PDA

View Full Version : No OverG Fighters Remake!



GROVEJEEP
05-05-2008, 09:37 PM
Please don't make this like the OverG Fighters game. That game was stupid and boring. Make it arcade style. If you want sim play, go with Micro**** or something. Make this game fun. Also create some co-op challenges like Solo Elimination. Make it a fun experience to fly. Make it look like you are actually going fast, none of this 5 mile an hour stuff.

GROVEJEEP
05-05-2008, 09:37 PM
Please don't make this like the OverG Fighters game. That game was stupid and boring. Make it arcade style. If you want sim play, go with Micro**** or something. Make this game fun. Also create some co-op challenges like Solo Elimination. Make it a fun experience to fly. Make it look like you are actually going fast, none of this 5 mile an hour stuff.

Tomcatter61
05-05-2008, 10:11 PM
If you want to play an arcade flight game, go play Ace 6. Don't spoil this for everybody else.

miquel_777
05-06-2008, 01:05 AM
Grove jeep over g is a good game go play AC 6 that gay is for babies. That game had no real dog fighting in it at all.
Babies like you ruin games because you cry to much.

gel214th
05-06-2008, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
If you want to play an arcade flight game, go play Ace 6. Don't spoil this for everybody else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Providing options and the ability to support various styles of play isn't spoiling anything, is it?

zterrans
05-06-2008, 07:47 AM
It dosen't have to be a pure arcade, but it can't hurt to make things a little faster. Over-G was a horrible excuse for a jet game, it felt SLOWER than flight sims with WW2 aircraft (and far less maneuverable). And don't go insulting AC6 just because it wasn't realistic, its not 'gay' or 'for babies', its just more arcadish. Its like Burnout compared to Gran Turismo.

Give some realistic loadouts along with the sens you are actually flying something from a time other than the Wright Brothers, and it might appeal to both sets.

GROVEJEEP
05-06-2008, 09:09 AM
OverG was a pathetic excuse for a jet game. I didn't address graphics because, heck, it's a Tom Clancy game - anything by them will have incredible graphics. But as this is their first attempt to a jet game, I'm just giving my opinion that I want to actually feel like I'm flying something and not something that I feel like I'm just floating around in the sky like OverG. I agree with zterrans, I think they can make it appeal to both sets.

Keplager
05-06-2008, 01:33 PM
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics...

gakee
05-06-2008, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GROVEJEEP:
Please don't make this like the OverG Fighters game. That game was stupid and boring. Make it arcade style. If you want sim play, go with Micro**** or something. Make this game fun. Also create some co-op challenges like Solo Elimination. Make it a fun experience to fly. Make it look like you are actually going fast, none of this 5 mile an hour stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YESSSS!!! I AM WITH U.

Mr.Hanky2005
05-06-2008, 03:43 PM
Over G fighters was a perfect game. It had the perfect amount of realism. I felt like I was flying a real jet. There were no missiles that magically appeared on my wings, and the speed of the game was great. While you may think that it was slow, it wasn't. The fact is, you can't maneuver as well as you think at extremely high speeds, and that is how it was portrayed in the game.

Also, lets lay off the homophobic slurs.

Tomcatter61
05-06-2008, 09:39 PM
Providing options to support various styles of play isn't spoiling it necessarily. However, I think there is a distinct difference in mindset between OGF and Ace 6. That difference isn't something, I think, that can be easily toggled on and off with options. OGF had options built in for a more "arcade" feel - unlimited ordnance, unlimited fuel, inability to roll past 90 degrees AOB, and auto-landings. Are those options what make a game "arcade?"

OGF wasn't a horrible game. If you want a good sense of speed, get closer to the things you are flying past. If you're up at altitude, it's not going to look like you're doing warp speed because other objects are farther away. Have you guys ever looked out a car window as you were speeding down a highway? The road right outside the window looks like it's going by fast, whereas the tree 50 yards off the road looks to be going by much slower. Same thing. If you're saying Ace 6 had a better sense of speed, it did, but it took it way too far. It was like watching Top Gun in fast forward. Not to mention there were a few times I thought I wanted to have a seizure.

OGF was not a perfect game. Much could have been tweaked to make it better. However, most of those are little things. The overall experience was great.

OGF is a solid game with good endurance because it has realism. An arcade-y game like Ace 6 is only good for people who enjoy having to get 8 thousand achievements and replaying the same levels over and over again. It's too monotonous. OGF lets you have flexibility, and use real world tactics and maneuvers. This fact allows you to play the game differently every time. The maneuver that worked before, might not work this time because a pilot actually has to assess his energy state. He may have to unload while going to max AB to put some knots back on the jet, in order to pull high G again, rather than just stomping on the throttle and pushing the high-G turn button. With OGF, you replay to become a better aviator. With Ace 6, you replay to get a better score. I guess that's the difference.

Keplager
05-06-2008, 09:47 PM
thank you Mr. Hanky, that was exactly the point I was trying to get across. In fact, I don't think a game could get any more simulator like(except for the terrain and buildings)for a game console cosidering the extreme limitations that are mounted upon console platforms in terms of control. and BTW, the F-22A can pull a cobra while going at 600- KTS due to its wonderfulforward maeuvering surfaces and its thrust vectoring., but yea, you are right that planes going at mach 1.5 aren't going to maneuver that quickly. Another thing AC6 got wrong is that deploying airbrakes on most planes do not make you turn faster. On the F-16C for example, the airbrakes just slow you down. In the F-15, the airbrakes actually push you down. In fact, the last plane the only planes whose ability to slow down quickly contributes to their maneuverability is the Harrier and F-35 where you can enable one half of the thrust vectoring to push the nose or the tail up at high speeds.

