Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger
Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses
|
One thing I don't understand is that why should realism of say flight controls and usability / gameplay be mutually exclusive. Just tone them difficulty settings up and down. I do agree that for example realistic startup procedure or very complex engine management is not everyone. A casual gamer which creates majority of the gaming audience wants his point & shoot experience with quick rewards, but the simming crowd should not be underestimated either. They're (we're I guess =) willing to invest hundreds of dollars into their hobby and I as one love the details and the idea that the flight procedures and experience is as close to the real thing as possible without actually sitting in a warbird. (Ok, you can downsize oil temp rising etc =)
The closer SOW gets to realism the more customers it will extract from the dying(?) FSX scene. It's a resource question ofcourse, dev team can't do everything and get the game released in 2011 but underestimating the potential of customers who are ready to pay ~50$ for a single high-quality plane like A2A's accu sim packages can be a mistake too. But I hope Oleg has created an engine that's open and complex enough for 3rd parties to create whatever level of detail they see fit.
I'm looking forwards going through a thinck manual, monitoring million cauges and clicking billion buttons on my bomber flight in SOW!
01-03-2011, 05:30 PM
Threaded Mode