SimHQ Review...

[SharpeXB]

So like I said, you are not familair with them, and did not play them, therefore can only go what it looked like? Did you know that at one point DOOM was steller graphics wise?

 

You are commenting on things that you dont know about.

Imagine trying to get an audience to watch a full feature length CGI cartoon movie before Toy Story. It wouldn't sell. The technology just wasn't at that point yet. Same with games.

I would see those games on the shelf and the cool artwork on the box of a Marine charging up Iwo Jima, like Medal of Honor. Wow that looks cool. Then open the box and the screenshots look like stick men. Hmmm. Nope.

The flying "game" that got me hooked was IL-2 Birds/Wings of Prey. Which now I look at as an arcade game. But it was the first of these that had really nice visuals. I appreciate more realism now but the visuals had to grab me first.

Edited November 13, 2014 by SharpeXB

[SKG51_robtek]

Imagine trying to get an audience to watch a full feature length CGI cartoon movie before Toy Story. It wouldn't sell. The technology just wasn't at that point yet. Same with games.

The older games had to compensate for the less than stellar graphics and sounds with content and/or great gameplay.

Nowadays it seems good graphics and sound are enough, enforced gameplay, for people who want to fly a sim, not play a game, doesn't really work, imo!

[SharpeXB]

The older games had to compensate for the less than stellar graphics and sounds with content and/or great gameplay.

Nowadays it seems good graphics and sound are enough, enforced gameplay, for people who want to fly a sim, not play a game, doesn't really work, imo!

They were also able to include content because there wasn't as much work to be done on graphics and flight models since PCs couldn't handle it anyways.

One plane today is more work than an entire game was back then yet somehow people expect the same level of content. It's not possible. Look how the original IL-2 has something like 80 planes in it.

[Vaxxtx]

They were also able to include content because there wasn't as much work to be done on graphics and flight models since PCs couldn't handle it anyways.

One plane today is more work than an entire game was back then yet somehow people expect the same level of content. It's not possible. Look how the original IL-2 has something like 80 planes in it.

You DO know that "back then" graphics wise IL2 was great right? Also so was Medal of Honor? Computers games have been released relative to systems. Just like comparing an NES to a PS4.

 

You DO know in the next 10 years ARMA3 will look dated right?

 

Your comparisions are odd to me. Your played "sims" make much more sense in your postitive look of BoS to me though.

[SharpeXB]

You DO know in the next 10 years ARMA3 will look dated right?

I dunno. There's not much farther to go before that just looks completely real. Then no improvement is possible. There's a certain threshold in games that was crossed about 2007. Modern Warfare will always look "good"

And for example Toy Story doesn't look as good as current movies. But it will always look good.

And I put Medal of Honor back on the shelf till I saw MoH Airborne. That was the first game I bought.

 

So what's my point? I think flight sims have more appeal now than they ever have. I don't buy that there was a golden era in the past and its gone. The good ol days are today!

 

The mainstream gamer might not want to buy a joystick. But they will want an Oculus Rift. And THIS is the best type of game for one of those!

Edited November 13, 2014 by SharpeXB

[LizLemon]

There's a certain threshold in games that was crossed about 2007. Modern Warfare will always look "good"

Modern warfare looked so so then and it definitly looks dated now.

 

There was no threshold passed in 2007 except the one by you that you are now tryng to argue is some how universal.

[=LD=Hethwill]

The mainstream gamer might not want to buy a joystick. But they will want an Oculus Rift. And THIS is the best type of game for one of those!

 

That's a start indeed...Maybe they go headon into next gen space sims first with VR  ... 

 

I am sure they won't go E:D as a first choice... exactly for the aforementioned reasons. Takes time and dedication.

 

SC is much more Wing Commander.

 

( oh boy the discussions around tie/xwing vs wing commanders... time flies )

Edited November 14, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[mort]

But you still haven't explained how.

 

You want him to justify his enjoyment? That seems unreasonable.

 

 

 

If you don't enjoy playing the game for the challenge it provides, then I don't see how giving you a skin for a game you don't really enjoy is going to make the experience any better.

