Over Simulating

[Cudwieser]

When does simulation become too much? When does realism start to ruin a game?

 

On the other hand when does arcade physics become uninvolving?

 

 

[esmittystud101]

Basically for me atleast, when you have a real "shinny" looking game, but you have to drop from 60fps to 30fps so it will run okay. This is when I think its too much.........which is every game almost for PS4 and X1. I hope I hear something regarding PS4.5 at E3.

 

I never really thought there was much of a difference between the two until last night actually. When I was playing Uncharted 4, I noticed first thing right off the bat it felt a little sluggish compaired to Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection. Not much. But you can tell one is 60fps and the other is 30fps.

 

The cost of having your shinny game Naughty Dog......well worth it. Good decision.

Edited May 11, 2016 by esmittystud101

[Cudwieser]

Good point, but not what I was punching at (or not exactly anyway). I was more asking in terms of gameplay and involvement (I should have specified, sorry). The recent release of Dirt gave rise to the questions. The game basically punishes you for mistakes by forcing you to recover or start over (or reset at the cost of in game credits), something that is fairly true to real life, but IMO very much against the play of the game. It is one thing being good, but if you just want to play.

 

Another case in point is Shift 2. It focuses on realistic handling, almost to the point of actually needing a steering wheel and additional controls to play the game effectively. Alright if you're serious, but not if you're playing for the sake of playing.

 

That's why I want to know when simulation becomes too real and against the game instead of you letting you play.

 

As for Arcades when do you start to crave realism, not just graphically, but via input

 

P.S sorry for not being specific. You did raise a very good point though and a relevant one I didn't think about. Thank you

[Daz]

 

 

When does simulation become too much?

When sh*t like this got passed off as a game:

 

[Mister Pink]

Good point, but not what I was punching at (or not exactly anyway). I was more asking in terms of gameplay and involvement (I should have specified, sorry). The recent release of Dirt gave rise to the questions. The game basically punishes you for mistakes by forcing you to recover or start over (or reset at the cost of in game credits), something that is fairly true to real life, but IMO very much against the play of the game. It is one thing being good, but if you just want to play.

 

Another case in point is Shift 2. It focuses on realistic handling, almost to the point of actually needing a steering wheel and additional controls to play the game effectively. Alright if you're serious, but not if you're playing for the sake of playing.

 

That's why I want to know when simulation becomes too real and against the game instead of you letting you play.

 

As for Arcades when do you start to crave realism, not just graphically, but via input

 

P.S sorry for not being specific. You did raise a very good point though and a relevant one I didn't think about. Thank you

 

I think Forza was offering good, challenging driving that allowed you to learn quick enough but still offered a challenge. When something goes wrong, it still feels natural. Whereas the latest NFS seems to arcadey that it couldn't keep my attention even though I love the idea of it. It's just not fluid or natural feeling at all.

 

So, in short, the driving needs to challenge you and make sense when you mess up or at least attempt to make sense. NFS fell too far behind, it's like 90's arcade which would/should be different than contemporary arcade. I mean on consoles, thumbsticks aren't new any more. Most of us are adults and have been playing games for years. Give us the challenge. However, you have to feel like you are improving or learning.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

I think there is also 'how much simulation do you want?'

 

Take Euro Truck Simulator 2 (or American Truck Sim if you want to be pedantic). You can have realistic air brakes, including them locking when you over use them so you have to rebuild air pressure, realistic retarder systems, then there is the fuel usage telemetry, speed limiter, realistic engine maps and gearbox and transmission data if you add the relevant mods. Hell, you can even force yourself to rest by allowing the sleep simulation system on, so your driver works his shift then has 8 hours sleep before moving off again....

 

Add to this, stalling simulation and a great driving feel and you end up with a seriously over the top Sim.... But it doesn't have to be that way either. You can basically disable all the driving realism's and just arcade drive if you feel, personally I drive as realistic as possible, but countless others do not.

 

The point is, any decent driving / sim game should allow you to set your own level of realism so you are not hemmed in by what is expected of you by the devs. It should be a free choice of skill and realism.

[Cudwieser]

Good point. I like realistic, but not necessarily realism. One thing that irked me badly were the 24 hour races in GT4 and GT5. Even though the B modes helped you were still talking a minimum of 8 hours.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

But I can see another option.

 

24 hour races, full realism, where you take not just the role of driver, but also manager, so you drive, but also have more than one driver in shift, so an AI drives and you can set quick time while you monitor the car data and simulate you, as a driver resting....

 

All you need is a 'save in the pits option' so you can do it over several stints.