Quote:
Originally Posted by Feuerfalke
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. |
Take a look at what i wrote again plox.
Like i said Arma 2 is way over the arcade limit and more towards simulation in all of its areas especially when it comes to handling the infantry combat, however it's still far from an in depth simulator in specific areas but the game is defiantly not an Arcade shooter and it proves itself worthy very well.
The physics, FM and Aero dynamics you'll see in SoW for airplanes etc just won't be possible in an overall sim today. If Arma 2 would've had physics for infantry and a very advanced fm , aerodynamic systems etc for everything even tanks and boats and a rendered map as large as RoF for example and with the graphics of Arma 2 the system requirements and optimization issues would be insane, not to mention the bug list.
You can't honestly believe that Oleg will have you're dream game of a Sub simulator better looking, handling than Silent Heroes at the same time handle Infantry combat better than Arma 2 and keep Tank combat on such a detailed level in graphics , bullet simulation such as Red Orchestra and STILL have all the elements that is planned for Storm of War in the air.
Do you know what it is you're asking for lol? No offense but you better get that supercomputer asap..and the development time, buglist of a game @ this scale would be of the chart unless you're at least 300+ working on it... would it be worth it in the end.. doubtful. It's better to focus on one area and make it as good as possible instead since the market for even attempting something like this is to small anyway.
Sure Olegs engine has support for creating vehicles etc on the ground does that mean it will handle better than say Red Orchestra hell no were did you get that from. I am expecting the best ever created ww2-
FLIGHT sim from Oleg with SoW BoB nothing more nothing less and if he can pull of a miracle in some other area at the same time then so be it , i will be happy but i bet my arm it won't happen.
-Cheers