Continued DM discussion

[steppenwolf]

None of the titles you suggest having sim features have any sim features and they focus on particular features that their title requires to be more convincing. GTA, it uses hit scan for shooting. Look that up, that's a step back into the 1980s. If everything was introduced into those titles, they wouldn't run on a console or PC because it's just not possible. We'll leave it at, you see things and you think because one game does one thing and another does another thing and another does another thing and etc that makes consoles leading the charge except PC titles have done it long ago and consoles are just now catching up but you'll notice that one single title doesn't include everything so therefore nothing you've stated matters because all titles, regardless of platform, face the same hinderance - development time constraints, performance constraints, size constraints, team constraints and most importantly - budget constraints.

 

Above by FuriosMeow

 

 

 

Thanks Furious, I was hoping you'd say something like that. You say 'they focus on particular features that their titles requires to be more convincing.' 'More convincing' versus 'sim elements'(my words), you've pretty much said all I was trying to say. And I think these more convincing features will only get better gradually with time, that's all. 

 

And I never said consoles were leading the charge. I said they had things in them that won't be matched for some time by sims - such as changing weather, destructable environments, and character animations. 

 

And in my very first post I agree with you about resources.

 

But, I'm sorry I still don't see the DM you've described that is so sophisticated compared to Next Car.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8MlAcw9400

 

 

 

[Bladderburst]

Next car game is a whole different game. Less assets, smaller environments. Skydomes in GTA are less expansive than ones in flight sims. GTA uses dynamic loadings, gates and things like that which you can't do in a truly open simulator. Civilians are unloaded when you turn your back to them which can't be done in simulators. Environment just can't be as dense in simulators. 

 

Damage models take into consideration ballistics and internal components of vehicles in simulators where in gta and next car game it's really just visual.

 

When you are not trying to be realistic you can pimp up your visuals, that's where the difference is.

 

 

But if one day it would be possible I am not arguing at all that it would be really great.

[steppenwolf]

I see ya'lls points. And I think games like GTA and Next Car or BF are going to incorporate more complex simulation elements into their games before sims incorporate pretty visuals in to theirs.

[Bladderburst]

I see ya'lls points. And I think games like GTA and Next Car or BF are going to incorporate more complex simulation elements into their games before sims incorporate pretty visuals in to theirs.

 

I would not think so. Realism is far from being a priority in AAA studios. I've worked there in the past.

[steppenwolf]

I see the worlds in those games getting bigger, more detailed with animated people, changing weather, really sharp looking effects, DMs, so many of the things sims could use(according to me anyway). They seem to have more in place already, they just have to make some of the changes you guys have mentioned. I see them doing that first, or start to anyway, before sims start giving BF damage to concrete walls(for example). And of course they have the money and the teams already in place to do so first. Possibly a hybrid type game??

[steppenwolf]

To me they're all video games, all smoke and mirrors. Both sides break the illusion in their own way, but I also think they are both trying to achieve similar goals...namely, bring a more convincing experience. But I think Next Car type (visual, if that's all it is)DM with semi-sim(or sim, depending on your definition) DM complexity will be in BF in 10 years, easily. You'll be able to make specific hits on roads wheel or tracks for instance on tanks. Such things already exist for tires in GTA.  

Edited April 29, 2014 by steppenwolf

[Bladderburst]

They will implement what sells because that's what keeps them alive.

 

It means graphics mostly. They will never waste their time on correct ballistics or realistic combat scenarios because that's not their field of expertise. A AAA title will always look better but it will never be as realistic as a simulator. Games will never be open world just because they need to be, the open world thing must support some type of gameplay else it's just a money sinkhole.

 

On the other hand a true simulator will implement correct weather effects, correct ballistics, highly detailed vehicles and damage effects, huge environment with low object density. However since it has a cost you may leave out some visual candy and some may be just unfeasible.

Think of it as block buster movies vs independent movies. Effects vs story.

Situations where you get killed instantly by a plane that you never saw are, for instance, a situation that you will NEVER see in AAA games.

[steppenwolf]

I agree, but I also see both sides barrowing parts from each other.

[Bladderburst]

They sure do.

[steppenwolf]

...A simulator solely concentrates on the reality it models and uses it to create the player experience.

I agree with you, but when I see things in GTA like a player's clothes becoming wet up to the point at which he has been submerged in water I can't help but scratch my head over the definition of 'simulation', or the direction things like this are suggesting in future console games. 

[Bladderburst]

I agree with you, but when I see things in GTA like a player's clothes becoming wet up to the point at which he has been submerged in water I can't help but scratch my head over the definition of 'simulation', or the direction things like this are suggesting in future console games. 

 

That's eye candy .

hey you must be a veteran its been long since i dont hear the term eye candy

 

nowadays thats a plus and a hardly used term anymore

 

I have some years. Not the old breed but I know my job.

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

My dream game would be a Rise of Flight in Red Dead Redemption world. So I could fly Camel around that beatiful game world. And possibly land and switch to controling pilot on the ground. I can think of many interesting scenarios created in that world. I hope that some day we will see life on the ground in sims.

[steppenwolf]

Sounds good. No FPS sim, no flight sim, just sim!

[hiro]

there's also the social / economic factor . . . someone mentioned the movie blockbuster . .. 

 

look at big budget movies, tons of special effects, lots of action, but acting may not be that great, but it makes $ which allows it.

 

look at call of duty series, lots of spec efx, actors, high end graphics, and 

 

 

then you look at documentaries, really good ones, but they don't make that much $$. but their historical detail and accuracy is much better.

 

Red Tails vs  . . .<insert your ww 2 documentary)

 

history channels gone reality show but I miss some of the rockumentaries they had, because more people like drama and more ads can be shown. 

 

 

 

 

And also you have to look at the community, that can factor heavy in lack of 'features'. Alot of 'features' that current games have are a product of our modern times. I've seen some people want actual 8 hour bombing missions. I like a balance (what the BOS Devs are going for) myself. 

 

 

 

but I think the $$ is a big factor. 

 

Look at the US space program, in the 70's people were walking on the m00n and haxing space, on computers didn't even have the computing power of a 2nd generation smart phone had. 2014, new materials, new technology and wow, computers are more reliable. Now they can't put a man on the moon. Scramble to figure out how to build a heavy lift rocket, and private companies beat them to the punch. Of course if China builds a moon base and decides to put a "laser" on it, maybe next decade might find us at the nearest star.