Microprose

[Skoop]

You can find the sweet spot in Dcs, it just takes work on your part.  They don't spoon feed it to you.  Which there lies the argument, games shouldn't be work or are they a labor of love.   

[mikeck]

I've found that for me, the sweet spot is the realism and DCS hits it. God how I tried and tried to get into flight sims. Jane's WW2, Jane's F-18, Microsoft CFS3, IL-2 Sturm, cliffs of Dover, Rise of Flight and Flaming Cliffs. At most, I'd get about 3-4 days out of it before I lost interest. I just felt like it wasn't as immersive as a good strategy game is; because whereas I'm not actually flying a plane, I AM planning a strategy like a general would. I dunno.

But then after my 4th or 5th reapers video, I gave DCS a shot. Sat down and learned a plane. All I had to do was get it started and take off and I was hooked. Haven't played anything else since May 2019. And that is ALL because of the realism. I found that the Uber realism was what made it immersive. Even though I know I couldn't really do it, I felt like "yeah, I could actually get into anAV-8b, start it up, take off, fly and blow shit up in real life. It was the realism that made it

To each there own but damn...give me the button-mashing crank lever pulling B-17 from DCS any day

[SirAndrewD]

Don't get me wrong.  I love DCS and I love IL2. 

I just liked the old lighter sims from Microprose as well. 

There are times I'm not in a mood to take a fair chunk of my Saturday to fly one mission in DCS but still want to scratch the flight sim itch. 

As my Steam library could show you, I like options.

[Apocalypse 31]

"Realism in DCS" or any game (for that matter).

My take...

I'm not a pilot. I don't have the time or patience. When I jump into a video game I expect to have the same level of training and knowledge of the persona that I am simulating/emulating. That's why I'm OK with abstraction with games. That's why I'm ok with games like Heliborne or ArmA (jets). Games that simplify controls from 8 button clicks down to 2 or 3.

Same with first person shooters - pick any game...I am "simulating" an elite special operations soldier or SWAT member but I cannot control my breathing or aiming, and I am constantly outgunned by street thugs or terrorists with zero training.

[Destraex]

They won't - but they won't need to, especially with that sort of following ;)

What what?

[The_Admiral]

Ah good! I thought nobody had taken the bait   :P
Well, more on that later at some point, worry not  8)

[Yskonyn]

"Realism in DCS" or any game (for that matter).

My take...

I'm not a pilot. I don't have the time or patience. When I jump into a video game I expect to have the same level of training and knowledge of the persona that I am simulating/emulating. That's why I'm OK with abstraction with games. That's why I'm ok with games like Heliborne or ArmA (jets). Games that simplify controls from 8 button clicks down to 2 or 3.

Same with first person shooters - pick any game...I am "simulating" an elite special operations soldier or SWAT member but I cannot control my breathing or aiming, and I am constantly outgunned by street thugs or terrorists with zero training.

Is it fair to say you have 2 types of realism; 'technical' realism and 'environmental realism' ?
The latter provides realism in the sense that the game world behaves in a realistic manner whereas the former focusses on the simulation of procedures by the operator of the sim.
Both types can be combined (study sims do this).

You seem to value the latter more.

DCS, however, can be played in any combination of the above depending on which module you choose. Choosing a study sim model like the Hornet and then complaining about having to 'mash several buttons' to only fire off a missile is silly.
Especially when you have Flaming Cliffs 3 to get rid of that annoyance for you and still get immersed in the realism the gameworld provides.
If you complain that the Hornet should also feature a simpler way of control, then look no further either; enable the easy mode options and you're set.

On another note: an interesting discussion was brought up on the Steel Beasts forum:
https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/13330-steel-beasts-complexity/

That sim is regarded as super hardcore study sim/training tool, but personally I dont find the controls of the various vehicles too difficult at all.
The difficulty comes from managing the different assets in a force effectively and employing tactics correctly, using the scripting commands effectively, etc.

[Apocalypse 31]

'technical' realism and 'environmental realism'

I like that. It may be a reflection as to where I am in my life and profession. Games like Unity of Command II are much more enjoyable - large scale maneuver and control, rather than a single dude dropping a bomb. Bigger picture.

Especially when you have Flaming Cliffs 3

Oddly enough, I actually thought the A-10A was HARDER to use than the A-10C.

[Father Ted]

"Realism in DCS" or any game (for that matter).

My take...

I'm not a pilot. I don't have the time or patience. When I jump into a video game I expect to have the same level of training and knowledge of the persona that I am simulating/emulating. That's why I'm OK with abstraction with games. That's why I'm ok with games like Heliborne or ArmA (jets). Games that simplify controls from 8 button clicks down to 2 or 3.

Same with first person shooters - pick any game...I am "simulating" an elite special operations soldier or SWAT member but I cannot control my breathing or aiming, and I am constantly outgunned by street thugs or terrorists with zero training.

