General Submarines related discussions

[Pikkozoikum]

15 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

A very popular belief is that Wows is an arcade game. You can see in my posting history debates about that popular topic and other popular attitudes. When i ask peopel to define terms, including the term Arcade, then they have failed. Then i help them and suggest to use a better word like Realistic. Silently they agree with my suggestion and they fail to give examples how Wows is far from realism. Finally they try to say that in computer games you have health bars and other buttons and i nreal life you don't have and therefore all computer games are Arcade or in more adequare term: not realistic. Well, such explanation is not very valid.

I repeat my opinion that Wows is very realistic game. There are some special campaigns or game modes where DDs shoot some kind of sci-fi waves and fire balls- those yes are little bit far from realism but only little bit. But Randoms are totally close to the realism. You don't have to agree with my opinion and knowing which opinions are allowed/common in your community then of course you all probably disagree but you can't give any adequate arguments, you just deny. I suggest to try one day to practice more argumentation/reasoning. you can practice with me. I have al lskills and already educated on that and other topics people and never failed i nnay debates. Come and practice proving me any of your community's believes. Or just look at my historical posts. There you see all those popular allowed opinions defeated.

 

In my opinion current subs appear very realistic on my screen. I don't see any anything wrong or bad in them. Nice vehicles.

Arcadey shooter with ships ;) Even WG people called it arcadey, otherwise it would be a simulation, if it's simplified, it's rather arcade, and this game is quite unrealistic. Ship models are enlarged, and speeded up, scenarios are unrealistic. So it's only historical in case of ships and it has some bit more complex mechanics than many other shooters.

 

Also we could compare with other games like War Thunder, there is a relasitic Mode for Ships and an Arcade Mode in games. Those are quite similar, though there is stuff like accelerated speeds and some more arcade elements, which comes quite close to WoWS ^^

 

Though I also think, you didn't want to quote me, or? I didn't say anything about realism. I talked about, why the submarines has the HP amount, they got

[Fastmotion]

7 minutes ago, Cammo1962 said:

It is arcade game and WG has said that themself.

It does not matter who says or which highschool grades or Wows stats the sayer has.

I see nothing Arcade and i haven't seen any reasonable definition for such term either.

There is no need to believe in somebody or hold a community's believes. Try to explain yourself what is Arcade and how a ship looks Arcade to you?

I see that Wows is a Realistic game.

 

5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Arcadey shooter with ships ;) Even WG people called it arcadey, otherwise it would be a simulation, if it's simplified, it's rather arcade, and this game is quite unrealistic. Ship models are enlarged, and speeded up, scenarios are unrealistic. So it's only historical in case of ships and it has some bit more complex mechanics than many other shooters.

 

Also we could compare with other games like War Thunder, there is a relasitic Mode for Ships and an Arcade Mode in games. Those are quite similar, though there is stuff like accelerated speeds and some more arcade elements, which comes quite close to WoWS ^^

 

Though I also think, you didn't want to quote me, or? I didn't say anything about realism. I talked about, why the submarines has the HP amount, they got

So, Arcade is the opposite word to the word Realistic, right? Why not to use then a more clear word non-realistic?

The word simulation is a scientific term where a program tries to simulate some kind of situation and find a solution and there are no participants usually. so, i don't think that the simulation is an appropriate term there.

Ships look totally realistic to me. It is totally fine to change the size of some elements on the screen and make some other changes. That doesn't make the results unrealistic. Also you mention ships' speed- again i don't see anything unrealistic there: bigger ships move slower and smaller ships faster jsut like i nthe real life.

 

I don't think that your descriptions make the ships to look unrealistic. They look totally realitic to me. If there are some specia lcamos like a scorpion on the ship then that looks of course little bit sci-fi but so what- it is fine to have such big unreal animal on the ship just like you have buttons in your screen but not in real life. There is not possibile to show realism in 100% amount on the screen but everything that looks 80%+ realistic is Real in my opinion and feels real. Unreal would be if your ships would shoot fire balls or some lasers etc- but even then it is only little bit unrealistic because the ship itself feels and looks mostly like in real and just a weapon is little bit unrealistic.

 

 

[Cammo1962]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

It does not matter who says or which highschool grades or Wows stats the sayer has.

I see nothing Arcade and i haven't seen any reasonable definition for such term either.

There is no need to believe in somebody or hold a community's believes. Try to explain yourself what is Arcade and how a ship looks Arcade to you?