 

 

It's not zero sum. You can both enjoy shooting down the enemy and earning access to a new skin. Does anyone play a game only because they'll get a Steam achievement, or inversely, do Steam achievements have no value if you enjoy playing the game itself?

 

Obviously on the various sim forums and, indeed, probably across the set of BoS owners the vast majority find the unlocks onerous, but for what it's worth there are at least some that either don't care about them, or even like them. Perhaps I only like them because I'm not a hard core simmer, I'm one of the unwashed masses that supposedly won't ever pick up BoS. Don't tell anyone, but I discovered the game via a YouTube channel I subscribed to for War Thunder videos (Bis18marck70).

 

I don't really get the already-paid-for-it argument either, but that must be because I come from a traditional game background and not a study sim background. I paid for BF4, however it would be really weird if all the guns and attachments and what not were available right from the start. Of course, I would find it odd if they were locked something like Arma, so perhaps I do get it. <shrug>

Edited November 14, 2014 by mort

[SharpeXB]

Modern warfare looked so so then and it definitly looks dated now.

There was no threshold passed in 2007 except the one by you that you are now tryng to argue is some how universal.

I'm sticking with 2007 or maybe a year earlier because of the XBox 360 and PS3. Like it or not those drove the next generation. Also more widespread adoption of HDTV screens. That encourages better graphics development since games aren't confined to small square low res screens. games crossed the line of being believable for most people. I don't have stats but I'm sure ther was an upsurge around that time. Did Call of Duty 2 in 2005 bring in a billion $ in a single day the way those games do now?

[BraveSirRobin]

It's not zero sum. You can both enjoy shooting down the enemy and earning access to a new skin. 

 

But it is a zero sum game, because you're doing the exact same thing in both cases.  If you don't enjoy doing that thing, I don't see how getting a few trinkets makes it any more attractive.

 

Let's say you usually play first person shooters.  Does having to grind through missions to get bombs for your FW 190 make the game more attractive?  I don't see how, because, as a first person shooter fan, you don't give a crap about bombing in a FW 190.  Hell, you can't even practice with bombs in a quick mission to see if you enjoy it.  It just makes no sense at all.

[Vaxxtx]

I dunno. There's not much farther to go before that just looks completely real. Then no improvement is possible. There's a certain threshold in games that was crossed about 2007. Modern Warfare will always look "good"

And for example Toy Story doesn't look as good as current movies. But it will always look good.

And I put Medal of Honor back on the shelf till I saw MoH Airborne. That was the first game I bought.

 

So what's my point? I think flight sims have more appeal now than they ever have. I don't buy that there was a golden era in the past and its gone. The good ol days are today!

 

The mainstream gamer might not want to buy a joystick. But they will want an Oculus Rift. And THIS is the best type of game for one of those!

 

Yup, if your main concern on what makes a flight sim good is the visuals, you right on the money with BoS.

 

Modern warfare looked so so then and it definitly looks dated now.

 

There was no threshold passed in 2007 except the one by you that you are now tryng to argue is some how universal.

 

I dont remeber the great graphics threshold of 2007 either. Odd. lol

[LizLemon]

I don't really get the already-paid-for-it argument either, but that must be because I come from a traditional game background and not a study sim background. I paid for BF4, however it would be really weird if all the guns and attachments and what not were available right from the start. Of course, I would find it odd if they were locked something like Arma, so perhaps I do get it. <shrug>

As someone who has been playing "traditional" games for a long time I really dont understand this drive to shove unlocks into every genre imaginable.

 

If you told me a few years ago when bf was in its prime that soon the series will have xp for unlocking guns, rewarda given to the player for every minor thing, ect I would have laughed.

 

I find it very weird that these things are present in games that aren't rpgs. But I understand that the developers have to do something to appeal to the 12 year old 360 quick scope crowd.

 

 

I'm sticking with 2007 or maybe a year earlier because of the XBox 360 and PS3. Like it or not those drove the next generation. Also more widespread adoption of HDTV screens. That encourages better graphics development since games aren't confined to small square low res screens. games crossed the line of being believable for most people. I don't have stats but I'm sure ther was an upsurge around that time. Did Call of Duty 2 in 2005 bring in a billion $ in a single day the way those games do now?