Xx_RTEK_xX
05-06-2008, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Over G fighters was a perfect game. It had the perfect amount of realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're damn right it was. Well, except for the lack of 3dimensional buildings on the ground. Besides that, it was a perfect game.

"that game was stupid and boring" -GROVEJEEP

It is only boring if you lack patience. The game is still alot of fun to play. Very challenging when playing on the highest difficulty. I'd rather have a game where get to experience taking off, and flying to the objective area, than to have a game that puts you in the middle of a dogfight. I'd rather have the realism, than the fantasy. I'd rather have what my plane can carry than magical missiles on my wings.

PvtSkwerl
05-06-2008, 10:45 PM
Over G lacks characters as a game. It also suffers from poor production value, horrendous soundtrack,badly-done textures and non-engaging storyline. Just having a perfect "blend of realism" does not save it from being a poorly-executed game.

Xx_RTEK_xX
05-06-2008, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PvtSkwerl:
Over G lacks characters as a game. It also suffers from poor production value, horrendous soundtrack,badly-done textures and non-engaging storyline. Just having a perfect "blend of realism" does not save it from being a poorly-executed game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

characters dont matter to me. neither does the soundtrack or storyline. once I'm in the cockpit, I don't care who my character is, I don't care what the game soundtrack is(i'm listening to my own music anyways off my flashdrive), and the storyline is the last thing on my mind when I'm takin off from the runway.

Silver-Hawk-Red
05-06-2008, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XxCH0NGxX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PvtSkwerl:
Over G lacks characters as a game. It also suffers from poor production value, horrendous soundtrack,badly-done textures and non-engaging storyline. Just having a perfect "blend of realism" does not save it from being a poorly-executed game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

characters dont matter to me. neither does the soundtrack or storyline. once I'm in the cockpit, I don't care who my character is, I don't care what the game soundtrack is(i'm listening to my own music anyways off my flashdrive), and the storyline is the last thing on my mind when I'm takin off from the runway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure that means you don't like playing a Flight Game that has you flying Historic Combat Theaters because that would somehow prevent you from enjoying the game.

I'm all for excellent characters, storyline and music to rock out to. If I wanted a faceless, blase flight game, I'd play Instant Missions on Over-G.

mmikej1
05-07-2008, 05:07 AM
You are so right Netflame Lo-mac and Flacon 4.0 are good games. So is Over -G this is something that people need to take into consideration When you are at 15,000 AGL it will not feel like you are going fast but if you are lower to the deck you can see how fast you are really going due to the fact that you have reference points on the deck that you can see, that is what gives you the feel of your speed. When you are at high speeds you can not turn on a dime like you can in AC6. At least with Over-G if you tried to do that you will over-exceed the aircrafts frame.(Stress) So their-for you have to monitor your speed, your bank angle,and G's.If you did not do this you would damage your aircraft.
AC6 was to easy and unreal for me, no red outs, gray outs, forget about trying to do real maneuvers in that game,full throttle all the time, not consumption of fuel,no counter measures no realism at all. If you like that type of game that is fine.
This is for the people that like flight games that have some realness to it. Everyone has their own opinion that is all good, but another arcade game for flying would really suck. They did a good job with Over-G better than AC6. 90 degrees nose up and you are not bleeding off energy LOL that is a joke.
VA-34. Retired A-6 Driver
Trap or Die


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr.Hanky2005
05-07-2008, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XxCH0NGxX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PvtSkwerl:
Over G lacks characters as a game. It also suffers from poor production value, horrendous soundtrack,badly-done textures and non-engaging storyline. Just having a perfect "blend of realism" does not save it from being a poorly-executed game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

characters dont matter to me. neither does the soundtrack or storyline. once I'm in the cockpit, I don't care who my character is, I don't care what the game soundtrack is(i'm listening to my own music anyways off my flashdrive), and the storyline is the last thing on my mind when I'm takin off from the runway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Silver-Hawk-Red
05-07-2008, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mmikej1:
You are so right Netflame Lo-mac and Flacon 4.0 are good games. So is Over -G this is something that people need to take into consideration When you are at 15,000 AGL it will not feel like you are going fast but if you are lower to the deck you can see how fast you are really going due to the fact that you have reference points on the deck that you can see, that is what gives you the feel of your speed. When you are at high speeds you can not turn on a dime like you can in AC6. At least with Over-G if you tried to do that you will over-exceed the aircrafts frame.(Stress) So their-for you have to monitor your speed, your bank angle,and G's.If you did not do this you would damage your aircraft.
AC6 was to easy and unreal for me, no red outs, gray outs, forget about trying to do real maneuvers in that game,full throttle all the time, not consumption of fuel,no counter measures no realism at all. If you like that type of game that is fine.
This is for the people that like flight games that have some realness to it. Everyone has their own opinion that is all good, but another arcade game for flying would really suck. They did a good job with Over-G better than AC6. 90 degrees nose up and you are not bleeding off energy LOL that is a joke.
VA-34. Retired A-6 Driver
Trap or Die


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Challenge from AC6 came from getting S Ranks on Ace Diffculty or the even harder Ace of Aces. The entire premise of Ace Combat is the anti-thesis of realism, as you would die in a split second on real life.

If you want to countine picking on a series that could never hint at realism if the player wanted to have a chance so you can get your rocks off, then be my guest.

