Jump to content

Games turn military, military turns game


Skybird03

Recommended Posts

As we all know, SBP is a sim that was done for the military, designed by military demands, and just later they turned it into a product for the civilian market as well.

This does not happen often, I think.

Also it is not the rule that games for the game market later get transformed into a version of use - and being used - by the military. Here just strategy games come to my mind.

I am not sure what was first in case of OF/ArmA/ArmA2: the game , or VBS.

However, these days a title was released that fall into the first category: a military product being adapted for the civilian market, and that is DCS A-10.

I found this worth to point out, since it seems to represent a compelxity and realism level that simmers in thios forum may appreciate. From the introduction of the manual:

The Fighter Collection / Eagle Dynamics has been developing a high-fidelity Desk Top Simulation (DTS) of the A-10C for the U.S. Air National Guard for the past several years, giving us a tremendous access to A-10C information. We were fortunate enough to work out an agreement with our client to release an entertainment version of this simulation .

I have set my eyes on this sim, but will wait until at least the first inevitable patch is out, and a CD version. The manual has a hopping 680 pages.

It seems realism-enthusiasts have a good option here - if you an occaisonal want a change from the turret business. On the other hand, it seems this A-10 sim cannot be handled by just occasionally handling it, so... :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS keep introducing new products into the market, often with lots of bugs, they issue one update which fixes a few things then move on leaving the community to sort the rest out if they can. And they do, sometimes, the technical skills out there are pretty impressive at times. I have heard all the commercial company arguments and I have no desire to go down that route on here, I'll leave that to their forums I think.

DCS A10 is a brilliant bit of work compared to everything else in that genre but again with lots of problems, if it is being driven by the military I would imagine they are less than happy with it, it's good but a professional simulator it is not.

I can only think they know what they are doing but I'm not sure this is really what the community wants, it's all getting too damn technical and the fun is being sucked out of gaming. Steel Beasts has managed to keep the fun element alive in my view, so well done you guys.

Guess I'm getting too old for this stuff ... time to take up drinking and chasing whores !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
...I'm not sure this is really what the community wants, it's all getting too damn technical and the fun is being sucked out of gaming. Steel Beasts has managed to keep the fun element alive in my view, so well done you guys.

Yeah, that's a serious danger. Most militaries really suck at software and user interface design. At the same time they threaten the developers with comparatively big bucks and tend to absorb the full development capacity. Once that this happens there is a serious danger to suffocate by committee decisions.

As a simulation game software developer who still wants to keep the game aspect alive I think it is mandatory to reserve 20% of your development capacity for unpaid stuff under your own control. And you need to be careful about which jobs to accept, and which to refuse.

Having said all that, for a serious simulation project there are only very few viable ways to finance the development - being a wealthy billionaire who wants to become a millionaire (a rare find), money laundering for criminal organizations (pretty risky on multiple levels), or taking money from armies. There would be no Steel Beasts today without army customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting reply Ssnake, I raised the same question on their forum and my post was pulled almost immediately but they let the thread go on, so nobody really knew what the original point was and the argument meandered around pointlessly until it died a natural death.

Must be something to do with the Russian mentality, even now their new products have subtle changes to the hardware each time that makes modding anything more and more difficult, and I do not get that at all. The technical aspects of the games improve, I know that, but some of the changes are hard coded when they could be otherwise.

I do understand the need for commercial customers to keep the wheels turning so I can only admire your intention to try to keep some of the aspects of the product in house so that we, the gaming community, can also prosper. It's a fine balance, and you guys have the edge on all the others in my humble view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll get DCS:A10 (I've got all the others) because I've always enjoyed the ED products. I play KA50 probably more than any other product, but the evolution of the series has lead to some interesting considerations.

In the manual there is an interesting comment in the rationale behind creating Black Shark:

Our terrain level of detail lends itself to an attack helicopter simulation.

Now, this much is true, but only cosmetically. One of the first things you must train yourself to understand when using the KA50 is that trees are non-collidable, and do not obstruct anything. They are not actually there. Buildings do provide physical obstructions, but they do not occlude radar, thus weapon systems using this sensor can track aircraft through a building. An important consideration if they launch missiles that have a loft trajectory...

Therefore you have two significant elements that would normally form a part of the attack helicopter's tactical playbook, that are denied to you. It is not insurmountable, but I find it a shame that this is the case and it is the only thing I dislike about the sim.

Something I think SB & SB:ProPE excel at is their pinpoint focus on what they are simulating, from the first line of code, it is designed to simulate the subject - fighting in a tank, in a tank's environment - as comprehensively as possible, in a surprisingly accessible way. I think the level of switchology is about right, too. Functionality > process.