2007 or 2006, either way its just as arbitrary and unfounded.

 

And of course cod2 didnt do the same sales the series does now. What was the install base of the 360 at launch? What was the marketing budget? To claim that the game passing some arbitrary line in graphics is what gives the series it sales now is missing the forest for the trees. Not to mention that cod2 didnt have the xp grind that is designed to hook people into playing more.

 

PS: your "like it or not" language is rather amusing considering that I bought a 360 at launch along with cod2 (and pgr and pdz)

 

Ita also funny that you mention hdtv adoption as improving graphics while a few posts before you ragged on pc games for having bad graphics prior to 2007. Guess what resolution I played doom 3 in.

[SharpeXB]

2007 = Crysis. That's a big one.

[mort]

 

 

But it is a zero sum game, because you're doing the exact same thing in both cases.  If you don't enjoy doing that thing, I don't see how getting a few trinkets makes it any more attractive.

 

This would be a valid point if anyone was making the claim that getting trinkets would make the game appealing to someone who doesn't like the core gameplay. I mean, no one is making that claim, are they? If they are then, yes, I totally agree with you. However, assuming one does like the gameplay itself, one can also like the meta-gameplay of unlocking trinkets. It can be additive.

 

I'm not following your FPS FW 190 analogy. Are you just arguing you should have all unlocks in the QMB so you can try them out, because, sure, that'd be great. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but then, I don't really feel strongly about unlocks period.

[LizLemon]

2007 = Crysis. That's a big one.

2004 = Half Life 2. That's a big one.

 

2004 = Doom 3. That's a big one.

 

2004 = Far Cry. That's a big one.

[SharpeXB]

Yup, if your main concern on what makes a flight sim good is the visuals, you right on the money with BoS.

Graphics are important. Nobody is going to rush out and buy dated looking sims. That's why this one is so important for the genre. WWII flight sims have been stuck in a decade old rut.

[BraveSirRobin]

This would be a valid point if anyone was making the claim that getting trinkets would make the game appealing to someone who doesn't like the core gameplay. I mean, no one is making that claim, are they? 

 

That's the whole friggin' point of adding them.  People who already like flight sims overwhelmingly HATE them.  Why add something that almost everyone hates unless you think it's going to attract new people?

[mort]

As someone who has been playing "traditional" games for a long time I really dont understand this drive to shove unlocks into every genre imaginable.

 

If you told me a few years ago when bf was in its prime that soon the series will have xp for unlocking guns, rewarda given to the player for every minor thing, ect I would have laughed.

 

I find it very weird that these things are present in games that aren't rpgs. But I understand that the developers have to do something to appeal to the 12 year old 360 quick scope crowd.

 

 

Not sure if I should take offense at "12 year old 360 quick scope", sometimes I wish I did have reflexes like that, but then I think of the amount time, mountain dew, and cheetos involved.

 

I took a break from all gaming from the era of BF1942 all the way until BF BC2, so I guess everything was so drastically changed by the time I got back into it, I didn't even notice the unlocks in particular. I was busy getting my ass handed to me every ten seconds.

[DD_bongodriver]

Graphics are important. Nobody is going to rush out and buy dated looking sims. That's why this one is so important for the genre. WWII flight sims have been stuck in a decade old rut.

By that reasoning people might equally be put off by dated graphics API's like DX9

[SharpeXB]

2004 = Half Life 2. That's a big one.

2004 = Doom 3. That's a big one.

2004 = Far Cry. That's a big one.

Those are good. But then there's the line crossed with Crysis from "good" to "astonishing".

By that reasoning people might equally be put off by dated graphics API's like DX9

It sure looks quite good though.

[Gambit21]

I'm sticking with 2007 or maybe a year earlier because of the XBox 360 and PS3. Like it or not those drove the next generation. Also more widespread adoption of HDTV screens. That encourages better graphics development since games aren't confined to small square low res screens. games crossed the line of being believable for most people. I don't have stats but I'm sure ther was an upsurge around that time. Did Call of Duty 2 in 2005 bring in a billion $ in a single day the way those games do now?

PC game graphics were excellent by the early 2000's.