I see that Wows is a Realistic game.

First of all WoWs is a arcade game like Call of Duty. Second is not a Realistic game it´s a arcade game EOD.

[Fastmotion]

11 minutes ago, Cammo1962 said:

First of all WoWs is a arcade game like Call of Duty. Second is not a Realistic game it´s a arcade game EOD.

This is your opinion and seems the only explanation to your opinions is that an authority have the same opinion or your community has such allowed opinion.

Can you try to prove any of your believes? For example, try to tell what is Arcade in Wows and define that term?

 

Just now, Cammo1962 said:

This here is in fact a good description: Arcadey shooter with ships ;)

I don't see that it is a good description and it doesn't define the term.

[Cammo1962]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

This is your opinion and seems the only explanation to your opinions is that an authority have the same opinion or your community has such allowed opinion.

Can you try to prove any of your believes? For example, try to tell what is Arcade in Wows and define that term?

This here is in fact a good description: Arcadey shooter with ships ;) Even WG people called it arcadey, otherwise it would be a simulation, if it's simplified, it's rather arcade, and this game is quite unrealistic. Ship models are enlarged, and speeded up, scenarios are unrealistic. So it's only historical in case of ships and it has some bit more complex mechanics than many other shooters.

 

Also we could compare with other games like War Thunder, there is a relasitic Mode for Ships and an Arcade Mode in games. Those are quite similar, though there is stuff like accelerated speeds and some more arcade elements, which comes quite close to WoWS ^^

[Cammo1962]

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

So, Arcade is the opposite word to the word Realistic, right? Why not to use then a more clear word non-realistic?

Because it is called arcade and not non-realistic try and look the word arcade up in a dictionary then you might learn a bit. And here is just an excample: 

Strategy

Strategy games tend to focus more so on forcing the player to be more thoughtful and careful before they make certain moves in the game. A pure strategy game will show the player how to do certain things which will allow that very same player to understand how people are going to react during gameplay. Strategy based games can have missions that are as small as simple squad-based tactical decisions to world domination – it all depends on what you’re looking for in the game.

4X Strategy Game: The 4X strategy game definition is actually kind of clever. It focuses on delivering 4 things to its players’ exploration, expansion, exploitation, and extermination.

Artillery Game: An artillery game focuses on combat using tanks and typically come in a multiplayer format. These were actually some of the first few computer games and for good reason, they were straightforward to make.

Real-time strategy game: Real-time strategy games focus more-so on real-time strategic thinking. This means that the gameplay in an RTS will usually be very continuous and that players are forced to make decisions in an ever-changing landscape.

Real-time tactics

MOBA

Tower defense

Turn-based strategy

Turn-based tactics

Wargame

[Pikkozoikum]

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

It does not matter who says or which highschool grades or Wows stats the sayer has.

I see nothing Arcade and i haven't seen any reasonable definition for such term either.

There is no need to believe in somebody or hold a community's believes. Try to explain yourself what is Arcade and how a ship looks Arcade to you?

I see that Wows is a Realistic game.

The "ship" doesn't look arcade, the game does. And if the WG staff says it's arcade, then it's their definition. They are the maker, and they should know it better than anyone

 

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

So, Arcade is the opposite word to the word Realistic, right? Why not to use then a more clear word non-realistic?

You can use non-realistic, if you want, but I use arcade ;)

 

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

The word simulation is a scientific term where a program tries to simulate some kind of situation and find a solution and there are no participants usually. so, i don't think that the simulation is an appropriate term there.

Simulation is a game genre. Just like Arcade, Shooter, Action, Strategy. All these words also have other meanings, but in gaming, it's a genre

 

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Ships look totally realistic to me. It is totally fine to change the size of some elements on the screen and make some other changes. That doesn't make the results unrealistic.

If it looks realistic for you, while it's unrealistic, then it is very "immersive". Same with Battlefield games. They look realistic, but they are very unrealistic. Just the immersion they create, makes it looking realistic.

When it's realistic size is 3x increased, then it's an unrealistic size^^

 

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Also you mention ships' speed- again i don't see anything unrealistic there: bigger ships move slower and smaller ships faster jsut like i nthe real life.

