quote:

Originally posted by RawKryptonite:

quote:

Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are...

Agreed, it's possible to like both types of games. Play what you're in the mood for. You don't have to go the "all or nothing" route. Personally, I like both games, as well as 3-4 on my PC.

Agreed. Sometimes I want to play something with a lot of realism. Other times, I'd prefer a more far-fetched, story, with arcady play. And, honestly, I hope that HAWX plays nothing like Ace Combat, OR Over G. I want it to be something, all on it's own. I don't want a remake of either.

quote:

Originally posted by RawKryptonite:

quote:

Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are...

Agreed, it's possible to like both types of games. Play what you're in the mood for. You don't have to go the "all or nothing" route. Personally, I like both games, as well as 3-4 on my PC.

I believe this is less of the games fault and more of the player unable, or unwilling to make the mental transition for each type of game. I find Ace Combat as enjoyable as Falcon 4 and I feel like play each one at different times for different moods.

quote:

Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are...

Well, I think it's like this: for consoles, we have only 1 game that is close to a sim. We have a plethora of games that are arcade-style. This game has potential. We'd like to see another game focused more on the sim/realism of flying, not another of the 30 arcade types we already have. My mind is open. I like Blazing Angels - it's good fun. For a jet game, however, I'm looking for more realism. I gave Ace 6 a shot - didn't care for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:

quote:

Originally posted by Grubilman:
Honestly, I am somewhat shocked... I am part of the Ace Combat forums, and everyone there loves AC, OGF, and is looking forward to HAWX. Most of the people here seem to defend OGF, and HAWX like Ace Combat is declairing a holy war on it. They are games guys... GAMES. Why can't you like them all? Is that wrong? Too much realism all the time is just that, too much. Sometimes it's a breath of fresh air to play an arcade game. Open your gaming minds up a bit, and just like them for what they are...

Well, I think it's like this: for consoles, we have only 1 game that is close to a sim. We have a plethora of games that are arcade-style. This game has potential. We'd like to see another game focused more on the sim/realism of flying, not another of the 30 arcade types we already have. My mind is open. I like Blazing Angels - it's good fun. For a jet game, however, I'm looking for more realism. I gave Ace 6 a shot - didn't care for it.

But consoles were never very "sim-like". How realistic can a sim be, if you're using a controller anyways? PC has always been for the more complicated games in the past, and that's how I see it now. If I wanted a sim, I'd get it for PC. If I wanted an arcady game, it would more than likely be out on console. That's like going to the arcade, and getting upset when 90% of the games aren't realistic. It's not to be expected.

quote:

Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics...

He is soooo right. The only thing that Over-G needs to improve is graphics and area physics (speed vs area cover). All those guys that said AC6 is a bad ass fighter game are a bunch of newbs. Look at it this way, just because a girl looks good on the outside, doesn't mean she's good on the inside. But I'm sure only a few of you got that.

quote:

Originally posted by Specopspr:

quote:

Originally posted by netflame5:
okay, lets get something straight, Over-G was made by Taito, not ubisoft. Second, OGF was made for the fans of realism who did not own a top notch PC. I liked the game, I hated AC6. Considering this, I also like LO-MAC and Falcon 4.0. There is no proper dogfighting in AC6, It was just super ineffective missiles flying around while noobs and pros alike used the same turn around in circles maneuver to gain on the tail of an enemy. In OGF, you had to pull crazy maneuvers while worrying about your speed and whether or not you are going to stall. In OGF, you also had to actually dodge the missiles being fired at you, in AC6, you didn't have to dodge, you could just continue flying endless circles around one point in the map. I guess some people liked that, but I am not one of those people who gets turned on by arcade warfare. In fact, the most arcadish game I have installed on my computer right now is COD4 with the most realistic being Falcon 4.0.

