waika

Member
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About waika

  • Rank
    Wannabee
  1. There's nothing wrong with how my initial post is 'structured', it's literal, clear and every point including the illustration offered is qualified. The facts offered are inviolable limitations of game design... You're correct I don't, but it's a dubious supposition without evidence to even bother posting or discussing -- as without some mechanism of 'zoom' you'd have to defy the laws of physics and the limitations current display technology places on game engines; now that's unqualified... For a concept you don't have time to properly explain you sure are defensive...
  2. No where did I say or even imply that zoom was a "result of NORG implementation", neither did I say that 'it's realistic', in fact I explicitly wrote exactly the opposite. But view distance limitations in games due to pixilation and LOD is not in the least realistic either, in fact you can't even identify a man-target as anything other then a pixilated blob at a fraction of the distance that you can clearly identify a target in the real world as: human, male, enemy, and even recognize a specific individual... The very unrealistic limitations in game engines and how we view/play them invariably and in fact requires very unrealistic means and approaches to overcome those limitations, even if your goal is scale simulator design.
  3. While an interesting design approach/concept it seems rather simplistic and incomplete -- and is one I hope is not taken too literally by BFS. A flat anamorphically projected 'game world' is constrained by a slew of limitations in how it can scale different aspects of what a particular Developer (or Fan) may consider important aspects of realism to emulate, and in many cases it's not even possible to emulate many of these important aspects to scale, congruently, or with realistic aesthetic continuity with one another... Designing for certain aspects of aesthetic realism can (and often does) come at the expense of how realistically a game plays, and attempting to create a game that plays more realistically can require substantial sacrifices in aesthetic realism. Just one example/illustration would be Ghost Recon's 'Ghost Perspective' zoom feature; in a 'game world' due to pixilation and LOD we are very limited to how far we can see with the consequence of realistic range of engagement being dramatically curtailed -- the effects on game play/combat as far as 'realism' is concerned is profound. Ghost Recon addressed this with its very aesthetically unrealistic (and inconsistent) 'Ghost Perspective' and zoom feature. Red Orchestra by way of contrast offers more aesthetic realism in terms of aiming machinery, weapon handling, weapon metrics, and ballistics; but forsakes a zoom feature to compensate for the limitations of realistic view distance in game -- and the outcome is very apparent in how the game plays with many very arcade engagements that are far closer and offer far less realistic tactical opportunity then Ghost Recon. This is only one of a multitude of issues that confront an unqualified 'realism as your guide' approach to game design; where every next step then becomes a question of: 'Just what aspects of realism are more important?' Aesthetics? Metrics? Tactical sophistication and execution? Virtual combat outcome?... On top of all of this is the question: 'Is this to be a game or a simulator?' Real combat offers few to no elements of a game; by way of example there's no attempt what-so-ever in real combat to offer anyone a fair and balanced contest of skill -- which is cardinal to what defines the very concept of a 'game'). Real world combat by contrast is the abject opposite where every effort is made to overwhelm and obviate the skill, means, technology and numbers of your enemy -- and to mitigate to every extent and means possible the importance those same elements in your own force will effect outcome.