But know that you are only making yourself the fool as you've obviously never played Ace Combat.

mmikej1
05-07-2008, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mmikej1:
You are so right Netflame Lo-mac and Flacon 4.0 are good games. So is Over -G this is something that people need to take into consideration When you are at 15,000 AGL it will not feel like you are going fast but if you are lower to the deck you can see how fast you are really going due to the fact that you have reference points on the deck that you can see, that is what gives you the feel of your speed. When you are at high speeds you can not turn on a dime like you can in AC6. At least with Over-G if you tried to do that you will over-exceed the aircrafts frame.(Stress) So their-for you have to monitor your speed, your bank angle,and G's.If you did not do this you would damage your aircraft.
AC6 was to easy and unreal for me, no red outs, gray outs, forget about trying to do real maneuvers in that game,full throttle all the time, not consumption of fuel,no counter measures no realism at all. If you like that type of game that is fine.
This is for the people that like flight games that have some realness to it. Everyone has their own opinion that is all good, but another arcade game for flying would really suck. They did a good job with Over-G better than AC6. 90 degrees nose up and you are not bleeding off energy LOL that is a joke.
VA-34. Retired A-6 Driver
Trap or Die


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Challenge from AC6 came from getting S Ranks on Ace Diffculty or the even harder Ace of Aces. The entire premise of Ace Combat is the anti-thesis of realism, as you would die in a split second on real life.

If you want to countine picking on a series that could never hint at realism if the player wanted to have a chance so you can get your rocks off, then be my guest.

But know that you are only making yourself the fool as you've obviously never played Ace Combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I have played AC6 and i did not like the game. The flight style of the game sucked, and I have played some really good flight sim games.
I know what I'm saying is right so you can piss off

Xx_RTEK_xX
05-07-2008, 11:45 AM
I have to agree with mmikej1. AC6, in the dodgin missile aspect of the game, lacked the challenge in which OGF presented to the player. Obviously both games are designed for both types of players. In my opinion, AC6 sucked. It was not challenging enough, and I did not like the way the gameplay was. I did not like the absence of chaffs. I did not like having missiles reappear on my wing. I did not like tailing a mig, with perfect range for a easy lock, only to have the targeting system not aquire lock. I did not like the fantasy aspect of the game. So in my opinion the game sucked. To someone else, the game was great. But to me, and others like me, the game sucked. I did play the game as well. Took the game out when I realized I couldn't fly by instrument, since the game only allowed my pilots head to look only so far down. I also did not like the fact that the game only had a limited number of views to fly in. I went right back to OGF, since that game offers so much more to my style of gaming.

PvtSkwerl
05-07-2008, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mmikej1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mmikej1:
You are so right Netflame Lo-mac and Flacon 4.0 are good games. So is Over -G this is something that people need to take into consideration When you are at 15,000 AGL it will not feel like you are going fast but if you are lower to the deck you can see how fast you are really going due to the fact that you have reference points on the deck that you can see, that is what gives you the feel of your speed. When you are at high speeds you can not turn on a dime like you can in AC6. At least with Over-G if you tried to do that you will over-exceed the aircrafts frame.(Stress) So their-for you have to monitor your speed, your bank angle,and G's.If you did not do this you would damage your aircraft.
AC6 was to easy and unreal for me, no red outs, gray outs, forget about trying to do real maneuvers in that game,full throttle all the time, not consumption of fuel,no counter measures no realism at all. If you like that type of game that is fine.
This is for the people that like flight games that have some realness to it. Everyone has their own opinion that is all good, but another arcade game for flying would really suck. They did a good job with Over-G better than AC6. 90 degrees nose up and you are not bleeding off energy LOL that is a joke.
VA-34. Retired A-6 Driver
Trap or Die


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Challenge from AC6 came from getting S Ranks on Ace Diffculty or the even harder Ace of Aces. The entire premise of Ace Combat is the anti-thesis of realism, as you would die in a split second on real life.

If you want to countine picking on a series that could never hint at realism if the player wanted to have a chance so you can get your rocks off, then be my guest.

But know that you are only making yourself the fool as you've obviously never played Ace Combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I have played AC6 and i did not like the game. The flight style of the game sucked, and I have played some really good flight sim games.
I know what I'm saying is right so you can piss off </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You do know that game is not even a flight sim to start with right? I mean, you are trying to classify a game with oversized flying fortress, death star trench-run, psycho wingman who tries to nuke the border in order to understand it, nation with shambled economy being able to afford state of the art weaponary as a sim... your arguments might as well be the ones to piss off.

Keplager
05-07-2008, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PvtSkwerl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mmikej1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mmikej1:
You are so right Netflame Lo-mac and Flacon 4.0 are good games. So is Over -G this is something that people need to take into consideration When you are at 15,000 AGL it will not feel like you are going fast but if you are lower to the deck you can see how fast you are really going due to the fact that you have reference points on the deck that you can see, that is what gives you the feel of your speed. When you are at high speeds you can not turn on a dime like you can in AC6. At least with Over-G if you tried to do that you will over-exceed the aircrafts frame.(Stress) So their-for you have to monitor your speed, your bank angle,and G's.If you did not do this you would damage your aircraft.
AC6 was to easy and unreal for me, no red outs, gray outs, forget about trying to do real maneuvers in that game,full throttle all the time, not consumption of fuel,no counter measures no realism at all. If you like that type of game that is fine.
This is for the people that like flight games that have some realness to it. Everyone has their own opinion that is all good, but another arcade game for flying would really suck. They did a good job with Over-G better than AC6. 90 degrees nose up and you are not bleeding off energy LOL that is a joke.
VA-34. Retired A-6 Driver
Trap or Die


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Challenge from AC6 came from getting S Ranks on Ace Diffculty or the even harder Ace of Aces. The entire premise of Ace Combat is the anti-thesis of realism, as you would die in a split second on real life.