No, in this game the ships and the shells are increased around 3x. So if a ship shows 30 knots (~55 km/h), then it's actually moving 90 knots (165 km/h)

You can see that very easily, when you shoot a 1000 m/s shell on a ship, that is 20km away. Or if you use torpedos with 60 knots ~110 km/h on 10km. A torpedo should take around 5 minutes to reach 10 km with 60 knots. Do you remember any torpedo, that takes 5 minutes for 10 km? ^^

You also see that in War Thunder, where Torpedos take 10-20 minutes to hit a target on 20km (in realistic) and it takes like 1/3 in arcade

 

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I don't think that your descriptions make the ships to look unrealistic. They look totally realitic to me. If there are some specia lcamos like a scorpion on the ship then that looks of course little bit sci-fi but so what- it is fine to have such big unreal animal on the ship just like you have buttons in your screen but not in real life.

It's not about, how ships look. If it would be only about the "look", then you could make a tetris with blocks, that looks like realistic ships, but it wouldn't become a realistic game because of that. It's still arcade.

It's about the genre of the game

 

26 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

There is not possibile to show realism in 100% amount on the screen but everything that looks 80%+ realistic is Real in my opinion and feels real.

of course there is no way to make it 100% realistic. But a simulation game tries to include many realistic features. In arcade game, you don't have these features (or less)

 

 

But again, I never talked about realism in my quoted comment. I said, that was not talking about realism ^^

[Fastmotion]

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

A torpedo should take around 5 minutes to reach 10 km with 60 knots. Do you remember any torpedo, that takes 5 minutes for 10 km? ^^

You also see that in War Thunder, where Torpedos take 10-20 minutes to hit a target on 20km (in realistic) and it takes like 1/3 in arcade

 

If you google "arcade game definition" then you get first explanations that old coin-machines contained arcade games. That definition doesn't sound adequate and the term seems to be very old anyway which makes it even more inadequate. I don't think that it is wise to use such term that even your community members cannot define. I don't believe that WG itself understand that term either. If it is their personal term then where is their definition for that.

I understand that the Arcade is an obsolete inadequate word and Un-realistic is much better.

 

Torpedo swimming time of 10 minutes compared to 10 seconds is a suitable example in my opinion and no need to take other examples. So, let's look at that example. The game with 10 minute torpedo time is more similar to the real life than wows with ca 10 second time. But all computer games have such adjustments and some how little bit more and some less. So, the term Unrealistic seems to be used when a certain amount of unreal adjustments have been applied. But i doubt anyone can find a description where to draw a line between "enough realistic and unrealistic". Just like nobody can't find a definition for the term Arcade. The 10 seconds of adjusted torpedo time makes the game more playable in my opinion than 10 minutes waiting time. And i don't see that the such adjustments make the whole game to be to ofar from reality. The mai nreality is that there are water and ships inside and all that is adjusted to the screen. What is so unreal in that? In real life you have also water and ships but the aim is not to 100% simulate something but be playeable and entertaining so the torpedo speeds have been cut to 10 seconds from 10 minutes. All computer programs and games are more or less different from reality and i think there are only 2 reasonable terms: sci-fi games and realistic games. Wows Randoms are not a sci-fi game but those game modes where ships shoot unreal fireballs are UnReal because in real life ships don't have such sci-fi weapons. Randoms is a Realistic game becuase ships shoot torps and it does not matter if the speed of the torps are adjusted to the computer world. But why to use a term Arcade and what it means- i don't know. If Arcade=UnRealistic then i don't see that Wows is Arcade.

 

 

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

7 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

If you google "arcade game definition" then you get first explanations that old coin-machines contained arcade games. That definition doesn't sound adequate and the term seems to be very old anyway which makes it even more inadequate. I don't think that it is wise to use such term that even your community members cannot define. I don't believe that WG itself understand that term either. If it is their personal term then where is their definition for that.

I understand that the Arcade is an obsolete inadequate word and Un-realistic is much better.

It comes from the old arcade coin machines, because those games were simplified and unrealistic^^

Unrealistic as a game genre sounds quite bad to me. Like you want the category of a salami pizza and you call it fruitless pizza ^^

 

