or less. The mission variety is nice, with the other play styles and the graphics are pretty good but other than that, I'm not liking AC:Modern Warfare as much as the rest.


That was my biggest beef with the multiplay, the lack of range on the former XLAAs and XMAAs- since everyone is in DFM anyway most of the time, wouldn't it make sense to include some sort of 'sniping' mechanic? I.e. if you're not paying attention to your missile warning, you can get smoked from someone miles away.
   Profile |  

Julhelm
PostPosted: 2011-10-19 03:45pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2003-01-28 01:03pm
Posts: 1468
Location: Brutopia
Starglider wrote:
Stark wrote:
but outside the excellent dogfighting there's still too much 'turn constantly firing missile' boredom and horribly broken plane stat-driven multi.


This is an interesting game design problem; allowing normal players to do realistic-but-fun dogfighting with energy management is a tricky gameplay challenge. It is possible and quite satisfying to play some missions in AC0 and AC6 with fairly realistic air combat maneuvers; I also enjoyed the supersonic intercepts of bonus targets in AC4 (XB-70 & SR-71), where tail-chase was ineffective and you had to judge your trajectory. Unfortunately however this requires a spatial awareness that is really hard to maintain with just one enemy, it is effectively impossible in the multi-plane furballs, plus the 'turn hard randomly to foil constant incoming missiles' mechanic messes it up. So most of the time even skilled players resort to constant hard turning and pointer chasing.

Do you recall the 3D pointer/ribbon visualisation of aircraft flightpaths after the missions in AC4/5/0 ? In this view it would be relatively easy to do proper 3D dogfighting, because the relative positions and velocities are much clearer. I had an old Amiga public domain game that worked like this and it was quite good, although hobbled by low resolution and not using real 3D. Obviously though this is a completely abstract visualisation and not very visually impressive; you could dress it up but that would destroy the clarity of presentation that makes it possible to judge position/velocity easily. HAWX 'OFF mode' is something of a compromise in that it's zoomed out enough to get a better view around you, and the vapor trails are exagerated enough to act as trajectory ribbons, but you can still only see stuff in the forward arc that's relatively close. I liked it once I got the hang of it, but the zoom-out means you don't get the AC7 super-cinematic closeups, and it's way to hard for the 'casual gamers'.

When I get time to work on the cold-war flightsim I'm making some more I may try to find a better way of presenting/visualising for this stuff. I was originally just going to clone/update F/A-18 Interceptor, but this is an interesting game design issue.

Quote:
Sorry, radar simulators suck. :lol:


Sure, the majority of players aren't interested in killing dots 100km away with super-BVR Phoenix shots. That's a case of realism detracting from the experience. What I want (and what a lot of other combat flight sim fans really want, even if they don't realise it) is enough time, space and spatial awareness to compose and execute maneuvers that will make a killer shot. In 2D platformers players compose a jump/wallhang/attack sequence, in 2D shooters it's a path through the scenery / bullets that will allow shots at enemies, in fighting games it's a combo string; all cases of a 1 - 3 second tempo of moves that is part improvised, part learned and part reactive. I can't say for sure without playing it, but it seems like the basic problem with AC7 is pandering to what gamers think they want; the ability to do cool looking dogfighting maneuvers without much practice. The experience is hollow though because the player isn't really doing it and the process is a bit too simple and mechanical to bear much repetition.

In short I think flight sims are lagging other games in having a proper game design analysis, incorportating all the player psychology stuff that is employed as standard by professional games designers now. Originally the process was just 'make a sim then reduce ranges / take out detail until it feels fun'. HAWX and now AC7 are a step forward in that the design is now focused on individual mechanics that are designed to give a little burst of fun/satisfaction, but they're 2.5D and kind of shoe-horned into a flight sim framework. Hopefully we will progress to re-imagining the whole experience in terms of opportunities for creative player fun while still feeling like a flight sim, by focusing on the 3D positional aspect. That's always going to lose casual players who don't want to learn skills or have poor spatial visualisation, but good riddance, they can go grief people in Duty of Gears of Modern Honor Evolved 15 instead we can always make an 'Arcade Mode' that dumbs things back down to the AC7 level for them.

You should seriously check out the dogfighting in Strike Fighters 2. It has realistic flightmodels and weapons and manages to make the fights fun without devolving into constant turn & boyd fests. The problem with games like AC and Hawx is that they're made by people who suffer from the misconception that dogfighting is all about turning turning turning whereas IRL it is about energy management and utilizing the vertical to disengage/reengage at will. And you really need a decent padlocking system to maintain spatial awareness.
   Profile |  

Temjin
PostPosted: 2011-10-20 07:30am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-08-04 07:12pm
Posts: 1518
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Picked this up the other day. I'm on the final mission now.

