PDA

View Full Version : Got to do this.



sniper_five
06-19-2008, 09:27 PM
There is so much hating on this game going on in almost all threads now. I have even got pulled into it a couple times.

Sticking to my guns, I would first say I would love to have a game that is as close to an authentic real world situation as possible. I think it would be great. But the other side of the coin tells software developers that not all people would enjoy limited stores of weapons, missions with one or two targets and a return to ship/base, etc....

What do you people really want out of a flight combat game? I honestly can not see a less then authentic game be that overly popular. I would buy it, don't get me wrong, but when I am on a two hour hop to the target, need to refuel in air just to make the objective, have to call in my kid to fly the plane straight because I am dosing off, I think in the long run something like that fails. Having limited air defense capabilities fails, having limited ground munitions fails, and real damage to a plane fails. Imagine taking a hit from AAA before you even reach your objective and you have to bail or return to base, its over for ALOT of gamers right there Like I said, I would most definitely purchase a game like this, I just don't think enough people would, otherwise "Insert Title Here" would be on it's 3rd, 4th, and 5th rendition.

So without flaming, what do you really want to see out of a flight combat game?

sniper_five
06-19-2008, 09:27 PM
There is so much hating on this game going on in almost all threads now. I have even got pulled into it a couple times.

Sticking to my guns, I would first say I would love to have a game that is as close to an authentic real world situation as possible. I think it would be great. But the other side of the coin tells software developers that not all people would enjoy limited stores of weapons, missions with one or two targets and a return to ship/base, etc....

What do you people really want out of a flight combat game? I honestly can not see a less then authentic game be that overly popular. I would buy it, don't get me wrong, but when I am on a two hour hop to the target, need to refuel in air just to make the objective, have to call in my kid to fly the plane straight because I am dosing off, I think in the long run something like that fails. Having limited air defense capabilities fails, having limited ground munitions fails, and real damage to a plane fails. Imagine taking a hit from AAA before you even reach your objective and you have to bail or return to base, its over for ALOT of gamers right there Like I said, I would most definitely purchase a game like this, I just don't think enough people would, otherwise "Insert Title Here" would be on it's 3rd, 4th, and 5th rendition.

So without flaming, what do you really want to see out of a flight combat game?

Tomcatter61
06-19-2008, 10:54 PM
I'd like to see a baseline amount of realism.

Physics - If it looks like a plane, it should fly like one, to include the entire performance envelope (to the best of the dev's abilities) as well as exceeding the envelope - overstresses/failures, stalls, departures, and spins.

Weapons and Countermeasures - Weapons should perform like the real thing, and be available to the appropriate aircraft in the actual amounts. Countermeasures (including on-board jammers - not just like EA-6B's, but F-14's, F-15's, etc. that have built-in ECM systems) should be as effective as in real life, and chaff and flares should be in the correct amounts for each aircraft.

Sensors - Should reflect the capabilities of real-life systems (radars, IRST, etc.)

Takeoffs and Landings - I'd like to do one on each end of the mission. IRL, it's not over till your wheels hit the deck, either back at your airfield or back at the boat.

WX - I'd like to see more options for weather conditions and time of day. Constantly fighting in severe clear conditions at noon can get old. Plus, you might then be able to "look forward to" a night trap back at the ship.

Aircraft - Performance relative to other aircraft should strive for accuracy. There should be limited fuel and accurate burn rates (including variations with altitude). I'd like to see a good sized list of flyable jets. My preference would be jets from Vietnam on forward to today - at least the major players. I'd also like to see other than fighter/multirole aircraft. It'd be nice to throw in some uncommmon missions - like just a plain-vanilla air-to-mud mission in your A-6E. Or maybe you're flying an F-105 clearing SAMs before the strike package hits the targets. Some other options would be cool, too: a KA-6B for aerial refueling (maybe you can tank your buddies up in MP so they can stay on CAP longer), an S-3 for sub-hunting or anti-ship missions, heck we could even throw in some of the big-wing aircraft like an E-3, or an AC-130. The more diverse the aircraft, the more diverse you can make the missions, and the more possibilities your game has.

Cockpit - I want to fight my jet from the pilot's seat, not looking over my own shoulder. The HUD and gauges should be able to give me good info - this will be important if weather conditions can be changed. Other views should be available as options - to appease the masses - but I'm of the opinion that a "real" pilot flies from the cockpit view.

Damage - Depending on where you take a hit, certain damage should result. This should be accurately reflected in your aircraft's performance after taking damage. For example, having damage to the hydraulic system should result in loss of flight controls (either gradually or quickly depending on the extent of damage). Damage to an engine, should result in the appropriate loss of thrust and perhaps add controllability problems.

***

I also think that to keep something like this a good game, some concessions have to be made to playability.

Scale - Weapon and radar ranges can be adjusted for playability. If they aren't, we force bigger maps to avoid instant BVR engagements upon takeoff. Bigger maps aren't necessarily bad, but we can run into problems of long flight times to get to the fight.