If you want to countine picking on a series that could never hint at realism if the player wanted to have a chance so you can get your rocks off, then be my guest.

But know that you are only making yourself the fool as you've obviously never played Ace Combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I have played AC6 and i did not like the game. The flight style of the game sucked, and I have played some really good flight sim games.
I know what I'm saying is right so you can piss off </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You do know that game is not even a flight sim to start with right? I mean, you are trying to classify a game with oversized flying fortress, death star trench-run, psycho wingman who tries to nuke the border in order to understand it, nation with shambled economy being able to afford state of the art weaponary as a sim... your arguments might as well be the ones to piss off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are right PVT, I have played AC6 and can confidently say that it is in no way a sim. Nor does it try to be one. I personally did not like the game, but as I said, I am sure other people did like it. lets put it this way. LO-MAC was made in early 2003, and there are still almost 30 people at any time playing the game on HyperLobby(this does not include single players, or direct connect multiplayer). OGF provided just the right amount of sim for a console in order to be called a sim, but it was not too much of a sim like Falcon 4.0 was, and no-one plays that anymore...

maxpontiac
05-07-2008, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
Over G fighters was a perfect game. It had the perfect amount of realism. I felt like I was flying a real jet. There were no missiles that magically appeared on my wings, and the speed of the game was great. While you may think that it was slow, it wasn't. The fact is, you can't maneuver as well as you think at extremely high speeds, and that is how it was portrayed in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr.Hanky.

Lets not get carried away and refer to Over-G as "perfect".

1 - The presentation was of SNES quality.
2 - The graphics were of PS2/Xbox quality.
3 - When you were flying near deck, you might as well have been driving.
4 - The planes moved that slow. ZERO sense of speed.

With that said, the game did have strong points.
1 - The cockpit mode was very impressive. The HUD and MFD's were pretty good.
2 - Weapons, fuel, weight, and stealth were all very important.
3 - The missions were much more realistic then Ace Combats.
4 - Missiles were very deadly.

Overall, loved the concept, but the execution was a big failure.

PvtSkwerl
05-07-2008, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maxpontiac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
Over G fighters was a perfect game. It had the perfect amount of realism. I felt like I was flying a real jet. There were no missiles that magically appeared on my wings, and the speed of the game was great. While you may think that it was slow, it wasn't. The fact is, you can't maneuver as well as you think at extremely high speeds, and that is how it was portrayed in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr.Hanky.

Lets not get carried away and refer to Over-G as "perfect".

1 - The presentation was of SNES quality.
2 - The graphics were of PS2/Xbox quality.
3 - When you were flying near deck, you might as well have been driving.
4 - The planes moved that slow. ZERO sense of speed.

With that said, the game did have strong points.
1 - The cockpit mode was very impressive. The HUD and MFD's were pretty good.
2 - Weapons, fuel, weight, and stealth were all very important.
3 - The missions were much more realistic then Ace Combats.
4 - Missiles were very deadly.

Overall, loved the concept, but the execution was a big failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally, some sanity on this forums.

Mr.Hanky2005
05-07-2008, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maxpontiac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
Over G fighters was a perfect game. It had the perfect amount of realism. I felt like I was flying a real jet. There were no missiles that magically appeared on my wings, and the speed of the game was great. While you may think that it was slow, it wasn't. The fact is, you can't maneuver as well as you think at extremely high speeds, and that is how it was portrayed in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr.Hanky.

Lets not get carried away and refer to Over-G as "perfect".

1 - The presentation was of SNES quality.
2 - The graphics were of PS2/Xbox quality.
3 - When you were flying near deck, you might as well have been driving.
4 - The planes moved that slow. ZERO sense of speed.

With that said, the game did have strong points.
1 - The cockpit mode was very impressive. The HUD and MFD's were pretty good.
2 - Weapons, fuel, weight, and stealth were all very important.
3 - The missions were much more realistic then Ace Combats.
4 - Missiles were very deadly.

Overall, loved the concept, but the execution was a big failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will agree with #2. I myself found that I did have a sense of speed.

Keplager
05-07-2008, 09:42 PM
over g is a close to a good sim that you are ever going to find on a console.

RawKryptonite
05-08-2008, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maxpontiac:
Lets not get carried away and refer to Over-G as "perfect". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chairman Ettu agrees. He has some advice for us on the Clancy franchise selling out too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/Abraxis007/Xbox/chairmanettu.jpg

Missions were very good, flight was very good and similar to a PC sim. The graphics were fine IMO, the aircraft have that look of solidity to them, like a PC game. A flat image for ground and some 3D features on top is pretty standard stuff. AC6 was much better looking, but not a sim.
However, everything not in the missions is horrible. LOL No idea what they were thinking with the "story" presentation. Voice overs would've been ok if they were tied to animated cutscenes.
Still, OGF is a great game at it's core, and I agree, you won't find another flight sim like it on a console anytime soon. Very accessible for a flight sim, seems like 60fps and some great details in game play. Closest thing to a PC flight sim you'll get.

Silver-Hawk-Red
05-08-2008, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maxpontiac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
Over G fighters was a perfect game. It had the perfect amount of realism. I felt like I was flying a real jet. There were no missiles that magically appeared on my wings, and the speed of the game was great. While you may think that it was slow, it wasn't. The fact is, you can't maneuver as well as you think at extremely high speeds, and that is how it was portrayed in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr.Hanky.

Lets not get carried away and refer to Over-G as "perfect".

1 - The presentation was of SNES quality.
2 - The graphics were of PS2/Xbox quality.
3 - When you were flying near deck, you might as well have been driving.
4 - The planes moved that slow. ZERO sense of speed.