Plus, I am fine with crappy graphics as long as you keep the landscapes good and actually make the game 3D with decent models and textures. The plane graphics in OGF were more than good enough for me especially considering that the game has to take into account weight, stress, engine power, radar range+ strength, range cards, the speed of an aircraft affecting said range cards. The firing time and maneuverability of each and every missile in the game. you know, stuff in the game besides the graphics...

He is soooo right. The only thing that Over-G needs to improve is graphics and area physics (speed vs area cover). All those guys that said AC6 is a bad ass fighter game are a bunch of newbs. Look at it this way, just because a girl looks good on the outside, doesn't mean she's good on the inside. But I'm sure only a few of you got that.

I wouldn't really consider myself a "newb", so think a little before categorizing entire groups of people, based on what type of video games they like.

Ace Combat IS a good fighter game. But it's not a sim, which is why some don't like it. That's like comparing a death metal band to a power metal band, and getting upset when power metal singers don't growl. It's not meant to be like a sim. Nobody seems to understand that...

quote:

Originally posted by Grubilman:
But consoles were never very "sim-like". How realistic can a sim be, if you're using a controller anyways? PC has always been for the more complicated games in the past, and that's how I see it now. If I wanted a sim, I'd get it for PC. If I wanted an arcady game, it would more than likely be out on console. That's like going to the arcade, and getting upset when 90% of the games aren't realistic. It's not to be expected.

OGF is a great example of the potential for a sim-like game on a console. Yes, I know it will never be to the degree of realism as a sim for the PC - mostly due to lack of controls/buttons to map functions to. But, OGF made a lot of good compromises and found a workable middle ground that provided a more realistic flight experience while adapting to the limitations of console controllers. Even if consoles are more limited, they still offer positives: a dedicated high-end graphics system, facilitation of multiplayer matches, little in the way of compatibility issues, etc.

I'm not looking for so much depth that I need a 75 page manual. I don't need to be able to turn the pitot heat on/off. I don't need to turn the external lights on/off. I want to be able to light the burners on my F-14 and zoom climb to 40,000' or yank back on the stick at low speed, kick in some rudder and watch the plane depart and spin. The depth I want should be enough to make an enjoyable flight that is based on skill of the pilot in managing energy state, maneuvering, weapons envelopes/systems, and defensive systems. I don't want to be able to fly around without fear of running out of fuel or weapons or even airspeed (all I have to do is stop pushing the high-g turn button for a few seconds and I'll be back up to 900kts, then I can crank it on again). I want to actually have to be worried about the 2 guys coming at me, instead of barely flinching at 20, ineptly piloted aircraft.

What you seem to be suggesting is to just give up on a good idea, that is workable, just because - well...it's not expected. Why is it asking too much to have a decently realistic console game? It has been done before. Why not take a good idea and make it better, instead of just going with what seems to be the norm?

If everybody did that, we'd still be clubbing animals for food and living in caves.

quote:

OGF as a whole just blew hard, you basically were forced to do the entire mission yourself, had fighters spawn in thin air always at your 6 and your ability to dodge and spoof missiles was tied to some numerical rating for your Pilot for the Evasion stat and not your actual manuevers.

Your ability to dodge missiles in OGF had nothing to do with your rating or your stats. It all had to do with timing. You had to release your chaffs at the right time, and pull out hard so the missile hit the chaffs and not your plane. I still do it all the time on the game. It's harder to do in older aircraft models, and when you have more than 2 missiles coming at you. In the F/22, it was alot easier to do if you were in stealth mode.

quote:

I want to actually have to be worried about the 2 guys coming at me, instead of barely flinching at 20, ineptly piloted aircraft.

Same here. Have 2 planes on my six in OGF was crazy, especially if my wingman was engaged far away from me.

quote:

Originally posted by XxCH0NGxX:

quote:

OGF as a whole just blew hard, you basically were forced to do the entire mission yourself, had fighters spawn in thin air always at your 6 and your ability to dodge and spoof missiles was tied to some numerical rating for your Pilot for the Evasion stat and not your actual manuevers.

