-
Member
I really like video games. I'm sure many of you do too, but I have a point I'd like to make here: I consider the whole IL-2 series to be a very bad example of a video game, and I blame this on Oleg Maddox.
Hopefully, I've caught your attention because I'll need it (just look at the length of this thing).
Here are two key elements of successful video games that come to mind. I'm sure there are many more, but be gentle with me; I'm pulling these out of my ***. With time, I could probably do better. But for now, here they are: a video game should …
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Help the player learn the game
<LI>Reward the player for playing the game[/list]
I believe IL-2 fails at both of these and please bear with me while I elaborate on why I think this.
I hope you have played a Tony Hawk game, or at least know of it, because I'm going to use it as an example. When you first play Tony Hawk, you don't know the controls or how to play or if the game is fun or not. But within a few hours of starting, the game itself will have taught you how to do simple tricks and where to go in the level to have fun. By this time the game will be a blast to play. Within a few days, you will probably be doing complex tricks and have your favorite levels with your favorite spots. You will have learned all of this without going online to read tutorials on "How to skate" or "Where to have fun in Tony Hawk," you probably wont even have read the manual yet.
Most games accomplish this teaching aspect in some way. How do games accomplish this? I'm not here to say how exactly, there are a huge number of ways and even a large number of articles out there describing the phenomenon. What I am saying is that these techniques exist, they make the game fun, many are not hard to implement, and that IL-2 is sorely lacking in the utilization of them.
Also, I hope you have heard of EverQuest, because I'm using that as my next example. I've never played it, but I've heard of people playing EverQuest everyday for years before they learn; "Hey, I'm in an endless cycle of leveling-up." Yet, even when they realize this, they often keep playing, yearning for that next level. The fact is, EverQuest rewards the player for playing. Most games reward players like this in order to get them to keep playing the game. I know that I'll play a game for hours just to get that next level, that next spell, that next cut-scene, or that next piece of the story line. It's simple, stupid, and almost petty; but it works. People will play a game more, spend more money on it, and buy all the sequels if that game rewards them in some small way for playing it.
Now in IL-2 we do have a rewards system. We have the joy of shooting down a plane, and the joy of gaining respect in the online community and quite a few other small pleasures. Once we hit these rewards, it turns us into addicts, willing to purchase thousands of dollars worth of game input devices, new gaming rigs, and whatever Oleg throws at us next. I am one such addict, but the point I would like to make is that it takes a long time to get these rewards with this game. In fact, I would say it takes a good week before many players have any fun at all in IL-2, and it takes months if not years to really breed an IL-2 addict.
Does Oleg really hope keep players around and attract new players when it takes so long to have fun in the game? He does, and it is to his financial detriment. Compare this attitude with the outlook of leading game makers such as those of Halo, whose makers called it "30 seconds of fun repeated over and over again." Where is the 30 seconds of fun in IL-2? I think Oleg should ask himself this question, and if he cannot conceive of a way to get a brand new player access to those 30 seconds within an hour of installing the game, he needs to hire someone who can.
If he hired me for this position, here would be my first suggestion: Imagine this …
I buy the next big flight sim from Oleg Maddox. As I load the game for the first time, it asks me to create a pilot. This loads a webpage where I can create a unique pilot with a unique call sign. I then am presented with the main page of the game. There with all the other options is a button called training. I click this button and am presented with a slew of training options. From flight basics to aerial attack tactics to landing on carriers, it's all there. As I complete these training lessons, they show up as completed in my personnel log for my unique pilot that anyone can see on the web or in game. Completing the carrier qualifications for example will now allow me to play campaigns and online co-ops that require the pilot be carrier qualified. Here is both a reward and way to learn the game.
I'm not going to go too far into what the training would look like, but I'll give a few examples. In carrier landing, the game would start you on final approach to a carrier. The game would be paused asking you if you are "Ready to Start?" Pulling the trigger starts the training. As soon as you start you see the ghost of your plane right in front of you. This plane is on the correct flight path. On the left, there is a ghosting of your controls, these controls tell you what you need to do to match that ghost plane. As you stray low, it might show the throttle moving up, or your stick pulling back to match that ghost plane. Staying inline with the ghost means landing perfectly, but any landing that leaves the prop and the gear intact lets you pass the training and go on to carrier landing level 2 where you have to set up for final approach and so on.