Things are much better now of course, "Astonishing" in some cases as you put it, but they were pretty damn great early in the decade

compared to the late 90's. We didn't have Crysis or Far Cry as benchmarks back then either.

[SharpeXB]

As someone who has been playing "traditional" games for a long time I really dont understand this drive to shove unlocks into every genre imaginable.

Wasn't the fact that Modern Warfare included unlocks or such in its multiplayer the thing that made is so popular?

[LizLemon]

Not sure if I should take offense at "12 year old 360 quick scope", sometimes I wish I did have reflexes like that, but then I think of the amount time, mountain dew, and cheetos involved.

 

I took a break from all gaming from the era of BF1942 all the way until BF BC2, so I guess everything was so drastically changed by the time I got back into it, I didn't even notice the unlocks in particular. I was busy getting my ass handed to me every ten seconds.

Dont take offense as its just a sterotype of what sort people go for that stuff. And in my experience it is almost always true. Its the kind of stuff that appeals to 3:24 k/d players were you still have fun because you unlock that custom camo.

 

Those are good. But then there's the line crossed with Crysis from "good" to "astonishing".

Which is an arbitrary distinction made by you.

 

Yet you continue to argue as though your opinion can be equated with facts.

 

Wasn't the fact that Modern Warfare included unlocks or such in its multiplayer the thing that made is so popular?

Could you read the entirety of my posts before responding?

Edited November 14, 2014 by LizLemon

[SharpeXB]

PC game graphics were excellent by the early 2000's.

Things are much better now of course, "Astonishing" in some cases as you put it, but they were pretty damn great early in the decade

compared to the late 90's. We didn't have Crysis or Far Cry as benchmarks back then either.

Sure. There's good on a 20" 480i TV and then there's good on a 50" 1080p plasma screen. That's what 2007 brought.

[DD_bongodriver]

I was 'astonished' when I saw my first flight sim on a ZX81

[LizLemon]

Sure. There's good on a 20" 480i TV and then there's good on a 50" 1080p plasma screen. That's what 2007 brought.

Then how did I play Doom 3 at 1200x1600 in 2004 without an hdtv?

[SharpeXB]

Then how did I play Doom 3 at 1200x1600 in 2004 without an hdtv?

Lucky you :-). Mainstream gaming for most people is consoles.

[mort]

That's the whole friggin' point of adding them.  People who already like flight sims overwhelmingly HATE them.  Why add something that almost everyone hates unless you think it's going to attract new people?

 

I hardly think they are trying to find a way to make people who hate playing flight sims like them by adding an unlock system. I don't know why they added them. But they do add a form of progression to the game that I am enjoying. I know I'm in the minority in that opinion, however, you just aren't going to convince me I don't enjoy something that I do in fact enjoy. Something I enjoy in addition to enjoying flying the missions, so for me it served a purpose. Perhaps not the developer's primary purpose for the unlocks, but a purpose neverless.

[LizLemon]

Lucky you :-). Mainstream gaming for most people is consoles.

Pretty sure mainstream gaming is phones nowadays.

 

Back in 2007 it was computers and cell phones, ie solitare, blockbuster, flash games...

 

Either way I dont see how this supports your opinion that 2007 was a turning point.

[BraveSirRobin]

I hardly think they are trying to find a way to make people who hate playing flight sims like them by adding an unlock system. I don't know why they added them. But they do add a form of progression to the game that I am enjoying. I know I'm in the minority in that opinion, however, you just aren't going to convince me I don't enjoy something that I do in fact enjoy. Something I enjoy in addition to enjoying flying the missions, so for me it served a purpose. Perhaps not the developer's primary purpose for the unlocks, but a purpose neverless.

 

Whether or not you like them is irrelevant.  Most of us hate them.  They knew most of us hated them from the start.  That really leaves only 1 reason to include them.  They think unlockables will attract more new players than the number of current players that they drive away.  

[DD_bongodriver]

Then they have made a terrible mistake, you can't out war thunder war thunder by making a flight sim a bit gamey, the crowd they hope to attract will get bored pretty quick once they have unlocked everything and find themselves playing a flight sim.