Your ability to dodge missiles in OGF had nothing to do with your rating or your stats. It all had to do with timing. You had to release your chaffs at the right time, and pull out hard so the missile hit the chaffs and not your plane. I still do it all the time on the game. It's harder to do in older aircraft models, and when you have more than 2 missiles coming at you. In the F/22, it was alot easier to do if you were in stealth mode.

Agreed. You have to have a good idea of what you're trying to do. You can't just drop chaff/flares and expect that to solve everything. You need to maneuver to defeat the missile. Many missiles in the game are newer generation and therefore have increased maneuverability. So, you have to really know what you're doing in order to evade. If you screw up a little portion of your evasion technique, that might be all the missile needs to eat you. You also have to think 3-dimensionally and consider other things like turn performance and how it varies with airspeed, as well as outside factors like gravity. Evading missiles isn't supposed to be easy. If it were, we wouldn't be using AAM's as a primary weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:

quote:

Originally posted by Grubilman:
But consoles were never very "sim-like". How realistic can a sim be, if you're using a controller anyways? PC has always been for the more complicated games in the past, and that's how I see it now. If I wanted a sim, I'd get it for PC. If I wanted an arcady game, it would more than likely be out on console. That's like going to the arcade, and getting upset when 90% of the games aren't realistic. It's not to be expected.

OGF is a great example of the potential for a sim-like game on a console. Yes, I know it will never be to the degree of realism as a sim for the PC - mostly due to lack of controls/buttons to map functions to. But, OGF made a lot of good compromises and found a workable middle ground that provided a more realistic flight experience while adapting to the limitations of console controllers. Even if consoles are more limited, they still offer positives: a dedicated high-end graphics system, facilitation of multiplayer matches, little in the way of compatibility issues, etc.

I'm not looking for so much depth that I need a 75 page manual. I don't need to be able to turn the pitot heat on/off. I don't need to turn the external lights on/off. I want to be able to light the burners on my F-14 and zoom climb to 40,000' or yank back on the stick at low speed, kick in some rudder and watch the plane depart and spin. The depth I want should be enough to make an enjoyable flight that is based on skill of the pilot in managing energy state, maneuvering, weapons envelopes/systems, and defensive systems. I don't want to be able to fly around without fear of running out of fuel or weapons or even airspeed (all I have to do is stop pushing the high-g turn button for a few seconds and I'll be back up to 900kts, then I can crank it on again). I want to actually have to be worried about the 2 guys coming at me, instead of barely flinching at 20, ineptly piloted aircraft.

What you seem to be suggesting is to just give up on a good idea, that is workable, just because - well...it's not expected. Why is it asking too much to have a decently realistic console game? It has been done before. Why not take a good idea and make it better, instead of just going with what seems to be the norm?

If everybody did that, we'd still be clubbing animals for food and living in caves.

I'm not saying give up on it. Actually, I was saying, I want HAWX to be different from both games, and not a newer version of either. But no, it's not really expected on consoles. I'm not saying it can't, or shouldn't be done, it's just not likely. And I am only really directing this towards the people who seem to be bashing every game that isn't ultra realistic. It's somewhat stupid, and narrow minded to say game X sucks, because it is in a different genre than game Y.

quote:

Originally posted by Grubilman:
I'm not saying give up on it. Actually, I was saying, I want HAWX to be different from both games, and not a newer version of either. But no, it's not really expected on consoles. I'm not saying it can't, or shouldn't be done, it's just not likely. And I am only really directing this towards the people who seem to be bashing every game that isn't ultra realistic. It's somewhat stupid, and narrow minded to say game X sucks, because it is in a different genre than game Y.

