Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tn_prvteye

Flight Sim Rant...

Recommended Posts

I think that the few flight-sim developers left must be smoking something. Now, before I get someone's panties in a wad, let me explain. I still support and will continue to support the developers I am about to berate...but something is just...odd.

 

1) Il-2 Cliffs of Dover. Okay, low-hanging fruit here, but after all the bugs, mistakes, and downright goofs that have plagued this release, the developers decide to introduce: PLAYABLE FLAK GUNS!!!! Huh? Really guys?

 

2) Rise of Flight. I love ROF. Love the graphics, the gameplay, almost everything about it. Except the plane list...it's still limited in the early-war years. Still missing some VERY important aircraft (Strutter, just to name one). So I was looking forward to the upcoming year and the new aircraft it would bring. What do we get? SEAPLANES?!?!?! And a DH-4? And U-boats. Uh...okay?

 

3) DCS:P-51. This one I'm willing to let slide...almost. Just doesn't make much sense to have a Late WWII-era Allied Fighter flying around the Black Sea....by itself.

 

Now, I'm not saying that any of these new features are bad...just an odd choice. Especially since the first 2 are missing some important things. And yes, I know that not all members of a development team work on the same areas, but give me a break. I guess it must be a weird year for flight-sims...

 

-Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, both P-51 and new ROF puzle me... already decided COD has no future as they're already into Battle of Moscow thingy

 

Remind me please, who was the one who almost killed flightsims 10 years ago? The players or the developers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Battle of Moscow thingy

 

What? Last I heard, Oleg wanted to get into the Med theater and BoB is a good stepping stone for that.

Did IL-2 not already HAVE Moscow? I mean, the game who almost by itself dominated flight simulation in a time and place where people said it could not be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they're redoing BOM for COD sequel, with all the new IL-2s and stuff... dog's eating his tail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the developers found they could live without flight sims.

 

They started making crappier sims in an attempt to "broaden the appeal" but instead merely alienated the core community while the rest of the gamers continued to ignore it.

They then blamed the worse performance on the community for being "too picky"...you know, "we started dipping steaks into chocolate to make it appeal to more people, but the steaklovers stopped buying them and it failed to appeal to others, so we're going to quit making steaks altogether and just make chocolate bars."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna go the complete opposite direction here and say that it seems like a lot of flight simmers are the ones smoking something (I am NOT neccessarily referring to you, tn_prvteye. Your questions mostly reasonable.).

 

I don't what the cause is (I'm sure it's some very complicated combination of availability of information on the internet + higher standards + people thinking they're the sh1t, etc...), but people need to chill out. No one owes you anything unless you've paid for it. 15-20 years ago we would have all been amazed by these games; now we nit pick and complain instead.

 

TK doesn't owe us any new features in SF2NA. Also, if you don't like what he does in his FREE patches, don't install them. No one forces you to.

 

M$ doesn't owe anybody anything in terms of a sequel to FSX. You don't like the direction they're going with MS Flight? Don't buy it! It seriously seems like people think they know EXACTLY what Flight should be and that M$ isn't doing it. Do you really think M$ just threw money at this without researching it a little first? I wouldn't be surprised if these same people expect that M$ is going to issue a press release at some point that says "Wow. You were right, crazy flight simmer from AVSIM. Flight was a total waste and we should have been working FS11 with all those features you wanted even though they appeal to 2% of the market that Flight does." I keep seeing people say M$ is "abandoning their loyal fan base." What? So just because a group of people really enjoyed a product that M$ no longer sees value in developing, M$ should keep developing it? Would you expect any other business to do the same thing?

 

IL-2 - People get their panties all in a bunch because they don't like the way engines overheat in patch 4.11 (just an example)... WTF! First of all, you're still getting free patches for a game that's over 10 years old. Second - You're upset becuase an airplane's engine doesn't overheat in a computer game per the flight manual? Hmmm... Oh, don't forget it's just one of the 30 or so aircraft that come free with said game.