A-10 looks great but I wouldn't be surprised if it has the same traits as Black Shark, i.e. the sim world gets weaker the further you get away from the player's platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of my personal pet peeves is that it's better to limit the player's freedom degrees to interact if you can't make the computer-controlled units utilize the same things. Granted, we have already ventured a bit beyond that red line (human players can tow vehicles and repair them, but it's impossible for all practical matters to let a computer-controlled force do it without human intervention).

Many computer game developers do not adhere to this rule. I had a couple of gaming moments ("epiphanies" may be a bit too strong to use here) that drove the point home for me. For example, in the original Half-life you were crawling through vent ducts and came to a big warehouse with tons of goodies.

Now, apparently this was just a teaser to motivate the player to

1) observe the location of the sentry guns, and

2) notice all the supplies ready to be taken by him.

Still, you could crawl out of the duct to a small projection which was then shielded from the rest of the warehouse by a chain link fence (why would anyone guard an air duct near the roof of a warehouse with a fence like this?).

So, you have a crowbar and hand grenades and pistols - yet the chain link fence is an impenetrable barrier. This disrupts immersion and builds frustration: Why can't I DO IT??? Gah!

Obviously, a game that generally lets you do fewer things won't create moments like this so often. Players tolerate limitations as "game rules" better than the frustration of being able to do a lot of things ... but only in locations that the level designer explicitly anticipated.

Obviously, giving the computer-controlled actors a large degree of freedom to maneuver and interact with the environment ultimately puts a much bigger burden on the quality of the "AI", so it's understandable that many game developers rather take the easy way out. But in an ideal world that would not be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually been quite saddened about the nature of the most recent military-styled games on the market today.

Primarily, my problem is that military games seem to be shifting less towards realism and more towards an arcade-styled "shoot-em-up" Halo-esque play.

Let us compare 1998's Rainbow 6: Rogue Spear with 2004's Rainbow 6 III.

Rainbow 6: RS:

-more military-styled, complete with detailed briefings, history, backstory, ideology of the enemy

-detailed planning phase, selection of operatives, uniforms, armor levels, weapon variants, and even the type of round fired

-order of operatives and leaders

-waypoints, actions at waypoints (with the click of one button and the timed issuing of go-codes, operatives could run the waypoints, flash-and-clear, rescue hostages, and extract them...all in one path)

-AI was challenging, capable of room-clearing, checking corners, automatically adjusting for terrain

-operatives could be wounded over the course of several missions based on the severity of their injuries

Rainbow 6 III:

-team members, weapons, and equipment limited to the map selected (loss of capacity to select armor and ammo)

-no planning phase, no waypoints, no flash-and-clear via waypoints, no go-codes

-faulty voice command system

-AI gets dumber, incapable of room-clearing effectively,

My problem, is that games have become less militarily realistic and more focused on getting to the action now-now-now, and worrying less about planning and military realism. It saddens me.

This is why I play Steel Beasts, and older games, because older games were much more militarily realistic and catered to a hardcore audience. Post-2004 military games (especially Ubisoft) simply don't hold up to the older products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well check this out, I went to my reserve training this last weekend. Wow, on friday we went to a camp and they let us use VBS2 for training with IED's. Yeah, well all morning was spent learning about the system and how the keys work. Then we finally conducted a mission. Let me tell you, it was so bad and the lag was horriable. The driver could be driving on the road while one of the other passengers could see the vehicle in the water. Its funny cause the instructors blamed us for the lag and stated "I have never seen this happen before," come on guy, you are there every day with the the computers we used. The training was bad and really no one i think took it very serious. I think that general dynamics should look into contracting with Esimgames. I believe that Steelbeasts is a more professional simulator and does very well with alot of players online as far as lag goes. But whats funny, is that the player here on steelbeasts are more professional than other soldiers actually in service. Sadly but true, I have seen this and all i could do is just put my head down in shame. These soldiers should remember all our soldiers fighting over there. I'm glad to be a customer of steelbeasts. Thanks :gun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This raises a whole new point, especcially regarding mil use of sims...... Was involved in a discussion the other day where one of the guys told a similar story about a mounted unit using VBS to try and train up on drills. After a lot of training on the program, most were left wondering why they didn't just mount up in the vehicles that were parked outside and head out to the close training area.......

Did hear another anecdote regarding "realism" in training though, although can't vouch for how truthful. Story goes that an SF unit was using a first person shooter, but most weren't taking it seriously........ until they wired shooters to a taser. Short hit for a wound, big hit for a "fatal". Instant change of approach!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Like with every other training tool, people need to learn for what to use virtual simulations and desktop trainers, and when to pick some other tool. I'm the first to admit that computers aren't always the answer.

That being said, the guys wondering why they weren't just mounting the vehicles accounted only for their training time, disregarding the costs of maintenance, repair, and fuel consumption. With such a partial look at the consequences it is only natural to dismiss a desktop trainer as irrelevant, especially if it doesn't offer quite the fidelity that they might expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...