The story kind of sucks, and gets to be a kind of confusing mess at parts. Certain "plot twists" were just painfully choreographed way too soon. I usually try to pay attention to a game's story, but with this game I just really didn't give a shit.

I have mixed feelins on the DFM. It's a cool feature, but it's really annoying how the game just makes me drop whatever I'm doing when an enemy uses it on me. If you're on the external camera view, good luck trying to destroy a target when you're in an enemy DFM since it really fucks up your camera.

I'm not a big fan of the door gunner missions either. I'm not a big fan of on-rails shooters, especially in a game that's supposed to be about flying. The AC-130 missions was okay, but it's too bad I already played it in Modern warfare.

But despite those complaints, I find myself having fun. I like the diverse missions, although I do wish there were more bomber and helicopter missions. I was having a blast at the end of that last helicopter mission, once I grasped the concept of poping out from behind buildings and firing a wave of missiles before hiding again.

Seriously, they could make an entire game out of those missions and I'd be happy.
   Profile |  

Vendetta
PostPosted: 2011-10-20 08:53am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Posts: 9457
Location: Sheffield, UK
Temjin wrote:
The story kind of sucks, and gets to be a kind of confusing mess at parts. Certain "plot twists" were just painfully choreographed way too soon. I usually try to pay attention to a game's story, but with this game I just really didn't give a shit.


The story of ACAH is, err, well actually it's the story of HAWX 2. And, come to think of it, CoD Modern Warfare as well.

There is only one Modern Warfare videogame story. To note that it is predictable is rather an understatement, it's the same one we've already seen.

(Though this is hardly a departure, Ace Combat 1, 2, 4, Zero, 6, and X all have basically identical stories.
   Profile |  

CaptHawkeye
PostPosted: 2011-10-20 10:40am 

Sith Devotee


Joined: 2007-03-04 07:52pm
Posts: 2910
Location: Korea.
Apparently no one in the video game industry has ever actually *been* to Russia. They must consult Glenn Beck about geopolitics.

At least Shattered Skies had a coherent campaign that played out like an actual operation. The other games in the series were too busy trying to tell epic storyez of teh patriots.
   Profile |  

Starglider
PostPosted: 2011-10-22 05:17pm 

Miles Dyson


Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Posts: 7754
Location: Isle of Dogs
Julhelm wrote:
You should seriously check out the dogfighting in Strike Fighters 2. It has realistic flightmodels and weapons and manages to make the fights fun without devolving into constant turn & boyd fests.


That's true of any reasonably realistic combat sim, because of course real air combat is not a pointer chasing stall-ignoring 9G turn fest. However as we've already established even a Strike Fighters level of realism (which is hardly SimHard to an enthusiast) is too much sim for Stark and 95%+ of gamers. Making a game that is fun and visually impressive by mainstream standards inevitably means departing from realism, particularly for the weapons - the abovementioned 100km Phoenix kills are realistic but not (for most people) fun. The interesting game design question is whether you can have AC7 levels of excitement and cinematics ('spend five minutes launching, kill 4 enemies one at a time, spend five minutes returning to base' is not acceptable) without degenerating the gameplay into pointer chasing or (slightly better) twitchfest minigames.
   Profile |  

Julhelm
PostPosted: 2011-10-22 07:56pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2003-01-28 01:03pm
Posts: 1468
Location: Brutopia
Starglider wrote:
Julhelm wrote:
You should seriously check out the dogfighting in Strike Fighters 2. It has realistic flightmodels and weapons and manages to make the fights fun without devolving into constant turn & boyd fests.


That's true of any reasonably realistic combat sim, because of course real air combat is not a pointer chasing stall-ignoring 9G turn fest. However as we've already established even a Strike Fighters level of realism (which is hardly SimHard to an enthusiast) is too much sim for Stark and 95%+ of gamers. Making a game that is fun and visually impressive by mainstream standards inevitably means departing from realism, particularly for the weapons - the abovementioned 100km Phoenix kills are realistic but not (for most people) fun. The interesting game design question is whether you can have AC7 levels of excitement and cinematics ('spend five minutes launching, kill 4 enemies one at a time, spend five minutes returning to base' is not acceptable) without degenerating the gameplay into pointer chasing or (slightly better) twitchfest minigames.

