Friday 2010-03-26 Screenshots and Discussion Thread

[AdMan]

but it's not the 1990s, for games to be taken serious these days they need to have robust lifelike graphics. Which I have no doubt this game will and does already have. But when I hear people say, "it doesn't need such and such because it's just a flight sim" it makes me happy they aren't the ones designing the game, seems like they would be happy with this:


"But the FM is awesome!!"


wake up people, it's 2010, play any other top-selling game of another genre and realize what SOW has to compete with

[robtek]

As always there is not only black and white but also many shades of grey!

First priority are the aircraft with their fm and dm!

second comes, imo, the targets for those aircraft.

third is the terrain and the sea

forth is buildings, trees, scrubs....

fifth is, also imho, the ai. (incl. ai traffic and map population.)

sixth is the variancy of trees, buildings and so on

everything after 5th is "nice to have, maybe later, third party" stuff

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by AdMan

but it's not the 1990s, for games to be taken serious these days they need to have robust lifelike graphics. Which I have no doubt this game will and does already have. But when I hear people say, "it doesn't need such and such because it's just a flight sim" it makes me happy they aren't the ones designing the game, seems like they would be happy with this:


"But the FM is awesome!!"


wake up people, it's 2010, play any other top-selling game of another genre and realize what SOW has to compete with

But the FM was awesome. I remember that it was (almost!) the Domark MiG 29, the graphics were pretty atrocious, the trees looked like inverted umbrellas with panels missing, but if you played it from a RAM disk, it was actually fun to fly, and it did sideslips which you wouldn't get in Falcon or Combat Pilot.