11 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Torpedo swimming time of 10 minutes compared to 10 seconds is a suitable example in my opinion and no need to take other examples. So, let's look at that example. The game with 10 minute torpedo time is more similar to the real life than wows with ca 10 second time. But all computer games have such adjustments and some how little bit more and some less. So, the term Unrealistic seems to be used when a certain amount of unreal adjustments have been applied. But i doubt anyone can find a description where to draw a line between "enough realistic and unrealistic". Just like nobody can't find a definition for the term Arcade. The 10 seconds of adjusted torpedo time makes the game more playable in my opinion than 10 minutes waiting time. And i don't see that the such adjustments make the whole game to be to ofar from reality. The mai nreality is that there are water and ships inside and all that is adjusted to the screen. What is so unreal in that? In real life you have also water and ships but the aim is not to 100% simulate something but be playeable and entertaining so the torpedo speeds have been cut to 10 seconds from 10 minutes. All computer programs and games are more or less different from reality and i think there are only 2 reasonable terms: sci-fi games and realistic games. Wows Randoms are not a sci-fi game but those game modes where ships shoot unreal fireballs are UnReal because in real life ships don't have such sci-fi weapons. Randoms is a Realistic game becuase ships shoot torps and it does not matter if the speed of the torps are adjusted to the computer world. But why to use a term Arcade and what it means- i don't know. If Arcade=UnRealistic then i don't see that Wows is Arcade.

There is a difference in: Take the real speed and taking 3 times the speed imo. And there is a quite sharp line.

But then: Play War Thunder. Play Arcade Mode and then Realistic Mode and then Simulation Mode. It's one game, that offers all these three terms and shows quite well the differences.

 

I mean, in the end it's just a term to describe this type of games.

 

[Spellfire40]

You dont want a realistic Ship game.

 

Or do you like your hitchance drop to single % after a few He hits wrecking your firecontroll?.Damage controll needing the whoule game to reduce penaltys (slightly). A few Torp hits reducing your max speed to a crawl?  not going into ship vs ship balance since no DD would be able to stand agist even WW1 era BBs if their one torp salvo misses. Realistically ships do not move about constantly changing course and traveling at max speed.

 

When peps talk about realism they usally mean for anything that anoys them while keeping arcady stuff for anything that benefits them. You can argue how certain arcady decisions are implemented but do not use the senseless realism phrase as a reason.

[Fastmotion]

43 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It comes from the old arcade coin machines, because those games were simplified and unrealistic^^

Unrealistic as a game genre sounds quite bad to me. Like you want the category of a salami pizza and you call it fruitless pizza ^^

So the term Arcade is old and was i nthe history for coin-machine games which all looked far from realism. If the term hasn't changed it meaning then it is inappropriate for today because nowadays we don't have such simplified old computer games anymore. If the the meaning of the term ("simplified unrealistic cartoon-like game") hasn't changed it's meaning then it is an inadequate term today. You just don't have such games today. Does Wows or Warthunder look like such coin machine games? No. So, why to use such term then when speaking about Wows or any other modern game?

If the the meaning of the obsolete term Arcade has changed by today then where is the today's definition for it?

If the term Arcade meant originally "cartoon-like" and during the years it changed to "not enough realistic" then where is the description which amount od unrealism is needed to be qualified to be "not enough realistic" or in other words Arcade? But first prove that the meaning of the term Arcade has changed during the history.

 

I don't understand the Salami example. You can make a pizza-based example like this: Veg-pizza, half-veg pizza, meat-pizza. And you could say that the original cartoon-like games or in other word Arcade games are veg-pizzas, and War-thunder Realistic mode with 10 minute torps is the Meat pizza. Would you call the half-veg pizza as half-realistic then and use the new menaing of the term "Arcade"? I'm not sure if i followe the pizza example well but i helped to construct it for others to develope further.

I t think that Salami pizza is a non-veg pizza and also a non-fruit pizza but better to call it as a meat-pizza as i did above. There a totally cartoon-like simplified games and the word Arcade was originally meant to describe them. Wows does not look like those cartoon-like coin games. Therefore i don't understand why to use that term.

I searched inside the Youtube by phrase

"War Thunder Ground Forces - Realistic Tank Battles"

and looked the first video fro mthe search results. I don't see that the Warthunder Real mode game is much different than arcade mode. The real mode does not have on the minimap the enemy tanks visible but in the Arcade mode it has. I don't see much difference in reality in there. I think both minimap with enemy spots and without it are both realistic and adjusted for the computer world. Also the mentioned 10 minute torpedo time compared to 10 sec time doesn't make one game somehow totally different. One is just more playable but both in general model the reality well enough on the screen.

The term Arcade seems inadequate and if it has changed by today to the "not enough realistic" then define that term and also explain why one needs such term and why one needs to change the original meaning of the the term? Wows and Warthunder look all equally realistic to me. Torpedo 10 sec time is totally reasonable for computers. The real realistic game would be if your viewpoint/camera would be the captains eyes in the game and the whole screen would show mainly captains room or the engine room- that would be 99.9% real.

