Is WC too arcade like?
- Thread starter dacis2
- Start date
Corsair(pilot)
Spaceman
I think that wing commander is just the opposite actually!
Almost all games are more arcade like than WC, for the simple fact that WC has that prominent STORY element. It feels much more cinimatic than say... almost every 3d shooter I've ever played.... (shoot bad guys, get special items, reach magical door to take you to the next level, and start again)
Almost all games are more arcade like than WC, for the simple fact that WC has that prominent STORY element. It feels much more cinimatic than say... almost every 3d shooter I've ever played.... (shoot bad guys, get special items, reach magical door to take you to the next level, and start again)
DetailedTarget
Spaceman
Yes it is arcade like. The flight engine alone is what makes it arcade like. It would be great if it was more like the B5 game that was should've come out (but never did...<sniff
), but is still good in spite of the hopelessly flawed Star Wars like flight physics.
The only space fighter game I've ever seen that was even remotely realistic (aside from the aforementioned ill-fated JMS/Sierra project) was an old game called Mantis. It had aliens similar to the bugs from WCP, and didn't seem to last too long. Was a pretty cool game all in all.
), but is still good in spite of the hopelessly flawed Star Wars like flight physics.The only space fighter game I've ever seen that was even remotely realistic (aside from the aforementioned ill-fated JMS/Sierra project) was an old game called Mantis. It had aliens similar to the bugs from WCP, and didn't seem to last too long. Was a pretty cool game all in all.
I agree with Corsair(pilot), the WCs have evolved beyond the point of being classified as an arcade game. The original game was pretty much an arcade game with a story, atmosphere, and characters. The series does, however, have arcade physics, but that is for a very simple reason of the funfactor. Look what happened to several games that tried incorporating more realistic physics. Anyone played or even heard of Darklight Conflict? I didn't think so , either. Wing did not become popular by being a sim, that is for sure.
Eder
Mr. Standoff
Well, I suppose the physics could be considered "arcade", as in opposed to "realistic", but that's really a fun factor issue. (Nowadays it's not so much of a problem, but back in the early '90s, I'm not sure a game with B5-like physics would be any fun, specially a sprite-based game.)
Apart from that, I don't see many arcade elements in WC... Although WCP/SO feel arcade-ish in the sense that there's countless enemies and the battles are all fast paced. But, in contrast, take the older games... from WC1 to P1, you were almost never outnumbered more than 5 to 1 per waypoint, and getting a kill could actually be difficult. (I still remember my first Tarsus-vs-Talon one-on-one... almost brings tears to my eyes!
)
--Eder
Apart from that, I don't see many arcade elements in WC... Although WCP/SO feel arcade-ish in the sense that there's countless enemies and the battles are all fast paced. But, in contrast, take the older games... from WC1 to P1, you were almost never outnumbered more than 5 to 1 per waypoint, and getting a kill could actually be difficult. (I still remember my first Tarsus-vs-Talon one-on-one... almost brings tears to my eyes!
)--Eder
Corsair(pilot)
Spaceman
Yes, exactly. The engine itself had the instant gratification of an arcade game when shooting up the enemy, but also had some intricacies of a simulator (velocity control, communications, etc...). And then it coupled those elements with a compelling plot and bang! It was epic!
DetailedTarget
Spaceman
I suppose it all comes down to how one choses to define "arcade-like".
Time Crisis II had a story and cut scenes, as did Silent Scope 1 & 2. The entire Tekken and Mortal Kombat series' had epic plots as well (ok, no cut scenes, so more of a stretch, but still...). And let's not forget about Dragonslayer...
On the flip side, you have PC games like Phantasmagoria II : A Puzzle Of Flesh. That was a lot like an FMV version of Dragonslayer (to an extent, I'm not saying an exact analogue or anything). So was that arcade-like? Personally, I don't think so.
I don't think that story or cut scenes, or even epic feel have anything to do with being classified as an arcard-like game. I think it's all about the game play, which is the game engine.
In that respect, WC is arcade-like. However the story, atmosphere, etc do make it a truly great series (in fact it's my personal all time favorite, and I'm a big gaming nut in general
).
As to B5-like physics (which aren't 100% realistic, but damn close all things considered) in a sprite based game....yeah, you're probably right, it would not have been as much fun in general. Then again, maybe if everything else was tweaked accordingly..... Gamers were a different breed back then. WC1 had no virtual cockpit (thank god!), the MW series was actually based on BattleTech and as close to a mech _sim_ as you could get (unlike QuakeWarrior...err, I mean MechWarrior 4). Seems today people only care about great graphics, easy game play, and online gaming. Realism, story, and atmosphere are all secondary at best, unwanted at worst today. Back then however.....maybe B5-like physics wouldn't have been rebuffed.
Time Crisis II had a story and cut scenes, as did Silent Scope 1 & 2. The entire Tekken and Mortal Kombat series' had epic plots as well (ok, no cut scenes, so more of a stretch, but still...). And let's not forget about Dragonslayer...