With that said, the game did have strong points.
1 - The cockpit mode was very impressive. The HUD and MFD's were pretty good.
2 - Weapons, fuel, weight, and stealth were all very important.
3 - The missions were much more realistic then Ace Combats.
4 - Missiles were very deadly.

Overall, loved the concept, but the execution was a big failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will agree with #2. I myself found that I did have a sense of speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, because people using the Raptor to spam Slammers or using the Tomcat-B to shoot down said spammers with Phoenixes is my idea of fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OGF as a whole just blew hard, you basically were forced to do the entire mission yourself, had fighters spawn in thin air always at your 6 and your ability to dodge and spoof missiles was tied to some numerical rating for your Pilot for the Evasion stat and not your actual manuevers.

It failed not only as a Flight Game, but as anything remotely enjoyable to play.

Grubilman
05-08-2008, 11:20 AM
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are...

And about the soundtrack not mattering, I have to disagree. As a musician, I know the meaning of a good soundtrack, and how it makes the game, if there is the right music at the right time. It really sets the tone and mood.

RawKryptonite
05-08-2008, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, it's possible to like both types of games. Play what you're in the mood for. You don't have to go the "all or nothing" route. Personally, I like both games, as well as 3-4 on my PC.

Grubilman
05-08-2008, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RawKryptonite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, it's possible to like both types of games. Play what you're in the mood for. You don't have to go the "all or nothing" route. Personally, I like both games, as well as 3-4 on my PC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Sometimes I want to play something with a lot of realism. Other times, I'd prefer a more far-fetched, story, with arcady play. And, honestly, I hope that HAWX plays nothing like Ace Combat, OR Over G. I want it to be something, all on it's own. I don't want a remake of either.

Silver-Hawk-Red
05-08-2008, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RawKryptonite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, it's possible to like both types of games. Play what you're in the mood for. You don't have to go the "all or nothing" route. Personally, I like both games, as well as 3-4 on my PC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe this is less of the games fault and more of the player unable, or unwilling to make the mental transition for each type of game. I find Ace Combat as enjoyable as Falcon 4 and I feel like play each one at different times for different moods.

Tomcatter61
05-08-2008, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think it's like this: for consoles, we have only 1 game that is close to a sim. We have a plethora of games that are arcade-style. This game has potential. We'd like to see another game focused more on the sim/realism of flying, not another of the 30 arcade types we already have. My mind is open. I like Blazing Angels - it's good fun. For a jet game, however, I'm looking for more realism. I gave Ace 6 a shot - didn't care for it.

Grubilman
05-08-2008, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think it's like this: for consoles, we have only 1 game that is close to a sim. We have a plethora of games that are arcade-style. This game has potential. We'd like to see another game focused more on the sim/realism of flying, not another of the 30 arcade types we already have. My mind is open. I like Blazing Angels - it's good fun. For a jet game, however, I'm looking for more realism. I gave Ace 6 a shot - didn't care for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But consoles were never very "sim-like". How realistic can a sim be, if you're using a controller anyways? PC has always been for the more complicated games in the past, and that's how I see it now. If I wanted a sim, I'd get it for PC. If I wanted an arcady game, it would more than likely be out on console. That's like going to the arcade, and getting upset when 90% of the games aren't realistic. It's not to be expected.

Specopspr
05-08-2008, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is soooo right. The only thing that Over-G needs to improve is graphics and area physics (speed vs area cover). All those guys that said AC6 is a bad *** fighter game are a bunch of newbs. Look at it this way, just because a girl looks good on the outside, doesn't mean she's good on the inside. But I'm sure only a few of you got that.

Grubilman
05-08-2008, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Specopspr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is soooo right. The only thing that Over-G needs to improve is graphics and area physics (speed vs area cover). All those guys that said AC6 is a bad *** fighter game are a bunch of newbs. Look at it this way, just because a girl looks good on the outside, doesn't mean she's good on the inside. But I'm sure only a few of you got that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I wouldn't really consider myself a "newb", so think a little before categorizing entire groups of people, based on what type of video games they like.

Ace Combat IS a good fighter game. But it's not a sim, which is why some don't like it. That's like comparing a death metal band to a power metal band, and getting upset when power metal singers don't growl. It's not meant to be like a sim. Nobody seems to understand that...

Tomcatter61
05-08-2008, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
But consoles were never very "sim-like". How realistic can a sim be, if you're using a controller anyways? PC has always been for the more complicated games in the past, and that's how I see it now. If I wanted a sim, I'd get it for PC. If I wanted an arcady game, it would more than likely be out on console. That's like going to the arcade, and getting upset when 90% of the games aren't realistic. It's not to be expected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OGF is a great example of the potential for a sim-like game on a console. Yes, I know it will never be to the degree of realism as a sim for the PC - mostly due to lack of controls/buttons to map functions to. But, OGF made a lot of good compromises and found a workable middle ground that provided a more realistic flight experience while adapting to the limitations of console controllers. Even if consoles are more limited, they still offer positives: a dedicated high-end graphics system, facilitation of multiplayer matches, little in the way of compatibility issues, etc.

I'm not looking for so much depth that I need a 75 page manual. I don't need to be able to turn the pitot heat on/off. I don't need to turn the external lights on/off. I want to be able to light the burners on my F-14 and zoom climb to 40,000' or yank back on the stick at low speed, kick in some rudder and watch the plane depart and spin. The depth I want should be enough to make an enjoyable flight that is based on skill of the pilot in managing energy state, maneuvering, weapons envelopes/systems, and defensive systems. I don't want to be able to fly around without fear of running out of fuel or weapons or even airspeed (all I have to do is stop pushing the high-g turn button for a few seconds and I'll be back up to 900kts, then I can crank it on again). I want to actually have to be worried about the 2 guys coming at me, instead of barely flinching at 20, ineptly piloted aircraft.

