09.01.2009, 06:27
Part of the problem of asking for an immersive experience in simulating bomber missions is what we expect to experience.
There was that Microprose B17 sim that came out way back when. Graphically challenged, but the there was a real sense of drama as you droned across Europe. When the ack-ack stopped near a town, you knew fighters were closing in. I remember feeling genuinely wary about this fast moving pixels and the elation when you actually managed to hit an enemy plane.
It isn't therefore a matter of detail, but rather how the game plays. Eye candy is great but I think too many people focus on how things look rather than how it plays. There are still those who play Red Baron (like me) because the game plays well rather than appeals visually, and so far, no other WW1 sim beats it for feel.
There are little details that might have improved things visually. Nav lights for one, sure. But how about a 'green lamp' from a truck beside the runway to send you on your way? Or the red flare to warn you to go around rather than the ahistoric need to radio ground control. Navigation could be improved, and like B17 used to do, you should be able to readjust your position on the map (and potentially get hopelessly lost - some crews did) and thus arriving at the target by your own efforts rather than relying on autopilot and waypoints (which are modern in concept and simulate GPS, unavailable in WW2)
Then there's an issue with communication on-board. A crewman should alert the pilot when an engine is catching fire. Gunners should mention you're crossing the coastline (the navigator might want to know that!). Lead pilots should issue commands on formation, especially approaching the target. They do some of that already, but it could be improved.
So what makes a sim immersive. Funnily enough, it isn't graphics. Microsoft proved that and still haven't learned the lesson. Its all about drama, uncertainty, an intuitive level of control, and an atmosphere that there are people out there around you, not just you and a squadron of pixels.
There was that Microprose B17 sim that came out way back when. Graphically challenged, but the there was a real sense of drama as you droned across Europe. When the ack-ack stopped near a town, you knew fighters were closing in. I remember feeling genuinely wary about this fast moving pixels and the elation when you actually managed to hit an enemy plane.
It isn't therefore a matter of detail, but rather how the game plays. Eye candy is great but I think too many people focus on how things look rather than how it plays. There are still those who play Red Baron (like me) because the game plays well rather than appeals visually, and so far, no other WW1 sim beats it for feel.
There are little details that might have improved things visually. Nav lights for one, sure. But how about a 'green lamp' from a truck beside the runway to send you on your way? Or the red flare to warn you to go around rather than the ahistoric need to radio ground control. Navigation could be improved, and like B17 used to do, you should be able to readjust your position on the map (and potentially get hopelessly lost - some crews did) and thus arriving at the target by your own efforts rather than relying on autopilot and waypoints (which are modern in concept and simulate GPS, unavailable in WW2)
Then there's an issue with communication on-board. A crewman should alert the pilot when an engine is catching fire. Gunners should mention you're crossing the coastline (the navigator might want to know that!). Lead pilots should issue commands on formation, especially approaching the target. They do some of that already, but it could be improved.
So what makes a sim immersive. Funnily enough, it isn't graphics. Microsoft proved that and still haven't learned the lesson. Its all about drama, uncertainty, an intuitive level of control, and an atmosphere that there are people out there around you, not just you and a squadron of pixels.