On the flip side, you have PC games like Phantasmagoria II : A Puzzle Of Flesh. That was a lot like an FMV version of Dragonslayer (to an extent, I'm not saying an exact analogue or anything). So was that arcade-like? Personally, I don't think so.
I don't think that story or cut scenes, or even epic feel have anything to do with being classified as an arcard-like game. I think it's all about the game play, which is the game engine.
In that respect, WC is arcade-like. However the story, atmosphere, etc do make it a truly great series (in fact it's my personal all time favorite, and I'm a big gaming nut in general
).As to B5-like physics (which aren't 100% realistic, but damn close all things considered) in a sprite based game....yeah, you're probably right, it would not have been as much fun in general. Then again, maybe if everything else was tweaked accordingly..... Gamers were a different breed back then. WC1 had no virtual cockpit (thank god!), the MW series was actually based on BattleTech and as close to a mech _sim_ as you could get (unlike QuakeWarrior...err, I mean MechWarrior 4). Seems today people only care about great graphics, easy game play, and online gaming. Realism, story, and atmosphere are all secondary at best, unwanted at worst today. Back then however.....maybe B5-like physics wouldn't have been rebuffed.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
It's arcade-like, not *too* arcade like.
i played darklight conflict, it sucked, it was too difficult and no cheats!
okok, at least don't you guys think that you(the player) should have taken part in a major fleet action, don't you think? i mean like it will have thousands of fighters and hundreds of capships with ordanance flying about everywhere! destroying one fighter bareley contriburtes to the battle around you!For and example, take the Mt.St Helens and Vesuvius(Without them twisting and turning and being indestructible) while continuouslt launching fighters till they have run out, and multiply that by 500, at an increasing rate and what do you get? a full blown space battle(like those in star trek when hundreds of ships duke it out!)
okok, at least don't you guys think that you(the player) should have taken part in a major fleet action, don't you think? i mean like it will have thousands of fighters and hundreds of capships with ordanance flying about everywhere! destroying one fighter bareley contriburtes to the battle around you!For and example, take the Mt.St Helens and Vesuvius(Without them twisting and turning and being indestructible) while continuouslt launching fighters till they have run out, and multiply that by 500, at an increasing rate and what do you get? a full blown space battle(like those in star trek when hundreds of ships duke it out!)
LOAF beat me to it...
I agree - I think the key word in the original question is "too" arcade like. To which I think one must ask, "too arcade like for whom?" How arcade like "should" a game be or not be in order to be fun? The game designer makes that call when creating the game, and the gaming public validates the decision (or not) on the sales floor.
On the subject of realistic space sims, there have been several: Mantis was the first, followed by Warhead. The Warhead design team went on to make Independence War (IWar) 1 and 2 for Particle Systems. IWar probably has the most realistic flight model in a published combat-oriented space sim.
There have been several more realistic space sims in the Elite/Privateer mode, including Frontier: Elite 2, and Frontier: First Encounters by David Braben. Both had realistic flight models, including realistic orbital mechanics for the planetary systems. More recently, the game Terminus had a fairly realistic flight model.
Perhaps the most realistic of all would be the freeware game Orbiter which allows you to pilot the Space Shuttle around the solar system.
However, all that is somewhat beside the point: I think dacis2 was really concerned with mission design more than flight model, and I think he was correct in his original post - the mission design for the WC games I have played (WC3 and Prophecy) was generally pretty simple and arcade like. On the other hand, I think he is wrong in assuming that making the battles bigger would also make them better or more realistic. A giant melee of thousands of ships, all piling up on a single nav point and duking it out would not be realistic or fun. It would just be chaotic, noisy, brutish, and short.
What would make the missions more interesting? A good question...
I agree - I think the key word in the original question is "too" arcade like. To which I think one must ask, "too arcade like for whom?" How arcade like "should" a game be or not be in order to be fun? The game designer makes that call when creating the game, and the gaming public validates the decision (or not) on the sales floor.
On the subject of realistic space sims, there have been several: Mantis was the first, followed by Warhead. The Warhead design team went on to make Independence War (IWar) 1 and 2 for Particle Systems. IWar probably has the most realistic flight model in a published combat-oriented space sim.
There have been several more realistic space sims in the Elite/Privateer mode, including Frontier: Elite 2, and Frontier: First Encounters by David Braben. Both had realistic flight models, including realistic orbital mechanics for the planetary systems. More recently, the game Terminus had a fairly realistic flight model.
Perhaps the most realistic of all would be the freeware game Orbiter which allows you to pilot the Space Shuttle around the solar system.
However, all that is somewhat beside the point: I think dacis2 was really concerned with mission design more than flight model, and I think he was correct in his original post - the mission design for the WC games I have played (WC3 and Prophecy) was generally pretty simple and arcade like. On the other hand, I think he is wrong in assuming that making the battles bigger would also make them better or more realistic. A giant melee of thousands of ships, all piling up on a single nav point and duking it out would not be realistic or fun. It would just be chaotic, noisy, brutish, and short.
What would make the missions more interesting? A good question...