Action - The most exciting parts of the flight for the pilot are: takeoff, combat, and landing. We can also add at least one more element for excitement: mid-air refueling. (Mid-air refueling also gives pilots another option besides flying back to base and landing to get more flight time - however, mid-air rearming is too fantastical and shouldn't even be considered.) Therefore, the "downtime" between these "action" phases of the flight should be minimized without sacrificing the rest of the experience (smaller scale maps). I, too, have set the autopilot, gotten up and stepped away from the pc while enroute to home base, at times, because it is a boring part of the flight.

Stealth/"god planes" - Stealth obviously should bring a player certain advantages in the electronic warfare arena. However, if you have a plane that is never detectable or that has an overpowering advantage over everything else, everyone is forced to take that same aircraft to neutralize the advantage - in which case, many people will simply lose interest in the game. You basically leave the players with two options: don't take the plane you want, but rather the plane everyone else flies, or die (lose) most or all of the time.

***

Other areas to consider:

Menus - Should be relatively easy to navigate and manipulate.

Options - As with most sim games, options should be available to tailor the amount of reality you want to experience. For example, turning blackouts and redouts on/off.

Singleplayer - Should include a campaign as well as a "free flight" or custom flight mode where the player can choose his own aircraft and any adversaries he wishes to face. Campaign should be more than a loose assortment of missions. Present a storyline - the old Jane's USNF had 3 campaigns, one a Vietnam-era campaign, and two modern-day campaigns with different geographical locations - each had a sequence of missions based on developments in the contextual story.

Multiplayer - Leave lots of options open. This is where many minds come together to have fun. The less you limit players' options, the better the multiplayer experience, and the more longevity and appeal you give a game - particularly on consoles. This would be a good place to make allowances for different aircraft types and flying different missions. Make attack aircraft flyable and you give two pilots a job: one to fly the attack jet in and bomb the crap out of the targets, the second to fly a fighter to escort the attacker in and out. Also, as I said before, having somebody on your team be able to fly a support aircraft, like a tanker to refuel your team's aircraft, or an AWACS to call out the bad guys for your team, opens up options.

MidlandMonster
06-19-2008, 11:28 PM
I agree. That'd be a game I'd want to play.

I just posted in another thread before seeing this one. I'l paste that post below as it basically answers the question.

"I think the only thing here that's lost it's salt is the Tom Clancy genre. I'm just looking for some depth here. Depth can certainly come in different ways. Be it a driving story line with great characters or great game play. I find that Ubisoft's more recent titles have started to lack both.

Remember the original Rainbow Six. With only a mere red crosshair on the screen, one of the most revolutionary games was born, with a true Clancy feel. The story line built upon the novels foundation (One of the best damn books I've ever read). The game was re-playable time and time again as players found the challenge brought by the realism insatiable. It took the shooter experience to a new level. And it did it in a way enjoyable for all different types of gamers. Action, Realism, Detail, Story, and Characters, it had it all. They have yet to produce a game on the same level as this gem.

I like OGF because of the attention to the small details. The details that were never published in the manual but important and relevant none the less. like seeing the "meatball" on a carrier landing to guide you to the third wire, the different (realistic) radar modes associated with the different weapons you select (which are modeled and work like real ACM modes). Trying to find you enemy visually rather than just flipping on the radar, giving your position away before you see anything on the scope and loosing the upper hand. The fact that flight dynamics are realistic thus adding the challenge to try and out fly your opponent. None of these things were mentioned in the manual. You learned it as you went on, and past sim experience certainly helped. The online community for this game has grown big with sites and forums dedicated to different online squads.

That's where the depth to this game comes from. Not from its bad story line, and non-essential characters. But to gameplay itself and what the users made of it online. In this case , because they squeezed enough realism into (Not to much, but a decent balance) it makes the game extremely re-playable.

Now, in my opinion, if you just give me a giant furball with dozens of planes and hundreds of missiles, if thats all there is, campaign and online, than this thing will probably only be fun for five minutes. It'd be like playing Halo multiplayer with 50 players on a giant flat square blue map with no obstacles. Even with a good plot and great characters, Come on, there has to be more. If not, than we're just paying for the same bloody thing we've already seen. just indifferent packaging with Clancy stamped on it. Thats where Ubisoft looses me. I don't want to see Falcon 4.0 Af on the xbox. I just want some more depth. Something. Anything!"


I think in this case, a decent blend of kinda, sim meets the console, would have been cool, and new. I'm not against unrealistic games of any genre. I'm just sick of the same thing, over, and over again. And we just pay for it, like herded cattle. HAWX, though I could be wrong, looks and smells like AC6. To some thats a good thing, to others its bad, but all should realize, if it is the same, what the hell are we paying for.

abnegnejs
06-20-2008, 02:35 AM
As realistic as possible.