What you seem to be suggesting is to just give up on a good idea, that is workable, just because - well...it's not expected. Why is it asking too much to have a decently realistic console game? It has been done before. Why not take a good idea and make it better, instead of just going with what seems to be the norm?

If everybody did that, we'd still be clubbing animals for food and living in caves.

Xx_RTEK_xX
05-08-2008, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OGF as a whole just blew hard, you basically were forced to do the entire mission yourself, had fighters spawn in thin air always at your 6 and your ability to dodge and spoof missiles was tied to some numerical rating for your Pilot for the Evasion stat and not your actual manuevers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ability to dodge missiles in OGF had nothing to do with your rating or your stats. It all had to do with timing. You had to release your chaffs at the right time, and pull out hard so the missile hit the chaffs and not your plane. I still do it all the time on the game. It's harder to do in older aircraft models, and when you have more than 2 missiles coming at you. In the F/22, it was alot easier to do if you were in stealth mode.

Xx_RTEK_xX
05-08-2008, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I want to actually have to be worried about the 2 guys coming at me, instead of barely flinching at 20, ineptly piloted aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. Have 2 planes on my six in OGF was crazy, especially if my wingman was engaged far away from me.

Tomcatter61
05-08-2008, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XxCH0NGxX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OGF as a whole just blew hard, you basically were forced to do the entire mission yourself, had fighters spawn in thin air always at your 6 and your ability to dodge and spoof missiles was tied to some numerical rating for your Pilot for the Evasion stat and not your actual manuevers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ability to dodge missiles in OGF had nothing to do with your rating or your stats. It all had to do with timing. You had to release your chaffs at the right time, and pull out hard so the missile hit the chaffs and not your plane. I still do it all the time on the game. It's harder to do in older aircraft models, and when you have more than 2 missiles coming at you. In the F/22, it was alot easier to do if you were in stealth mode. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. You have to have a good idea of what you're trying to do. You can't just drop chaff/flares and expect that to solve everything. You need to maneuver to defeat the missile. Many missiles in the game are newer generation and therefore have increased maneuverability. So, you have to really know what you're doing in order to evade. If you screw up a little portion of your evasion technique, that might be all the missile needs to eat you. You also have to think 3-dimensionally and consider other things like turn performance and how it varies with airspeed, as well as outside factors like gravity. Evading missiles isn't supposed to be easy. If it were, we wouldn't be using AAM's as a primary weapon.

Grubilman
05-09-2008, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
But consoles were never very "sim-like". How realistic can a sim be, if you're using a controller anyways? PC has always been for the more complicated games in the past, and that's how I see it now. If I wanted a sim, I'd get it for PC. If I wanted an arcady game, it would more than likely be out on console. That's like going to the arcade, and getting upset when 90% of the games aren't realistic. It's not to be expected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OGF is a great example of the potential for a sim-like game on a console. Yes, I know it will never be to the degree of realism as a sim for the PC - mostly due to lack of controls/buttons to map functions to. But, OGF made a lot of good compromises and found a workable middle ground that provided a more realistic flight experience while adapting to the limitations of console controllers. Even if consoles are more limited, they still offer positives: a dedicated high-end graphics system, facilitation of multiplayer matches, little in the way of compatibility issues, etc.

I'm not looking for so much depth that I need a 75 page manual. I don't need to be able to turn the pitot heat on/off. I don't need to turn the external lights on/off. I want to be able to light the burners on my F-14 and zoom climb to 40,000' or yank back on the stick at low speed, kick in some rudder and watch the plane depart and spin. The depth I want should be enough to make an enjoyable flight that is based on skill of the pilot in managing energy state, maneuvering, weapons envelopes/systems, and defensive systems. I don't want to be able to fly around without fear of running out of fuel or weapons or even airspeed (all I have to do is stop pushing the high-g turn button for a few seconds and I'll be back up to 900kts, then I can crank it on again). I want to actually have to be worried about the 2 guys coming at me, instead of barely flinching at 20, ineptly piloted aircraft.

What you seem to be suggesting is to just give up on a good idea, that is workable, just because - well...it's not expected. Why is it asking too much to have a decently realistic console game? It has been done before. Why not take a good idea and make it better, instead of just going with what seems to be the norm?

If everybody did that, we'd still be clubbing animals for food and living in caves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not saying give up on it. Actually, I was saying, I want HAWX to be different from both games, and not a newer version of either. But no, it's not really expected on consoles. I'm not saying it can't, or shouldn't be done, it's just not likely. And I am only really directing this towards the people who seem to be bashing every game that isn't ultra realistic. It's somewhat stupid, and narrow minded to say game X sucks, because it is in a different genre than game Y.

Tomcatter61
05-09-2008, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grubilman:
I'm not saying give up on it. Actually, I was saying, I want HAWX to be different from both games, and not a newer version of either. But no, it's not really expected on consoles. I'm not saying it can't, or shouldn't be done, it's just not likely. And I am only really directing this towards the people who seem to be bashing every game that isn't ultra realistic. It's somewhat stupid, and narrow minded to say game X sucks, because it is in a different genre than game Y. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear what you're saying, man. I guess we all like to argue opinions. No, you can't really say one game is better than another - what is "better?" It's all subjective. So, the only reason to keep posting is for the enjoyment of a good debate - since we're very unlikely to really convince anyone else that our opinion is correct. Those who agree, already do. Those who dissent, likely won't be swayed. So, it's all for the "fun" of it.