I do not think a reasonable (reasonable meaning something like F-18 Interceptor or F-19 Stealth Fighter) level of realism precludes guys like Stark having a blast with it. I'd wager the gameplay would become much more interesting and more competitive if the combat is made truer to real life than the industry-standard "RC plane turn fest" dogfight. What makes Strike Fighters a lot of fun is the fact that most of the missiles are more or less unreliable and as such you have to rely on gun kills a lot. It was the same way in Strike Commander which had even less realism but it still felt more authentic and challenging than HAWX (no respawning weapons, dumb bombs actually need to be aimed with some precision etc). If you want to make a semi-realistic but fun lite sim all you have to do is stick it in Korea or Vietnam setting and BVR kills are out of the question because the missiles either suck too hard or you can do what politicians do and just arbitrarily apply ROE that precludes any 100nm Phoenix kills.

I think Apache Air Assault hit the mark pretty well. It has a realistic flight model and semi-realistic weapons but the combat is decidedly action-oriented and as such it turns out to be much more fun than Black Shark. Kind of like the old Novalogic sims. Realistic but first and foremost simple to learn and fun.
   Profile |  

Starglider
PostPosted: 2011-10-23 04:40am 

Miles Dyson


Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Posts: 7754
Location: Isle of Dogs
Julhelm wrote:
I do not think a reasonable (reasonable meaning something like F-18 Interceptor or F-19 Stealth Fighter)


Both of those are two slow to appeal to modern gamers. Playing Ace Combat, you kill several enemies or scores of ground targets per minute. In those games you fly for five minutes, kill one target, fly for a few more minutes, kill something else etc. In a fifteen minute mission you fire six or so missiles. That was fine in 1989 where PC gamers were all tech geeks and the 3D world alone was impressive, it is not acceptable for a mainstream title in 2011.

Quote:
I'd wager the gameplay would become much more interesting and more competitive if the combat is made truer to real life than the industry-standard "RC plane turn fest" dogfight.


There is no direct correlation between interesting and realistic; in fact games have a vast catalogue of deliberate breaks from reality, much moreso than even action movies, specifically to be fun. I have stated that there are elements of 3D maneuver and tactics that are fun when done correctly and which AC7 has given up on by resorting to 2.5D minigames. However the solution is not simply 'being truer to real life', otherwise America's Army would be the most popular FPS. Making accurate flight simulations is frankly quite straightforward with modern technology; making fun games is still hard. There is still a need to abstract air combat maneuvering into something appropriate for normal gamers, I just think there's a better way to do that than the AC7 solution.

Quote:
or you can do what politicians do and just arbitrarily apply ROE that precludes any 100nm Phoenix kills.


I don't think ROE Simulator Pro would be fun.

Quote:
I think Apache Air Assault hit the mark pretty well. It has a realistic flight model and semi-realistic weapons but the combat is decidedly action-oriented and as such it turns out to be much more fun than Black Shark.


AAA has an easier time of it because the ranges are short and helicopters carry more weapons to start with. It still received rather mixed reviews.
   Profile |  

Julhelm
PostPosted: 2011-10-23 01:25pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2003-01-28 01:03pm
Posts: 1468
Location: Brutopia
Starglider wrote:
Both of those are two slow to appeal to modern gamers. Playing Ace Combat, you kill several enemies or scores of ground targets per minute. In those games you fly for five minutes, kill one target, fly for a few more minutes, kill something else etc. In a fifteen minute mission you fire six or so missiles. That was fine in 1989 where PC gamers were all tech geeks and the 3D world alone was impressive, it is not acceptable for a mainstream title in 2011.

Surely slower-paced games are still acceptable and can sell well. Otherwise RPG's wouldn't still be a popular genre. Games today are rigidly scripted and rely on QTE's because AAA game designers are lazy and think in terms of interactive movie storytelling only and big publishers are ridiculously risk-averse.

Quote:
Making accurate flight simulations is frankly quite straightforward with modern technology; making fun games is still hard. There is still a need to abstract air combat maneuvering into something appropriate for normal gamers, I just think there's a better way to do that than the AC7 solution.

Of course there are better ways to do it. The old Novalogic sims were one way, but unfortunately they came out back in the end of the 90's where PC gamers all went lol switchology ftw and they were thus discontinued. However they'd have fit the console format nicely, like Over-G Fighters which IIRC is still a popular game on console. For the longest time I've been annoyed at how the flight genre is basically a choice between ridiculous arcade games like HAWX or anal-retentively complex and dry milsims like DCS. And I can't be the only one who feels that way.

Quote:
I don't think ROE Simulator Pro would be fun.

Because plot conventions to conveniently explain the absence of (boring) BVR combat = not fun? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
AAA has an easier time of it because the ranges are short and helicopters carry more weapons to start with. It still received rather mixed reviews.

It receieved mixed reviews because game reviewers are generally more fucking retarded than the lowest common denominator gamer. If you ask people who actually played the game they all think it was awesome. Sort of like it was with Alpha Protocol, you know?
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 2 of 4
 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

It is currently 2014-11-28 01:39am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » Gaming, Electronics and Computers

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group