[SharpeXB]

I hardly think they are trying to find a way to make people who hate playing flight sims like them by adding an unlock system. I don't know why they added them. But they do add a form of progression to the game that I am enjoying. I know I'm in the minority in that opinion, however, you just aren't going to convince me I don't enjoy something that I do in fact enjoy. Something I enjoy in addition to enjoying flying the missions, so for me it served a purpose. Perhaps not the developer's primary purpose for the unlocks, but a purpose neverless.

The unlocks award players for using expert difficulty, taking off and landing. So I consider that a good thing. It might help multiplayer from becoming arcade air shooter. One reason I don't play mp much is that so much of it is "Normal". In RoF the Expert mp is completely dead. If players get adapted to Expert to win unlocks in sp maybe they'll be encouraged to play Expert online.

Games like Wings of Prey encourage the arcade style play because otherwise the missions which are designed around that style would be too difficult. I like the BoS direction for the SP game vs a storyline.

[BraveSirRobin]

 It might help multiplayer from becoming arcade air shooter.

 

It has killed MP for North Americans.  The only server regularly attracting players is the arcade server.  Prior to unlockables the expert servers were relatively active.  Now they are dead.

[Nil]

6.1 on meta among user atm  One 'professional review' at 80

Edited November 14, 2014 by Pigmachine

[SharpeXB]

It has killed MP for North Americans.  The only server regularly attracting players is the arcade server.  Prior to unlockables the expert servers were relatively active.  Now they are dead.

Rise of Flight doesn't have unlocks and it's even more dead. Fact is most players do easy mode. The only reason Syndicate was attracting players was its the only server. I like Syn a lot. But their RoF server is vacant too.

[SharpeXB]

Pretty sure mainstream gaming is phones nowadays.

Back in 2007 it was computers and cell phones, ie solitare, blockbuster, flash games...

Either way I dont see how this supports your opinion that 2007 was a turning point.

Ok I rest my case. Look at the huge spike in 2008 here in Consumer video game revenue. Although the early 80s are pretty amazing for the arcade stuff. Obviously that spike has to do with next gen consoles, HDTV sales.

Edited November 14, 2014 by SharpeXB

[BraveSirRobin]

Rise of Flight doesn't have unlocks and it's even more dead. Fact is most players do easy mode. The only reason Syndicate was attracting players was its the only server. I like Syn a lot. But their RoF server is vacant too.

 

 

Completely irrelevant.  BoS MP was relatively busy prior to unlocks.  Then it died.  

[LizLemon]

Rise of Flight doesn't have unlocks and it's even more dead. Fact is most players do easy mode. The only reason Syndicate was attracting players was its the only server. I like Syn a lot. But their RoF server is vacant too.

Its a chicken and egg situation. Server has players? Then it attracts more players. If the server is dead then no one joins.

 

The fact of the matter is mp has simply dried up since the unlock fiasco. The numbers on expert from before unlocks compared to now shows this.

 

The people left that would play on expert, like myself, dont bother since I'd prefer to actually play with other people.

 

The lack of fmb and dserver only exacerbates this issue.

[SharpeXB]

Completely irrelevant. BoS MP was relatively busy prior to unlocks. Then it died.

 

Well it's due to most players doing the campaign then. But when it gets rolling for real after there are many servers up I'll be very surprised if the bulk of the players are not on the easy servers.

The lack of Expert in RoF is perplexing because those planes hardly have any CEM at all and they're easy to spot. There's little reason in RoF to play Normal.

Edited November 14, 2014 by SharpeXB

[LizLemon]

Ok I rest my case. Look at the huge spike in 2008 here in Consumer video game revenue. Although the early 80s are pretty amazing for the arcade stuff. Obviously that spike has to do with next gen consoles, HDTV sales.

400, 500 and 600 dollar consoles will do a lot for ones bottom line.

 

And that says nothing of a very poplar but NON-HD console that left both the ps3 and 360 in the dust sales wise for a long time. And that wii had $100+ accessories that were selling like gangbusters.

 

If graphics really did hit such a turning point in 2007 then how do you explain the monumental sales of the wii when compared to the hd consoles during that time?

 

But even more pressing is this; what does industry revenue have to do with this graphics turning point that you single out?

Well it's due to most players doing the campaign then.

And you know this how?