 

43 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

There is a difference in: Take the real speed and taking 3 times the speed imo. And there is a quite sharp line.

But then: Play War Thunder. Play Arcade Mode and then Realistic Mode and then Simulation Mode. It's one game, that offers all these three terms and shows quite well the differences.

 

I mean, in the end it's just a term to describe this type of games.

 

I looked the War thunder from Youutube and didn't see it to be more realistic and different. Both the Arcade and Real mode are almost equal.

I don't think that torpedo speeds make someone feel more realistic way because most people haven't seen real war in their life.

 

33 minutes ago, Spellfire40 said:

You dont want a realistic Ship game.

...

You can argue how certain arcady decisions are implemented but do not use the senseless realism phrase as a reason.

I think most would agree with you because the real realism would be very unplayable and boring.

I watched the Warthunder Realistic mode videos and i don't see and feel any difference there from the Wows. Therefore i don't think it is wise to title Wows differently that the warthunder. And if one wants to title with the obsolete word Arcade then why doesn't he define that term clearly and explain how the coin-machine old games are equal to Wows.

Would you agree that Warthunder is 64% Realistic and wows is 59% realistic? Or which numbers you all would offer?

[Spellfire40]

35 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I think most would agree with you because the real realism would be very unplayable and boring.

I watched the Warthunder Realistic mode videos and i don't see and feel any difference there from the Wows. Therefore i don't think it is wise to title Wows differently that the warthunder. And if one wants to title with the obsolete word Arcade then why doesn't he define that term clearly and explain how the coin-machine old games are equal to Wows.

Would you agree that Warthunder is 64% Realistic and wows is 59% realistic? Or which numbers you all would offer?

I would ofer none. Even warthunder is unrealistic. Certain aspects of the damage system in somewhat realistic. Crewkilling a Hipper in an atalanta is certainly not unless you mindcontroll it somehow to asemble her crew on deck.

 

Realism is a fine tuning tool you dont want it impeade your game to the point were is gamebreaking but you neither want it to be imersion breaking to the extrem. A New york speedboating past your iowa for "balence" reason would fall in that category were non realism DDs buring down BBs over time is not (and yea i got what battle of samar did to some IJN CAs in real life but thats hardly representive). Overall you want a ship to behave fiting on its class. wich is why some ships nets you negative karma by default (i just say pew pew DDs that are due to stats not really able to do DD stuff like contesting caps as long as real DDs are still alive due to lack of stealth or handling characteristics)

 

I have little problem if your argue balacewise Subs outruning/outturning DDs on speedbost underwater or raming ships 4 times their tonage to death is a problem but dont bring "in real live subs/torps/subject i dont like to face as implemented werent....." (thogh i highly would sugest to play the sub/or whatever you dont like side side to confirm is your perceived situation matches up with how they actually play in that case either way. I play a lots of DDs and dislike 12km radars like hell but forced to regrind Donskoi the other side isnt a pop radar and detroy dd on sight either)

[Figment]

11 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

It does not matter who says or which highschool grades or Wows stats the sayer has.

I see nothing Arcade and i haven't seen any reasonable definition for such term either.

There is no need to believe in somebody or hold a community's believes. Try to explain yourself what is Arcade and how a ship looks Arcade to you?

I see that Wows is a Realistic game.

A realistic game is a game that tries to approach reality as close as possible in terms of controls, vision and results of actions. Like if a torpedo hits you'd get a huge hole causing flooding that cannot be patched by pressing "R".

 

That would mean you'd be talking about a simulator. WoWs is none of that. It has weird physics for ships, lay-outs are simplified, there's no realistic anything in WoWs aside from ship appearance and even that is questionable given the paper ships and quick and dirty solutions now and then to put another ship in game quickly.

 

Arcade games are defined as games you play at... an arcade.

 

You know. Space invaders. Mario Bros. (the original). Mario vs Donkey Kong. Pong. Jetpack. Asteroids.

 

Simple games where you insert a coin to continue.