Silver-Hawk-Red
05-09-2008, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by XxCH0NGxX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OGF as a whole just blew hard, you basically were forced to do the entire mission yourself, had fighters spawn in thin air always at your 6 and your ability to dodge and spoof missiles was tied to some numerical rating for your Pilot for the Evasion stat and not your actual manuevers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ability to dodge missiles in OGF had nothing to do with your rating or your stats. It all had to do with timing. You had to release your chaffs at the right time, and pull out hard so the missile hit the chaffs and not your plane. I still do it all the time on the game. It's harder to do in older aircraft models, and when you have more than 2 missiles coming at you. In the F/22, it was alot easier to do if you were in stealth mode. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. You have to have a good idea of what you're trying to do. You can't just drop chaff/flares and expect that to solve everything. You need to maneuver to defeat the missile. Many missiles in the game are newer generation and therefore have increased maneuverability. So, you have to really know what you're doing in order to evade. If you screw up a little portion of your evasion technique, that might be all the missile needs to eat you. You also have to think 3-dimensionally and consider other things like turn performance and how it varies with airspeed, as well as outside factors like gravity. Evading missiles isn't supposed to be easy. If it were, we wouldn't be using AAM's as a primary weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When my evasion process works for Falcon 4 and LOMAC but not for OGF, then there is something up and it's not the lack of enjoyable gameply. And grouping in AC6 with the likes of BA2 and similar Ilk is really disgraceful to say the least as it is not even remotely honest at all.

There is no concern for fuel because you have a time limit, it is completely redundant to have a time limit and a fuel gauge for a video game. The Weapons of AC6 are of poor performance because they didn't want long range spamming like in OGF and wanted to force people to dogfight and jockey for a good position. You have to outthink your foe to get him instead of simply choosing a aircraft that can retain it's energy longer. (Which means all of the aircraft in AC6 can compete at a high level of skill.)

Project ACES was focused on providing the ability for all players to choose any aircraft in the game and not be hog-tied because of it. This might seem like anthema to you, but provides an overall more enjoyable experience when in AC6, you have to feel out the enemy and manuever for the SHOOT command instead of just popping out AIM-120s at BVR and watching the pretty explosions.

Xx_RTEK_xX
05-09-2008, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When my evasion process works for Falcon 4 and LOMAC but not for OGF, then there is something up and it's not the lack of enjoyable gameply. And grouping in AC6 with the likes of BA2 and similar Ilk is really disgraceful to say the least as it is not even remotely honest at all.

There is no concern for fuel because you have a time limit, it is completely redundant to have a time limit and a fuel gauge for a video game. The Weapons of AC6 are of poor performance because they didn't want long range spamming like in OGF and wanted to force people to dogfight and jockey for a good position. You have to outthink your foe to get him instead of simply choosing a aircraft that can retain it's energy longer. (Which means all of the aircraft in AC6 can compete at a high level of skill.)

Project ACES was focused on providing the ability for all players to choose any aircraft in the game and not be hog-tied because of it. This might seem like anthema to you, but provides an overall more enjoyable experience when in AC6, you have to feel out the enemy and manuever for the SHOOT command instead of just popping out AIM-120s at BVR and watching the pretty explosions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you are saying about the evasion process. For me, the evasion process in AC6 was too easy, therefore not enjoyable enough for me. The process of evading missiles in OGF was hard for me, therefore it was much more enjoyable for me than evading in AC6. I've never played Falcon 4 or LOMAC, but if the evasion process is different, then I'd have to adjust to it, and try to enjoy it the best I can, as long as it's not easier than OGF. If it's anything as easy as AC6, then I'd find it not so enjoyable.

The fuel thing, OGF didn't have a time limit, it had a fuel guage, which in turn was your time limit. What those of us who want fuel to play a factor are talking about, is we would rather our time limit be on the instrument panel in the form of fuel as opposed to a timer in the on screen HUD. Personally, I'm against an on-screeen numerical time limit, unless it's built into the mission. Example...take out the enemy fighters and bombers before they destroy the base, or intercept those fighters before they reach our bombers and get a chance to take them out. I'm cool with that type of timelimit. I just don't want, and don't care for a ticking clock on screen that determines the mission out come.

I've tried the whole thing of feeling out the enemy in AC6 but always had trouble getting lock on them. Whether far from them, or closer to them, always behind them, and always with in visual range. If my naked eye can see their afterburner, then my aircraft's systems should be able to pick up that plane and get a target lock. Especially in a Raptor, SuperHornet, or Lightning II. It should be, the systems should get the lock well before my eyes do, depending of course on the missile I'm using. Sidewinders, Sparrows, and others all have different ranges. In OGF, "popping out AIM-120s at BVR" didn't always guarantee a hit on target. Alot of times you, you got target ID from BVR, but had to be with in visual range to get an actual target lock(SHOOT) to show up. Especially with sidewinders, you had to be pretty damn close to 'em to get a lock. AIM120s in OGF, alot of times, took 3 or 4 from BVR just to even get a hit, and that all depended on the plane you were trying to hit. F-14, you have a better chance of hitting than a Raptor a Lightning II just due to the planes performance and design.

Tomcatter61
05-10-2008, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
When my evasion process works for Falcon 4 and LOMAC but not for OGF, then there is something up and it's not the lack of enjoyable gameply. And grouping in AC6 with the likes of BA2 and similar Ilk is really disgraceful to say the least as it is not even remotely honest at all.

There is no concern for fuel because you have a time limit, it is completely redundant to have a time limit and a fuel gauge for a video game. The Weapons of AC6 are of poor performance because they didn't want long range spamming like in OGF and wanted to force people to dogfight and jockey for a good position. You have to outthink your foe to get him instead of simply choosing a aircraft that can retain it's energy longer. (Which means all of the aircraft in AC6 can compete at a high level of skill.)