As another example, wingman tactics level 1, sets you up with a bandit on your 6 and a friendly heading towards you at your high 12. At the correct time the ghost plane pulls left and if you follow, the friendly shoots the bandit off your back. In wingman tactics 2, the scenario is reversed and the bandit is on the friendly's 6. If you pull behind the bandit and miss him, no problem, there is a "Quick Restart" button that lets you start the training over. It doesn't do this by reloading the whole map, it just quickly teleports all objects back to their original position with original damage, ammo, etc, and pauses the game asking, "Ready to Start?" Of course, wingman tactics level 1 wouldn't be open to your pilot until you had passed some sort of gunnery practice, which would immediately give the new player another reward, the unlocking of new training pages with the eventual reward of updating your world viewable pilot profile.
And speaking of gunnery, the gunnery training, level 1, would open up with you right behind a bomber flying straight and level, the goal to down him, if you fail, just restart. Level 2 would show you where to shoot to knock a wing off, level 5 would start you on deflection shots. And while in the beginning stages of training there would be a "Shoot Now" indicator telling you when to shoot, and large explosions showing you where exactly you hit. There would also be a cumulative gunnery test that you could take to pass all gunnery training at once or to brush up on your skills. The scores of this test would be seeable by others so that you can brag about your marksmanship, which again gives the new player an easily accessible reward.
Many of these lessons would have a name that you would have to remember. So that when Maverick and Goose want to join my squad, I can look up their pilot profiles and see they have gotten to level 13 of wingman tactics, and so I can expect them to know how to perform and call out certain maneuvers like "Drag&Bag" and "Bracket Attack". They have formation flying level 5, so I expect them to know what a "Figure 4" is but I know that they might not be able to stay in a tight formation, else they'd be level 8. Also, I'd see that Maverick had 6 Rising Suns under his name meaning that he had shot down 6 bandits while not dying once and that he probably prefers flying as an American.
Imagine other scenarios as you like. Personally, I start drooling if I think about it too much.
This game mode doesn't exist, but the work involved wouldn't be too back breaking for Oleg. However, he refuses to do much besides update the internals of the flight sim and add new planes (how long has the community been complaining about the in-game menus?). These things are what make this flight sim great, much greater than any other in my opinion. However, it doesn't make the game more approachable or add any really new experiences to the game. I know that I'd spend a lot more time playing if the game taught me how to play and rewarded me for doing so, but what is more important is that other, newer players would also find the game more fun, and sales would go up.
To summarize both this game and this article, I'll say that IL-2 is a fantastic flight sim, but an appalling video game. There are a number of ways to improve this, I've given an example, but only one of many. I hope others will read this thread and share their ideas, especially the ones that involve teaching new players how to play the game and reward them for doing so. I believe that these ideas, if implemented, would grow our community and make Oleg more money.
-
Senior Member
Excellent post, we in the community have had to do a lot of what you suggested ourselves. 3rd party static campaigns or engines like DCG, some squads offer training and qualifications etc. If Maddox would incorporate this "out of the box" it would make it better for beginners. I laready had several years experience in FS when I discovered IL2, so I could jump right in and was impressed with the technical aspect. I must say MS especially in their civilian sim do a fine job in introducing beginners with flight lessons and different certificates (private, instrument etc.) I hope 1C follow this
-
Member
Thanks joeap,
and I'm glad you brought up the community. I believe we have an excelent community here and it is one of the only approachable things about the game. There are hundreds of people that bend over backwards trying to get new people flying and making the game better. I think every box containing an IL-2 title should come with large block lettering informing the buyer how to get to the community for help.
-
Member
I would reply that this game does not attempt to be a "video game", but rather a fairly high fidelity simulator, such as Falcon 4.0 (which many people also complain is too hard to fly.) Simulators simulate, the closer to reality the better. While many people complain about the flight models, I think that the game has accomplished one of the better simulations of WW 2 air combat than most others. I've played WW 2 Fighters, and CFS 3. I don't think that they come close to what this game has acheived. If you want a video game, buy Crimson Skies, and have a blast!
-
Member
Good post, but...
You have to remember that this is one of the first great software programs for gamers that I remember coming out of Russia. I'm sure there are others and my apologises for missing them. But this is one hell of a great first go for Maddox. I'm sure with time and more sim developement under his belt, we may see more innovation and different designs from Oleg.