 

 

Typically what you got online is that the use of "arcade" has shifted more towards quick and relatively simple games with a high degree of accessibity to casual players regardless of skills, attentionspan or intelligence, where therefore often the usability and design norms are not set by the top line competitive players, but by the lowest common denominator. Like the BB only noob. Hence it used to be a very derogatory term for "dumbed down games", until "casual game" gamers took it on as "this is how you design this sort of thing", because it suits them. And to a degree they're right. To a degree they're not, since you can design these same games with a bit more complexity and still be accessible.

 

Mechanics in WoWs and WoT are simplified, win conditions are arbitrary, artificial and from a military perspective completely bonkers at times. You get in game bonuses, silly camos, arbitrary mechanics like healing, repairing modules, fire and floods with a single button press, randomly launched and picked up aircraft at full speed, unlimited ammunition quantities, no storms, visual targeting system is completely unrealistic, fleet composition is completely unrealistic in so many ways it's not even funny, you can ram islands at full speed without being damaged, unlimited fuel, the arbitrary assigning or denying of gimmicks like smokescreens and radar (which goes through mountains), hydro (which has limited range and goes through islands), scaling of distances and sizes of ships, you see the ship from third person, not a captain point of view, you control all turrets at once, while also steering and doing other stuff, you don't have to make any targeting calculations.and I could go on and on forever.

 

There's nothing realistic about WoWs when you examine it closely. That includes the ship models, for there are no crews. 

 

11 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

So, Arcade is the opposite word to the word Realistic, right? Why not to use then a more clear word non-realistic?

Because they're not. You can have realistic arcade games. Think of race or flight simulators you can play... at an arcade.

11 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

The word simulation is a scientific term where a program tries to simulate some kind of situation and find a solution and there are no participants usually. so, i don't think that the simulation is an appropriate term there.

Ships look totally realistic to me. It is totally fine to change the size of some elements on the screen and make some other changes. That doesn't make the results unrealistic. Also you mention ships' speed- again i don't see anything unrealistic there: bigger ships move slower and smaller ships faster jsut like i nthe real life.

That's a complete subjective definition of realistic where you are being extremely selective in what is allowed to count towards realistic and what isn't. You'll find few people will agree with you as you cherry pick the handful of things that pass the realistic standard and completely ignore the hundreds of things that don't.

11 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

I don't think that your descriptions make the ships to look unrealistic. They look totally realitic to me. If there are some specia lcamos like a scorpion on the ship then that looks of course little bit sci-fi but so what- it is fine to have such big unreal animal on the ship just like you have buttons in your screen but not in real life. There is not possibile to show realism in 100% amount on the screen but everything that looks 80%+ realistic is Real in my opinion and feels real. Unreal would be if your ships would shoot fire balls or some lasers etc- but even then it is only little bit unrealistic because the ship itself feels and looks mostly like in real and just a weapon is little bit unrealistic.

*facepalm*

 

Honestly? You should realise you're just being arguementative here, because you have a hard time dealing with critique and conceding you're not always right. You're constantly moving the goal posts on what is okay within the concept of "realism" in order to simply not admit you've lost an online discussion. :/ People hate conceding points to anyone for their ego is fragile. But if you're honest you evaluate your position and weigh the arguments brought fourth.

 

 

 

In the end, it doesn't matter whether WoWs is realistic or not, the question is whether a change would enhance gameplay or be detrimental to it, but most importantly if from the positions of all players involved on either side of a change is a fair one. CVs and subs are not considered "fair" by some people, in large part, because of their implementation and the countermeasures not matching up.

 

My advice to you: move on from this discussion.

[BLUB__BLUB]

Realistic game, 100% simulator...  

[Fastmotion]

59 minutes ago, Figment said:

Arcade games are defined as games you play at... an arcade.

 

You know. Space invaders. Mario Bros. (the original). Mario vs Donkey Kong. Pong. Jetpack. Asteroids.

I don't think that your definition of the obsolete term Arcade is adequate. You define by giving examples. This sounds like "Fruits are.. you know..apples, pumpkins, onions..You know?".

Your examples are cartoon-like games. For example Super Mario looks like a cartoon. Therefore i think the word Cartoon-Like is more clear and suitable than the term Arcade. Some peopel above said an opinion that Warthunder and Wows are not realistic and some said that Wows is Arcade or you can use the other better term: Wows is Cartoon-like. Can you explain how wows is cartoon-like if it looks different than cartoons and Mario? so, how can you call Marion and wows both as Arcade/Cartoony?

 

I don't have any attachment to the Arcade term so who don't want to talk about it then don't bother. But who wants to try to define 1st time i nthe history the term Arcade and explain how Mario, Wows and Warthunder are arcades then go try.