Project ACES was focused on providing the ability for all players to choose any aircraft in the game and not be hog-tied because of it. This might seem like anthema to you, but provides an overall more enjoyable experience when in AC6, you have to feel out the enemy and manuever for the SHOOT command instead of just popping out AIM-120s at BVR and watching the pretty explosions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I never claimed the weapons were perfectly modeled/programmed in OGF. There's bound to be differences since it's not the same game. Yeah, that is something that should be fixed - I'm all for that.

I never grouped AC6 in with BA. I wouldn't. I actually like to play BA.

If you're talking about AC6 not needing a fuel limit, fine. I agree - that's the way the game works. If you had a fuel limit, you wouldn't be able to get anything done - because the amount of time a mission takes compared with the amount of time a full tank of gas gives you at max A/B would leave you sucking fumes in no time.

Missile performance has to suck in AC6 - because you actually have to worry about people spamming since you have 8,000 missiles per aircraft. If you only carried 6-10, you'd have to make them good and pilots would have to make their shots count. IMO that takes more skill than pulling "high-G" turns all day long and just waiting for one of your 100+ missiles to kill the target.

In OGF, you don't have to take the aircraft that retains its energy longer. You as the pilot have to manage the energy state. Again, more skill required. You can take a plane that retains energy well, but if you don't know what you're doing you'll run out of energy quickly and the smarter pilot will kill you. A plane that doesn't retain energy well can be successful if the pilot knows when to bleed it off and how to get it back quickly. In fact, that's what usually results in a kill.

Choosing your plane is supposed to limit your options in some ways, while expanding them in others. Otherwise, there'd only be one plane in the game - to stop people from being hog-tied.

AC6 doesn't seem like anthema (an eruption of the skin?) to me. Unless you're talking about the similar irritation it can bring.

Silver-Hawk-Red
05-10-2008, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
When my evasion process works for Falcon 4 and LOMAC but not for OGF, then there is something up and it's not the lack of enjoyable gameply. And grouping in AC6 with the likes of BA2 and similar Ilk is really disgraceful to say the least as it is not even remotely honest at all.

There is no concern for fuel because you have a time limit, it is completely redundant to have a time limit and a fuel gauge for a video game. The Weapons of AC6 are of poor performance because they didn't want long range spamming like in OGF and wanted to force people to dogfight and jockey for a good position. You have to outthink your foe to get him instead of simply choosing a aircraft that can retain it's energy longer. (Which means all of the aircraft in AC6 can compete at a high level of skill.)

Project ACES was focused on providing the ability for all players to choose any aircraft in the game and not be hog-tied because of it. This might seem like anthema to you, but provides an overall more enjoyable experience when in AC6, you have to feel out the enemy and manuever for the SHOOT command instead of just popping out AIM-120s at BVR and watching the pretty explosions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I never claimed the weapons were perfectly modeled/programmed in OGF. There's bound to be differences since it's not the same game. Yeah, that is something that should be fixed - I'm all for that.

I never grouped AC6 in with BA. I wouldn't. I actually like to play BA.

If you're talking about AC6 not needing a fuel limit, fine. I agree - that's the way the game works. If you had a fuel limit, you wouldn't be able to get anything done - because the amount of time a mission takes compared with the amount of time a full tank of gas gives you at max A/B would leave you sucking fumes in no time.

Missile performance has to suck in AC6 - because you actually have to worry about people spamming since you have 8,000 missiles per aircraft. If you only carried 6-10, you'd have to make them good and pilots would have to make their shots count. IMO that takes more skill than pulling "high-G" turns all day long and just waiting for one of your 100+ missiles to kill the target.

In OGF, you don't have to take the aircraft that retains its energy longer. You as the pilot have to manage the energy state. Again, more skill required. You can take a plane that retains energy well, but if you don't know what you're doing you'll run out of energy quickly and the smarter pilot will kill you. A plane that doesn't retain energy well can be successful if the pilot knows when to bleed it off and how to get it back quickly. In fact, that's what usually results in a kill.

Choosing your plane is supposed to limit your options in some ways, while expanding them in others. Otherwise, there'd only be one plane in the game - to stop people from being hog-tied.

AC6 doesn't seem like anthema (an eruption of the skin?) to me. Unless you're talking about the similar irritation it can bring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of the overall irritation, so you got it.

The thing is, the AC Flight model has been refined over the years since it's inception in the Arcades way back in Air Combat. (When you could only fly the F-16C) The viability of the flight model shouldn't really be compared to other games so much as how the flight model interacts in it's own game.

The Aircraft in AC6 have so many missiles because they retain their SP Missile limit and can be adjusted with the Weapons Level. But it is generally agreed that among the AC fandom that AC6 has some pretty ****ty missiles when compared to it's older breathern.

But most are willing to accept this was done because of MP concerns that such a large missile payload and decent missile performance would turn into spawn raping. (AC6 doesn't have a survival mode like OGF.)

Blademanx2008
05-21-2008, 04:34 AM
I like Ace Combat series but since none came on PS3 Id just get this game. I'm all for sims I have Over G fighters on PS2 its called Energy Airforce. I never really completed it. I couldnt be bothered its a good game though. I had more fun with Ace Combat 5 and Ace Combat zero. Ace Combat 0 was way better for me but I like 5 also. If this game is an Arcade Sim I dont mind, It should be more of a sim than Ace Combat though.

I prefer a dog fight instead of 40 mile long range missile engagement. And I dont know if they gona implement flares.