 

RoF - Honestly, 15 years ago we would have been happy if RoF came with one flyable plane and a campaign or two. Now, we complain that the tens of add-on planes they're producing aren't the right ones.

 

:heat:

 

Oh, and lastly, people need to find better things to do with their time than come on internet forums and complain about the things other people say on internet forums. Oh. Wait a second...

Edited by malibu43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the developers found they could live without flight sims.

 

They started making crappier sims in an attempt to "broaden the appeal" but instead merely alienated the core community while the rest of the gamers continued to ignore it.

They then blamed the worse performance on the community for being "too picky"...you know, "we started dipping steaks into chocolate to make it appeal to more people, but the steaklovers stopped buying them and it failed to appeal to others, so we're going to quit making steaks altogether and just make chocolate bars."

ORLY? If anything the flightsims have steadily grown ever more complex with each new iteration, with (especially russian games suffer from this) complete emphasis on systems modelling and technical complexity to the detriment of anything approaching engaging gameplay. So each new sim is more expensive to develop than the last but appeals to an ever shrinking but vocal "hardcore" crowd. Kind of like they did with subsims but it was much faster there.

 

I can't help but think that back in the 80's and 90's devs could afford to make "fun" sims like Jetfighter or Strike Commander because the stuff people would hear about them would be balanced reviews from gaming magazines rather than fat people hyperventilating with fury because it's a game not a SIM.

 

You only have to look at the amazing rage directed against Microsoft for daring to try something new with Flight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... flightsims have steadily grown ever more complex with each new iteration, with ... complete emphasis on systems modelling and technical complexity to the detriment of anything approaching engaging gameplay. So each new sim is more expensive to develop than the last but appeals to an ever shrinking but vocal "hardcore" crowd. ...

 

If I hadn't already posted I would just quote this with a "+1". :good:

Edited by malibu43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ORLY? If anything the flightsims have steadily grown ever more complex with each new iteration, with (especially russian games suffer from this) complete emphasis on systems modelling and technical complexity to the detriment of anything approaching engaging gameplay. So each new sim is more expensive to develop than the last but appeals to an ever shrinking but vocal "hardcore" crowd. Kind of like they did with subsims but it was much faster there.

 

I can't help but think that back in the 80's and 90's devs could afford to make "fun" sims like Jetfighter or Strike Commander because the stuff people would hear about them would be balanced reviews from gaming magazines rather than fat people hyperventilating with fury because it's a game not a SIM.

 

You only have to look at the amazing rage directed against Microsoft for daring to try something new with Flight.

 

You know...You are right! :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just seem to be odd choices, that's all. I hardly think adding Felixstowe F.2a and the Hansa-Brandenburg W.12 is going to bring in a bunch of new blood for ROF. And it's definitely not for the casual crowd, either. Just weird choices.

 

And flak guns? Well, I've never wanted a AAA simulator...maybe someone out there does.

 

Again, it might seem nit-picky, but I'd like a flight simulator when I buy a flight simulator.

 

It seems like they're not listening to a majority of players. It's like if TK suddenly decides that he wants to add a flyable S-3 Viking for the next expansion. Instead of releasing the Tomcat, he decides to focus his time on that. Granted, that sounds cool at first, but really how many people would want an S-3 over an F-14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Jules, but you know that we share similar view on the matter

 

Of course I owe nothing to ROF developers (except the fact I paid large amount of money fot it just to see the very same content become free in less than 20 monts later... refund maybe?)

 

but I know what that now prohibited phrase "common sense" used to be -making more or less complete Verdun battlefield with proper planeset makes more sense to me as a owner of the title than turning 180 deg. to introduce naval ops... naa, I still use it only for some quick random dogfights from time to time...

