Re: I am a PC Game...And I am a Space Sim...
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:14 am
Well I wouldn't call H.A.W.X. a flight sim...
Hehe, maybe we should just call these arcadey "space"-sims: Luminiferous aether simsAggressor Prime wrote:I guess it ultimately depends on how strict you like to be with your language. I see space sim as any game that uses space ships. I see flight sim as any game that uses aircraft. I see mech sim as any game that uses mechs. Perhaps these could just be called space games, flight games, mech games, etc.; but w/e, I'm loose with my language.
As such, that is why I drew the connection to Descent.
Topgun knows what's upMobius wrote:Sorry, but this is NOT a Space Sim.
If you can fly a ship like an aeroplane, then it is nothing even remotely like a simulator, because a real space sim shows that individual fighters can't possibly ever exist in a space environment: even if you have unlimited Delta-V. And that will never be the case.
Protip: No air means Newton wins. And no dogfights are possible in space. Or at least not in the way we traditionally think of them.
No: future space battles will be fought exclusively by capital ships at ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometres distance from their targets.
HEH! Time to go down to the basement and flip the circuit breaker for his room.BUBBALOU wrote:Sim (SQUADRON 42) vs Arcade (Miner Wars)
SIM wins based on realism and mechanics alone - leave the arcade style to the 12 yr olds on console screaming for their chocolate milk
Krom wrote:HEH! Time to go down to the basement and flip the circuit breaker for his room.BUBBALOU wrote:Sim (SQUADRON 42) vs Arcade (Miner Wars)
SIM wins based on realism and mechanics alone - leave the arcade style to the 12 yr olds on console screaming for their chocolate milk
ah, seems i'm not the first to ponder thisroid wrote:...
My whole mental concept of the synchronicity of time breaks down, i'm not sure what to replace it with. i need to experiment visually.
I dunno even what to google for to help me understand what i'm trying to say, "The Relativistic Fog of War" ?
i guess it's romantic notions of psychic phenomenon and how it relates to synchronised events. (disclaimer: no i don't really believe this stuff, but deep down in my intuition i quite likely do)
ie: if one person dies, their lover can feel it even though being in another town. Extend that to relativistic distances and we have to accept that such psychic phenomenon would themselves need to kowtow to relativity. If your lover was 1 light year away, and they died, it would take at least 1 year for that feeling to arrive at you. And if this were the case, if even such esoteric magical things are not universally synchronised... then it makes me start to wonder if the reality itself is that these things literally happened 1 year in the past - they didn't happen in the present. Who are we to define what the present is?
uuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggguuuuuuuuuuuuu
"According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space"