I'm the opposite - when I'm simming it's me that's doing the flying or the shooting.  I like to imagine what I would do/would be able to do in a dogfight or firefight.  Mostly obviously it's die quite quickly, but that's where the interest lies for me in these things.

[hellfish6]

On another note: an interesting discussion was brought up on the Steel Beasts forum:
https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/13330-steel-beasts-complexity/

That sim is regarded as super hardcore study sim/training tool, but personally I dont find the controls of the various vehicles too difficult at all.
The difficulty comes from managing the different assets in a force effectively and employing tactics correctly, using the scripting commands effectively, etc.

I like your 'environmental' realism concept. It makes sense. I also don't think SB Pro is particularly difficult to learn and I've been pretty successful at every vehicle I've tried. No real buttonology to learn, or if there is, it's negligible. For better or worse, though, to me SBPro solidly falls in the technical realism type of genre I'm losing interest in as I get older because it's a pure simulation. The fun is the simulation itself - there's no 'gameification' that hooks me like the Microprose games did, where you had the 'meta' of crew management or a dynamic campaign that provided context and consequence.

I enjoy taking a platoon out in SBPro - even with the $130 or so I paid for it - time to time, but it will never be the program I spend the most time on in my free time. Ditto for DCS (maybe until they come out with a dynamic campaign). In this day and age, my time goes to programs - games - that are designed to be fun.

It's a shame too. I've spend literally thousands of dollars in War Thunder over the years. I have the disposable income to do that. It's not a very good game, and I vastly prefer single player games with interesting mechanics (crew management, dynamic campaigns... these are constant themes for me). But War Thunder is fun - even when it isn't - and it's often gorgeous. I've never been able to play with a T-80U in a tank game (or sim) before, but I can in War Thunder. It also offers M4 Shermans, Panthers, KV-2s, T-62s, M48s, T29s, Rooikats, Type 74s, AML-90s and LeClercs and literally hundreds of other armored vehicles, nevermind aircraft and ships. It can only do this because it's a study sim - every tank is unique, but the controls to operate them are common. You're fighting with your vehicle, not fighting against your vehicle - or pausing every five seconds to look up how to do something in the manual. You Falcon 4.0 fans know what I'm talking about. DCS could make a tank game as visually beautiful as War Thunder, but they'd only have five tanks - probably a couple from WWII and a couple super modern for some reason - and a year wait between every new vehicle. And then you'd be pausing every five minutes while you try to figure out how to PMCS your tank or adjust track tension or wait 2 hours to fix a broken track. But best of all, I can play a game in 15 minutes. I can kill a T-72 or two while I drink my coffee before I go to work.

If I spend that much money in a game like War Thunder that I love, adore, hate and rage quit all at the same time, imagine how much money I'd be willing to spend for a well-crafted single player experience in a tank game with a good amount of replayability?

[Toonces]

^ I've been pretty much thinking along the same lines as hellfish6.

There was probably a time when I was so itching for something like what DCS offers. 

Where Microprose always shown, though, IMO is that it knew how to balance simulation with game.  And that's the thing.  DCS is a absolutely fantastic simulation but it is a shitty game. 

There is something to be said for games like the old B-17 The Mighty Eighth.  It had enough simulation to be immersive, but it also was wrapped up in a game that allowed you to have fun, and not focus simply on the technical aspects of the B-17.  There's a balance there that is really missing lately in flight sims, again IMO.  I hope Microprose can fill that void.

[Jarhead0331]

So...where did they go? I don't know if I've just been looking in the wrong places, but the projects that have signed with Microprose have been fairly quiet. Outside of a few posts from the Admiral and from Jo, I have no idea what the state of the development is, or what else Microprose may be working on.

It's strange that information was more available on some of these titles when they were still being developed without the backing of a publisher.

Now that the excitement of having Microprose back on the stage has worn away, it needs to do a better job of showcasing its titles.

[IICptMillerII]

I agree with JH. Kind of disappointed with the overall lack of promotional content from Microprose at the moment. Most of their promotions are just throwbacks to titles they released in the 80s and 90s. For people like me that didn't play a ton of Microprose back in the day, the nostalgia is lost on me. I'd like to see more info on upcoming projects.

That said, sometimes too much development info can be a bad thing. People start to get impatient, and they also become armchair developers. Plus, there is runaway expectations that the final product can never live up to. Its a delicate balance.

[Rayfer]

That said, sometimes too much development info can be a bad thing. People start to get impatient, and they also become armchair developers. Plus, there is runaway expectations that the final product can never live up to. Its a delicate balance.
[/quote]

Couldn't agree more....! Sometimes a developer puts out an endless stream of content long before the game is coming out so by the time it does it feels old, like something you've already played.

[Jarhead0331]

Like anything else, there is an art to it. That's why people in PR, marketing and advertising make a lot of money.

Still, some development updates are necessary. Hardly any screenshots, no videos, not a word on progress or release? It's just really weird. The announcement that Microprose was back came with a bang, and the news that it had signed three eagerly anticipated titles with small, but capable developers was also celebrated with fanfare. Since then? Nothing.