- Status
Looking past the current implementation issues, I think it would be fair to say ED aims for unrealistic ships flying round a realistic universe, whereas SC aims for realistic ships flying round an unrealistic universe. Both approaches make sense for each game, given that SC is about making players feel mighty while ED is about making them feel insignificant.
Granted a lot of people don't see Arena Commander that way right now. Personally I think they got lost in the mechanics and took their eye off the aesthetics, so once the current (painful) corrective stage evens out we should start to see SC's complex, fascinating ships take on lives of their own.
That's one of the things that attracts me to ED more than SC.
In SC they go so many lengths to simulate ships in every detail, but they will be flying in a small unrealistic universe where everything is scaled down and all big scope physics ignored. Just the sight of their small static universe will make the space nerd in me cringe. With 1mil km systems, planets would be the size of a coriolis station.
In ED, they cut back a bit from realism on every aspect of the game. Like ships aren't simulated to the details, but they are fine gameplay wise and still immersive and there is depth. The universe isn't 100% realistic, there's some shortcuts like speedlimits and relativistic time issues being ignored. But those are all for gameplay reasons really.
In the end you have a solid whole that is mostly realistic in every aspect, just a bit simplified.
SC seems to have so much contrast between it's features that it doesn't feel like it will all fit together.
That is their $85 million stretch goal : Jigsaw Citizen - the ability to put it all together 
At the moment it's more like Sticklebricks
At the moment it's more like Sticklebricks
A poster on RSI forums said BDSSE now stands for Best Damn Ship Sim Ever
Well, that's...not untrue
Was he crucified after that ?
psyron
Banned
Talking about ED: Let's say fun flight mechanics in a realistic universe.
Even CR admits that absolutely realistic dogfights wouldn't be fun, since it would be a battle flown 100+ km from eachother with lasers and missiles guided by computers only:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5M5DXzcMmg&t=11m30s
So why all this talk about "realistic flight mechanics" anyway?!?
Well said.
Nice pleasingly symmetrical argument, except when consider you fly sc ships with a mouse. You are not a captain of an sc ship, you are a Mouse Commander.
And my nieces dollhouse has a lot of components. Doesn't make it complex, it is what it is, designed for an 8 year old.
Still, it could be worse. We could be X rebirth Backers.
Last edited:
psyron
Banned
OMG
I just checked this out.
Crytek In Deep Trouble – Adoption of CryEngine Not Good, Ryse Development Catastrophic
http://www.dsogaming.com/interstiti...ngine-not-good-ryse-development-catastrophic/
...Just gets better and better.
Why ED ships are unrealistic but SD realistic?
Because in ED yaw is arbitrarily and artificially crippled to make them fly like aeroplanes in space perhaps?
Talking about ED: Let's say fun flight mechanics in a realistic universe.
Even CR admits that absolutely realistic dogfights wouldn't be fun, since it would be a battle flown 100+ km from eachother with lasers and missiles guided by computers only:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5M5DXzcMmg&t=11m30s
So why all this talk about "realistic flight mechanics" anyway?!?
Because it is great to say that the game features realistic fly model. People buy it. And it does not matter that they cut corners in other aspects of the game making them unrealistic. Nice selective advertisement of the game. We show what we want only, hide the rest.
You are talking about flight model and not ships.
Great argument. And SC features 4DOF flight model and you cannot even fly backwards in coupled mode. Doesn't an airplane fly like this?
ED's flight model is crippled for the fun gameplay and it serves this purpose well. But you can use lateral and vertical thrust.
AC is not fun at all, it is playable as FPS. You cannot use lateral and vertical thrust or fly backward in coupled mode and cannot roll in decoupled mode. This is very realistic.
So we are not talking about the flight models. Andrew Sayers specifically said that ships are unrealistic/realistic. And this I cannot understand. What is unrealistic/realistic in ship designs? As both games are space sims they can only have unrealistic ships that way.
If Crytek support dried up due to downsizing I expect CIG could just recruit that support themselves. They obviously have the money to do so.
If a ship cannot be deemed realistic or unrealistic based on its behaviour in what possible way can it judged either way? To try to separate the two things is a nonsense.
The road to an 'arcade' game is paved with concessions to gameplay, Tetris and Pacman are all about arbitrary rules that serve no purpose other than to present a specific series of simplistic challenges. A 'simulation' on the other hand, pretty much by definition, makes as few such compromises as possible to provide a setting in which believable situations can be played out in as authentic a fashion as possible; this is the gameplay fans of simulation seek - mimic the real world as closely as possible and see what emerges.
I think Andrew had it spot on, ED's galaxy will certainly be better 'simulated' than SC's but the way things are tracking SC's ships will very likely reflect real world behaviours far more faithfully than ED's - the nerfing of yaw alone ensures that.
- Status