 

COD -as a misinformed and cheated customer I can loudly voice my opinion whenever I like to whatever form I see fit -I still wait till they bring it to the level I thought this title to be, namely Battle of Britain simulator, not to mention features listed on a gddamn box! Now with Oleg hiding away (you lost your fame man, you lost it!) and that incompetent impotient Luthier running the show they decide to resuffice the russian front theme everyone is fed up for past 10 years. Yeah, because we have soo many dedicatd Mediterrean sims, Israeli-Arab conflicts, India-Pakistan or Korea ones...

 

DCS: P-51 -really? That fits the Black Sea theater spot on guys! Yeah, screw those uninteresting soviet Farmers, Floggers or Fishbeds, these were never used in any war one could heard of. Bring on the most overrated and overmodelled plane in flight sim history!

it's so awesome TK, Polovski and Gajin are doing their things well...:good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think that back in the 80's and 90's devs could afford to make "fun" sims like Jetfighter or Strike Commander because the stuff people would hear about them would be balanced reviews from gaming magazines rather than fat people hyperventilating with fury because it's a game not a SIM.

Jetfighter is not a sim, let's get real a bit here Jetfighter ended up in a total arcade shooter genre.

Strike Commander is not far from that either although to be fair considering it's time it probably was close to the flight sim in that day.

 

And yet we have today, HawX, AceCombat, some prop games, all offer Jetfighter arcade style but are not or should not be a competition for flight simulator games...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brain32,

 

following your logic, SF2 is also not a sim... Jetfighter 2 was a sim, with interesting engine, back in it's time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said it ended like an arcade shooter, meaning the series as it aged went more and more into arcade.

 

Jetfighter II was like what? 80's? Back then if the game had a plane in it, it was a "flight sim"...

 

Sf series is still way more a flight sim than an arcade flying shooter, way, way more I mean did you play Hawx?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Jetfighter 3 was as much sim as SF2. Certainly nothing like HAWX or Ace Combat which are more like 3d versions of 1942.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, I meant Jetfighter 3, never seen Jetfighter 2. And I meant JF3 alone, not all the IV V and 2015

 

Hawx, and I played as much as first two missions of it, is definitely arcade, witha ll the gazillions of missiles at one's disposal, health bars etc -differs much from what I remembr of JF3

 

edit:typos

Edited by Stary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Jetfighter IV original btw. It's basically JF2 with 3dfx graphics.

 

It's funny when you think of it. Jetfighter 2 is a really simple sim but they get so many things right that HAWX and Ace Combat get wrong. Like realistic weapons and mission scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Flight, I think the big mistake they are doing there is the pricing of the DLC. Its going to be too much for a non-dedicated flyer - since the hardcore ones who both can and will pay for such things is passing it over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your counter to my argument would only hold if the developers making sims in the late 90s were still making them now.

 

The only one is ED, that's it. All the others making them now started after the market crash. All the big ones from before that?

 

EA/Origin?

SpecHolo/MPS?

DID?

DI?

Whoever it was that made Jetfighter (I played 1-3)?

Dynamix/Sierra?

Razorworks?

Microsoft?

I know I'm forgetting some others, there were just so many back then.

I don't count Ubi because they only published Russian-made sims from what I recall, they never had any in-house developers of sims or even any Western ones.

 

All of them either just quit making them/folded, or first released lame attempts to "broaden" the appeal that sold worse and resulted in them quitting/folding. In fact other than EA (but not Origin), none of those others lasted past the middle of the last decade even making OTHER things. They knew how to make sims, and their attempts to do more only killed off their existing customer base and got few or no new ones.

 

Take MPS. Both it and SH made tons of sims in the early/mid 90s, then merged. Then came the Hasbro buyout, and after Falcon 4 we got Gunship! (with a ! yet) and B-17 II which had its MP stripped out. While both of those sims got modded in later years, they were mega flops at release because they alienated the core while failing to appeal to a larger, different crowd. Larry Holland of SWOTL fame made the craptastic Secret Weapons Over Normandy and then blamed the simmers for not buying it because it wasn't "accurate enough" for them (totally avoiding the fact that the genre it was meant to compete with, Ace Combat and the like, blew it away in quality).

