Quote:
Originally Posted by virre89
Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.
Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.
To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.
You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.
Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.
I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.
Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.
|
I didn't say they failed as a game, but they utterly failed as battlefield-simulations, though they're even named after that high goal! Even ArmA2 is merely an extended Ego-Shooter, that implemented aircraft and vehicles because they somewhat belong to warfare, but they are still far from being ment seriously. And while all the games noted succeeded as games, they utterly failed in simulating even the most basic physics, as this ArmA2-Video shows pretty nicely:
And this is not a mere bug, it's ArmAs physics. Hell, the game doesn't even fit the aircraft with flares and chaff, but tons of Anti-Air tanks and launchers! And don't tell me, that they couldn't modell this level of detail!
And to the speed-differences: I think you have a basic misconception of modern warfare and game-design as well. While there is a frontline in war, it does not mean that there are thousands of units fighting in a single long line along that hundreds of kilometer long front. Most of the action is taking place at a limited area at a time, with spearheads and massed units attacking and defending for a strategic point. Infact, it's that exact slow motion you mentioned for games, that dictates this.
So back into the game, while the aircraft may spawn at an airbase some 10km behind the fenceline, your tank-platoon might just spawn at the depot 1km behind the action.
That not only makes it more suitable for playing, but also more realstic compared to planes in the games you named, that rearm by flying at 100ft and Mach1 over an airfield to rearm and repair and reappear fully armed 20 seconds after the last bombrun.