I hear what you're saying, man. I guess we all like to argue opinions. No, you can't really say one game is better than another - what is "better?" It's all subjective. So, the only reason to keep posting is for the enjoyment of a good debate - since we're very unlikely to really convince anyone else that our opinion is correct. Those who agree, already do. Those who dissent, likely won't be swayed. So, it's all for the "fun" of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:

quote:

Originally posted by XxCH0NGxX:

quote:

OGF as a whole just blew hard, you basically were forced to do the entire mission yourself, had fighters spawn in thin air always at your 6 and your ability to dodge and spoof missiles was tied to some numerical rating for your Pilot for the Evasion stat and not your actual manuevers.

Your ability to dodge missiles in OGF had nothing to do with your rating or your stats. It all had to do with timing. You had to release your chaffs at the right time, and pull out hard so the missile hit the chaffs and not your plane. I still do it all the time on the game. It's harder to do in older aircraft models, and when you have more than 2 missiles coming at you. In the F/22, it was alot easier to do if you were in stealth mode.

Agreed. You have to have a good idea of what you're trying to do. You can't just drop chaff/flares and expect that to solve everything. You need to maneuver to defeat the missile. Many missiles in the game are newer generation and therefore have increased maneuverability. So, you have to really know what you're doing in order to evade. If you screw up a little portion of your evasion technique, that might be all the missile needs to eat you. You also have to think 3-dimensionally and consider other things like turn performance and how it varies with airspeed, as well as outside factors like gravity. Evading missiles isn't supposed to be easy. If it were, we wouldn't be using AAM's as a primary weapon.

When my evasion process works for Falcon 4 and LOMAC but not for OGF, then there is something up and it's not the lack of enjoyable gameply. And grouping in AC6 with the likes of BA2 and similar Ilk is really disgraceful to say the least as it is not even remotely honest at all.

There is no concern for fuel because you have a time limit, it is completely redundant to have a time limit and a fuel gauge for a video game. The Weapons of AC6 are of poor performance because they didn't want long range spamming like in OGF and wanted to force people to dogfight and jockey for a good position. You have to outthink your foe to get him instead of simply choosing a aircraft that can retain it's energy longer. (Which means all of the aircraft in AC6 can compete at a high level of skill.)

Project ACES was focused on providing the ability for all players to choose any aircraft in the game and not be hog-tied because of it. This might seem like anthema to you, but provides an overall more enjoyable experience when in AC6, you have to feel out the enemy and manuever for the SHOOT command instead of just popping out AIM-120s at BVR and watching the pretty explosions.

quote:

When my evasion process works for Falcon 4 and LOMAC but not for OGF, then there is something up and it's not the lack of enjoyable gameply. And grouping in AC6 with the likes of BA2 and similar Ilk is really disgraceful to say the least as it is not even remotely honest at all.

There is no concern for fuel because you have a time limit, it is completely redundant to have a time limit and a fuel gauge for a video game. The Weapons of AC6 are of poor performance because they didn't want long range spamming like in OGF and wanted to force people to dogfight and jockey for a good position. You have to outthink your foe to get him instead of simply choosing a aircraft that can retain it's energy longer. (Which means all of the aircraft in AC6 can compete at a high level of skill.)

Project ACES was focused on providing the ability for all players to choose any aircraft in the game and not be hog-tied because of it. This might seem like anthema to you, but provides an overall more enjoyable experience when in AC6, you have to feel out the enemy and manuever for the SHOOT command instead of just popping out AIM-120s at BVR and watching the pretty explosions.

I understand what you are saying about the evasion process. For me, the evasion process in AC6 was too easy, therefore not enjoyable enough for me. The process of evading missiles in OGF was hard for me, therefore it was much more enjoyable for me than evading in AC6. I've never played Falcon 4 or LOMAC, but if the evasion process is different, then I'd have to adjust to it, and try to enjoy it the best I can, as long as it's not easier than OGF. If it's anything as easy as AC6, then I'd find it not so enjoyable.