 

MS is of course making their return but in an as-yet unproven direction. I don't care about it (as I never cared for MSFS), but I'm interested to see how it sells compared to FSX. Will a total revamp garner them more sales? Or will it still fail to interest the non-simmers while alienating the simmers? That's the historical pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Flight, I think the big mistake they are doing there is the pricing of the DLC. Its going to be too much for a non-dedicated flyer - since the hardcore ones who both can and will pay for such things is passing it over.

 

(Not trying to hijack this into a MS Flight discussion...) I think that is one of the incorrect assumptions that a lot of people are making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your counter to my argument would only hold if the developers making sims in the late 90s were still making them now.

 

The only one is ED, that's it. All the others making them now started after the market crash. All the big ones from before that?

 

EA/Origin?

SpecHolo/MPS?

DID?

DI?

Whoever it was that made Jetfighter (I played 1-3)?

Dynamix/Sierra?

Razorworks?

Microsoft?

I know I'm forgetting some others, there were just so many back then.

I don't count Ubi because they only published Russian-made sims from what I recall, they never had any in-house developers of sims or even any Western ones.

 

All of them either just quit making them/folded, or first released lame attempts to "broaden" the appeal that sold worse and resulted in them quitting/folding. In fact other than EA (but not Origin), none of those others lasted past the middle of the last decade even making OTHER things. They knew how to make sims, and their attempts to do more only killed off their existing customer base and got few or no new ones.

 

Take MPS. Both it and SH made tons of sims in the early/mid 90s, then merged. Then came the Hasbro buyout, and after Falcon 4 we got Gunship! (with a ! yet) and B-17 II which had its MP stripped out. While both of those sims got modded in later years, they were mega flops at release because they alienated the core while failing to appeal to a larger, different crowd. Larry Holland of SWOTL fame made the craptastic Secret Weapons Over Normandy and then blamed the simmers for not buying it because it wasn't "accurate enough" for them (totally avoiding the fact that the genre it was meant to compete with, Ace Combat and the like, blew it away in quality).

 

MS is of course making their return but in an as-yet unproven direction. I don't care about it (as I never cared for MSFS), but I'm interested to see how it sells compared to FSX. Will a total revamp garner them more sales? Or will it still fail to interest the non-simmers while alienating the simmers? That's the historical pattern.

It's pretty simple. The big publishers flooded the market with derivative flightsim shovelware back around 1999-2001 at a time when Half-Life had just redefined gaming, and when these promptly bombed the big publishers decided sims were too risky to be profitable and simply stopped making them, shutting down developers in the process. You have to understand that the big publishers are incredibly risk-averse and will not pursue any IP which cannot be readily turned into a yearly franchise ala Call of Duty or Medal of Honor. Since all of those developers you listed were dependent on the traditional publisher businessmodel for funding, they promptly folded. Spectrum Holobyte/MPS in turn were killed off by Falcon 4. Only Microsoft remains and are doing anything to innovate in the genre. The russian devs survived because they relied on independent funding or publishers like 1C.

 

And until some western indie dev produces or MS Flight turns out to be a smash hit, AAA western flight sims will continue to be dead for the foreseeable future. Of course, all western indie flightsim devs except Aerofly and TW seem to be fat nerds so they invariably become bogged down in feature creep and turn into vaporware, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...ok, so why did you bother with all this? If in the end all you're doing is agreeing with my initial point, which is exactly what you just did (you just spent all that time saying the best food is not a hamburger but a hamburger WITH PICKLES!), why the big rebuttal?

 

"The hamburger is the best food."

"Not at all, in fact... *30 paragraphs later* ...that's why nothing beats a hamburger with pickles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that people who whine about the lack of flightsims are still living in the 90's with the old business model of developer-publisher. Any reasonable flightsim today will have to be independently funded or crowdsourced. Console gamers didn't kill sims. Greedy publishers did by flooding the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..