That would be really cool (considering what it looked like to see 2 capships duking it out in WC3 - just imagine a whole battle fleet!) but not very realistic. I use realistic in the gaming world, not the real world. Real world - yes a fleet action is what would happen (one person could make a difference, but not likely), but in the computer gaming world it can't happen.
#1 - if your talking about the first WC games (WC1/2/3 & maybe 4) you just didn't have the computing power to handle multiple ships(by multliple I mean more than maybe 10 or more cap ships and 35 or more fighters). Prophecy had a chance at a "fleet action" with the availablity of PC computing power and did a pretty good job of simulating the "hornets nest" type of dogfight (maybe 25 - 30 ships on screen at once -> especially in the CAP or defense missions) but alas, no all out fleet action.
#2 - It would make your contribution seem insignificant. Your character is supposed to be the main one in the series, your supposed to be above and beyond the best pilot who ever strapped into a fighter. If you brought the realism back into it, it would take alot of the funa and "I'm the biggest bad-@#* in town" feel out of the game.
also, you usually encountered enemies inbetween nav points, not at navs. That's what the nav points are plotted for, the optimal search pattern to cover the most ground with what little resources you have.
I'm not doggin' your suggestion as it would be cool to have a "fleet action" type game, especially now in our need for computer games to be even more realistic. It just wasn't an option to sell games at the time WC was beign introduced.
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
Originally posted by dacis2
i played darklight conflict, it sucked, it was too difficult and no cheats!
okok, at least don't you guys think that you(the player) should have taken part in a major fleet action, don't you think? i mean like it will have thousands of fighters and hundreds of capships with ordanance flying about everywhere! destroying one fighter bareley contriburtes to the battle around you!For and example, take the Mt.St Helens and Vesuvius(Without them twisting and turning and being indestructible) while continuouslt launching fighters till they have run out, and multiply that by 500, at an increasing rate and what do you get? a full blown space battle(like those in star trek when hundreds of ships duke it out!)
Yeah...one of the few things which Freespace actually does BETTER...or at least more frequently...
I doubt something like you descibed would take place anytimes soon, at least with modern tech.
As I recall, WCI, II, and the "alt. flight dynamics" setting of WCIV included inertia as part of the flight model--if you changed directions, you would accelerate in the new direction only at the rate of your ship's engine acceleration rather than changing directions instantly, which led to a bit of 'skidding' whenever your ship or an A.I. ship changed direction sharply.
DetailedTarget
Spaceman
That only happens (in WC1 at least, playing it again currently) when you hit the burners, then let off them and turn. (I haven't seen it anywhere else at least, it tend to behave rather like a fantasy 3Dimensional sports car)
Sounds like the description of life in the middle ages. Or battle back then as well.
WildWeasel
Spaceman
No.
There were an awful lot of comments talking about a lack of realistic physics in a game. I wondered how long it would take someone to point out the Independence War games. If you haven't seen them, you should check them out. The game engine allows you to do pretty much anything you would expect to be able to do in zero g, including reaching incredibly fast speeds (turn off flight assist, put a weight on the accelerate key, go have dinner, and you'd probably still be accelerating when you came back).
More ships in combat is fun sometimes, but it can also lead to a bigger mess. It looks nice, but it introduces too many variables into the combat. Instead of good skill, the combat becomes a test of how little of the enemy AI's attention you can attract. If the enemy pilots all head off after your friends, and ignore you, then the mission will probably be a cakewalk. If half a dozen enemy fighters decide that you'd make a nice trophy, then you're in trouble (especially if its a strike mission, and you're flying a bomber). The more ships you put in on both sides, the more random the results that the player will see, and thus, the more difficult it is to determine how hard a given mission will be.
The occasional mission where you're flying CAP (or should it be CSP?) for a tough capital ship in a huge battle might be fun, but such missions should be infrequent.
More ships in combat is fun sometimes, but it can also lead to a bigger mess. It looks nice, but it introduces too many variables into the combat. Instead of good skill, the combat becomes a test of how little of the enemy AI's attention you can attract. If the enemy pilots all head off after your friends, and ignore you, then the mission will probably be a cakewalk. If half a dozen enemy fighters decide that you'd make a nice trophy, then you're in trouble (especially if its a strike mission, and you're flying a bomber). The more ships you put in on both sides, the more random the results that the player will see, and thus, the more difficult it is to determine how hard a given mission will be.
The occasional mission where you're flying CAP (or should it be CSP?) for a tough capital ship in a huge battle might be fun, but such missions should be infrequent.
While having constant acceleration with no ceiling on maximum speed might be more realistic, it would probably make gameplay more difficult. Take the following situation: You are pursuing an enemy fighter, and he afterburns away in an attempt to outrun you. You pursue, and spend most of a minute shooting him down. Both of you are accelerating all this time, which results in your ship having a speed of tens of thousands of kps relative to when you started the chase. It will then take you another full minute firing your afterburners in the opposite direction to kill your speed, then you have to repeat the whole cycle again in order to come back to your starting point.