The fuel thing, OGF didn't have a time limit, it had a fuel guage, which in turn was your time limit. What those of us who want fuel to play a factor are talking about, is we would rather our time limit be on the instrument panel in the form of fuel as opposed to a timer in the on screen HUD. Personally, I'm against an on-screeen numerical time limit, unless it's built into the mission. Example...take out the enemy fighters and bombers before they destroy the base, or intercept those fighters before they reach our bombers and get a chance to take them out. I'm cool with that type of timelimit. I just don't want, and don't care for a ticking clock on screen that determines the mission out come.

I've tried the whole thing of feeling out the enemy in AC6 but always had trouble getting lock on them. Whether far from them, or closer to them, always behind them, and always with in visual range. If my naked eye can see their afterburner, then my aircraft's systems should be able to pick up that plane and get a target lock. Especially in a Raptor, SuperHornet, or Lightning II. It should be, the systems should get the lock well before my eyes do, depending of course on the missile I'm using. Sidewinders, Sparrows, and others all have different ranges. In OGF, "popping out AIM-120s at BVR" didn't always guarantee a hit on target. Alot of times you, you got target ID from BVR, but had to be with in visual range to get an actual target lock(SHOOT) to show up. Especially with sidewinders, you had to be pretty damn close to 'em to get a lock. AIM120s in OGF, alot of times, took 3 or 4 from BVR just to even get a hit, and that all depended on the plane you were trying to hit. F-14, you have a better chance of hitting than a Raptor a Lightning II just due to the planes performance and design.

quote:

Originally posted by Silver-Hawk-Red:
When my evasion process works for Falcon 4 and LOMAC but not for OGF, then there is something up and it's not the lack of enjoyable gameply. And grouping in AC6 with the likes of BA2 and similar Ilk is really disgraceful to say the least as it is not even remotely honest at all.

There is no concern for fuel because you have a time limit, it is completely redundant to have a time limit and a fuel gauge for a video game. The Weapons of AC6 are of poor performance because they didn't want long range spamming like in OGF and wanted to force people to dogfight and jockey for a good position. You have to outthink your foe to get him instead of simply choosing a aircraft that can retain it's energy longer. (Which means all of the aircraft in AC6 can compete at a high level of skill.)

Project ACES was focused on providing the ability for all players to choose any aircraft in the game and not be hog-tied because of it. This might seem like anthema to you, but provides an overall more enjoyable experience when in AC6, you have to feel out the enemy and manuever for the SHOOT command instead of just popping out AIM-120s at BVR and watching the pretty explosions.

Well, I never claimed the weapons were perfectly modeled/programmed in OGF. There's bound to be differences since it's not the same game. Yeah, that is something that should be fixed - I'm all for that.

I never grouped AC6 in with BA. I wouldn't. I actually like to play BA.

If you're talking about AC6 not needing a fuel limit, fine. I agree - that's the way the game works. If you had a fuel limit, you wouldn't be able to get anything done - because the amount of time a mission takes compared with the amount of time a full tank of gas gives you at max A/B would leave you sucking fumes in no time.

Missile performance has to suck in AC6 - because you actually have to worry about people spamming since you have 8,000 missiles per aircraft. If you only carried 6-10, you'd have to make them good and pilots would have to make their shots count. IMO that takes more skill than pulling "high-G" turns all day long and just waiting for one of your 100+ missiles to kill the target.

In OGF, you don't have to take the aircraft that retains its energy longer. You as the pilot have to manage the energy state. Again, more skill required. You can take a plane that retains energy well, but if you don't know what you're doing you'll run out of energy quickly and the smarter pilot will kill you. A plane that doesn't retain energy well can be successful if the pilot knows when to bleed it off and how to get it back quickly. In fact, that's what usually results in a kill.

Choosing your plane is supposed to limit your options in some ways, while expanding them in others. Otherwise, there'd only be one plane in the game - to stop people from being hog-tied.

AC6 doesn't seem like anthema (an eruption of the skin?) to me. Unless you're talking about the similar irritation it can bring.