I agree there are other ways of Presenting a sim, but I for one would rather have it error on the side of realism and not arcade. That being said, it would be a good approach to design a sim with a full arcade mode for the many that seem to want it, and perhaps supplying different levels that can be applied much like the realism options in the setup menus. This way you could lean one way or the other depending on your personal settings.
Some ideas: Campaigns that have a kind of story line with a log book and log entries would be a cool, novel approach. More info on fellow pilots and the ability to fly with Aces, or against. More real life Aces like in the Red Baron series. And this is just a couple ideas that would be fun to see implemented, and - of course - there are other good ideas out there.
my two cents,
Rick
-
Senior Member
Echo Rattlers post. This isn't a video game. It is a simulator. I am sure Tony Hawks skateboard isn't modeled with the feeling of true weight, aerodynamics, and gravity. Although this sim has arcade settings, most fly it because it is simulating, as close as possible, the real ac the real pilots flew in real life. Hence, a simulation. To look at this sim as a video game is nuts, for lack of a better word. I wish I was good at analogies, this would be a good place for one. I play video games on a console. I bought my son a PC version of Madden NFL 2005. Even bought a USB controller to "simulate" a console. Nothing doin.
-
Member
Thanks CapBackassward (Nice name btw)
Good point about the developers being in a different country/culture. I didn't think of that.
A story mode is a good idea; it is a tried and true way to get new players into a game. It gives them easy missions first and lets them advance their skills while motivating them to acheive the next bit of the story.
However, I disagree about the arcade mode making the game more accessible to new players. I think the more modes and options a new player is presented with, the more unaccessible the game will seem to that new player. I'm sure many will disagree with me on this, but remember that IL-2 does have an arcade mode, but very few will say they found the game easy to get into.
What I propose instead of an arcade mode is to set up default options that are almost full switch (cockpit on, icons on, limited ammo/fuel etc). But give the player a place to go right away that lets them "get into" the game. This is where my training suggestion comes in, or your story suggestion could come in (if I may borrow that idea).
Right now we have "Quickstart" and I believe I would have given up on the game before ever getting addicted if that option had not been there. But the quickstart did not lower the realism, it just got me going quickly in a sence in that I could fly right away. But we need a better quickstart into this game. This will sound corny, but new players need a quickstart to having fun. And for many, flying is not fun 'till they know how.
-
Member
Rattler and Quazi, I agree whole-heartedly. This is a sim, not a game. I beleive that is almost the title of this discussion.
Also, Crimson skies, Tony Hawk, etc are games, not sims. It is easy to say, "Go play a Crimson Skies," just like it would be easy for me to say "Go fly a kite" 
(I mean this in jest)
But my point is not that I am looking for a good video game, there are lots of those. My point is I want something that is both a good video game and a good simulator. Give me an example of one of those and I'm there (or at least I'll be telling my friends about it so they'll eventually want to play IL-2). However, I doubt one will come to mind.
Last, I don't want this "game" aspect of a sim simply for myself, though I would like the stat keeping and training. I want it so I can show my friends the game and say "come play this" without getting so many bewildered looks.
*Edit* One more thing to add on this line of thought. I believe Oleg agrees with you two and not with my on this point. I get the feeling he wants IL-2 to be a great sim and a bad game.
-
Member
This is an advanced flight sim, which does have a big learning curve for the rookie, but it is worth it. I'm still no good, really, but love it.
I love playing racing games like Grand Prix Legends, which I think is harder than IL2 to learn. I cut my teeth on simple "games" like Need for Speed before I craved a more realistic experience. GPL is awesome, but not easy. Same for IL2, I came to that after getting tired of arcade type fighter games. I suppose an "arcade mode" might be good for the noobs, but the Easy mode is pretty easy, specially with the "wonder woman" view. I would agree that the amount of "fun" missions included in the basic box is lacking, especially in PF. A Community Mission Pak disk in the box might be be a good idea.......
Maybe there should be a PSP version of IL2 I can play on the train......
-
Senior Member
I've always said they left the game out when they put this software together. I think 1C actually cuts itself off from a much larger market by making a product that lacks a fun factor unless you're willing to download a whole lot of third party mission, campaigns, etc. or are just a total nerd for WW2 airplanes. I happen to be both so I'm good but I can see why the austere menus, lack of included missions, and overall ghetto nature of this game turn people off. I mean really, how many people actually want to start messing around with a game's config file.
Other great flight sims that were also great games: Jane's World War 2 Fighters, European Air War, CFS2 and Red Baron 3d just to name a few.
