realistic (good) game physics do not deny the word "fiction"
the fiction is the world that is build around those physics... the ships... the planets... nebulas... asteroid fields... civilizations

i just remember how a professor of astrophysics tried to explain the "Star Trek subspace" starting with similar words like "Subspace in StarTrek... thats a cool thing and we have a subspace in our real world too"
in the end he explained that those subspaces are totally different and that the StarTrek subspace is the explaination of everyting unexplainable
but it shows that scifi cant deny the existance of real physics and looking on that expression again shows that there is not only "fiction" but also "science"

heh...

hey, it's a game. Some things are better when they're not so realistic.
Then again, when we speak of a future somewhere in the distant time beyond our present "box" of thinking, we might begin to open up and explore a world of new knowlege and understanding.

This is why we have to think "outside the box" .
If we could not do that,
we would have no visions,
no dreams,
no hope.

We become gods when we can do those things that we otherwise could not do in reality.

Edited by - Rankor on 7/2/2007 9:05:17 AM

sure its a game and it has its right not to be 100% realistic
but then dont call it "space sim"

I consider this objection quite inane, for three reasons.

The word "simulation" is used rather broadly in gaming, to include not only simulation-of-real-life, but simulation-of-fictional-worlds.

By definition, here's no expectation of realistic science fiction. Science fiction is a form of fantasy. While the designer of the fantastic world can admit realistic elements at his option, the genre does not constrain him to do so. E.g., a staple of science-fiction is faster-than-light travel, which is of course entirely unrealistic.

In game design, enjoyment should always trump plausibility. A game which is slavishly plausible is a game which forgot to be fun. That's bad game design. So as long as we mean "simulation" in a game sense (rather than a training or educational sense), we should expect implausible elements to enter for the sake of game quality.

Actually, simulation is apropreate. As we have no tech that can come close to what is used in games. No artificial Gravaty, Jumpdrive/gate tech, weps and soforth, so it could truly be called a simulation of what could be.

its not about the word "simulation"
its about the expression "space simulation" and the space is pretty much real... nothing fictionary
if you want simulate something fictionary then call it "fiction simulation" if you want but not space sim

FL is no real space sim... its an arcade game with weird physics... tiny planets... small distances and a very wide spectrum of other errors

maybe so but its funner than the alternative, realism.

Then Call Freelancer the realistic manifest product of "Imagination" .
Albeit, limited to a modest game engine.
Does it not inspire us?

Everyone should go play Orbiter.

Then come back and say that they'd like full Newtonian Physics to make the simulation realistic.

I've seen a few space sims in dev where people want Newtonian Physics, and luckily they're always given a flat "no". Go try orbiter, and then come back and say Freelancer would benefit from Newtonian Physics (or real physics).

If anyone thinks it would, then they need their head examined!

Striking a balance between realism and enjoyability though is always going to be a difficult one. What's one mans brew, is another mans poison. They've got to cater for as many as possible, so some aspects are obviously not going to make it as they'd alienate some people far too quickly.





Edited by - Chips on 7/3/2007 10:26:28 AM

Well a newtonian flight model can be very intersting and challenging.
But in the end I think the more arcade-like models (as used in Freelancer) are the more natural way to fun than the realistic emulations of newtonian physics.

Of course its also a matter of taste.

I remember well playing Orbiter.
I managed to land twice.
The other times, I crashed rather severely and died.

Is that the one where you fly a moon lander, rotating and all, and with the option of gravity, or no gravit?

If it is, it was no fun.

Chips is right, of course.

When people speak of the "realism fallacy," they use the word "fallacy" in the normal sense: if the argument were really thought through, nobody would make the argument. People only argue for realism when they haven't thought things through.

Of course, there's varying degrees of desirable realism, and this is a matter of taste.

But to insist on absolute realism -- this belies a failure of thought.

im pretty sure realism doesnt deny fun
and i am also very sure that there are alot players which would like more realism in FL and other games

if these physics have to be 100% newtonian or if its going to be semi-newtonian physics or even just a very limited physic engine like in FL... all that is a matter of taste
I know many players which stopped playing FL because of the flight model ... but i know that there are players which play it because it is easy and they wouldnt like new physics in the first moments

to say "that realism is a failure" is pure bullsh*t in my eyes because obviously MANY players played and still play games with more realistic physics than FL does have
lets imagine we would get a FL2 (from somewhere) and from the lets say 1000 players that play FL1 500 dont like the new physics... who does say that not 500 or maybe even 2000 others would like those new physics?
of course its just a speculation but to say that more realistic physics will kill the fun is a speculation aswell

in the end we will see how much fun it is only by playing the game... not by discussing about it or discussing about physics

some time ago i started a project called Starlancer: The Sol War
the idea behind it was to create a new game (no im not talking about a mod) that does tell a story between the original SL and FL
that project was on hold due to time problems but now we are going to start working on it again
when i started that project ive choosen a nice game engine that simulated basic physics and even supported force feedback (for the hardcore gamers)
the interface... the flight model... the first ships... and the first missions were already completed (which is not bad considering that only a few weeks work were needed)
but right now i consider it an option to change the game engine and convert everything to a new engine that is going to have "semi-newtonian" physics, multiplayer and hopefully soon a 3.0 shader
so the question of physics... how to balance everything is very important for me atm... maybe even more than for you since you are not working on such a game