 

This topic is a subs topic. I don't see anything cartoony in subs. They swim under the water and look realistic to me.

 

[Figment]

15 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I don't think that your definition of the obsolete term Arcade is adequate. You define by giving examples. This sounds like "Fruits are.. you know..apples, pumpkins, onions..You know?".

Your examples are cartoon-like games. For example Super Mario looks like a cartoon. Therefore i think the word Cartoon-Like is more clear and suitable than the term Arcade.

Okay... You clearly missed the period where these were games you played in an arcade, for people did not have computers or consoles at home

Classic arcade games

 

Arcade dance games

 

Arcade racing games

 

 

Flight "Sims"

 

Gundam simulator

 

Anything you can see up here is an arcade game.

 

So no, the graphics are irrelevant, graphics are mostly period related, not class related. The medium on which you played is what is relevant here and the goal of the medium (make money on a game per game basis).

 

 

An Arcade game is traditionally tied to a place and means of interaction by having a dedicated machine per game. Not tied to an arbitrary graphical achievement. Modern day literal arcade games also include Gundam simulators.

 

They are meant to be easily accessible games of all kinds of variety that make money on the basis that you [TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARGUMENT, INSERT COIN].

[Fastmotion]

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

An Arcade game is traditionally tied to a place and means of interaction by having a dedicated machine per game. Not tied to an arbitrary graphical achievement. Modern day literal arcade games also include Gundam simulators.

 

They are meant to be easily accessible games of all kinds of variety that make money on the basis that you [TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARGUMENT, INSERT COIN].

By your definition the term Arcade is an old obsolete term and Wows and Warthunder are not Arcade by your definition. So, how would you explain things to WG and to your community who believes that Wows is an Arcade then?

[Figment]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

By your definition the term Arcade is an old obsolete term

It is not obsolete, but it's been used to point out simplified games (IMO erroneously).

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

and Wows and Warthunder are not Arcade by your definition.

To me they fall in a category of simplified instanced games, which is why people use the term "Arcade like" to relate it to the old school definition of games that are highly instanced and accessible.

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

So, how would you explain things to WG and to your community who believes that Wows is an Arcade then?

In a way where I absolutely don't care about the semantics and arbitrary use of these definitions as long as people understand that game design choices are not defined by or selected due the class of games it is in, but by the gameplay and player interactions you desire in order to keep a high pace, instanced game fun and addictive with high replay value.

[Tanaka_15]

22 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

Do you think that people won't understand football after some evenings?

Ofc. This is one of the simple facts. Most peapole dont undrustand football. 

 

22 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

They know that there is a ball and you have to hit it and there are few rules and that's it. This is the Knowledge and contains 99% of the available knowledge.

No. And you show in this sentence show a lot of ignorance. This is your problem you are ignorat and you are advocating for ignoracne. 

 

22 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

For example you believe that i am wrong but you are not able to prove it.

We all proved tyhat you are worng many times your problem is ignorance. You cant undrustand our answers and opions. This is your problem not ours.

 

22 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

For example i feel relaxed when i know that i have opposite opinions compared your community.

Agian ignorance.You dont have opions tbh you dont kave knowlage nesseary to have an opion. You have some belives you created to cheat yourself in beliving you know something but you dont. 

[Fastmotion]

11 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Ofc. This is one of the simple facts. Most peapole dont undrustand football. 

 

No. And you show in this sentence show a lot of ignorance. This is your problem you are ignorat and you are advocating for ignoracne. 

 

We all proved tyhat you are worng many times your problem is ignorance. You cant undrustand our answers and opions. This is your problem not ours.

 

Agian ignorance.You dont have opions tbh you dont kave knowlage nesseary to have an opion. You have some belives you created to cheat yourself in beliving you know something but you dont. 

You can provide explanations to your opinions. For example i explained what i mean when i said that people understand Football after few evening. I explained what i mean by that but you didn't provide explanations when you said that people don't understand football. So, if you don't provide explanations to your believes then there is a big chance that your opinions are far from truth.

 

I don't see any ignorance or inadequate methods in my text.

 

Can you say where your community proved anything? You say that i don't understand your opinions but as i said there is no need to understand or accept opinions which don't have enough proof behind.

 

14 minutes ago, Figment said:

It is not obsolete, but it's been used to point out simplified games (IMO erroneously).

To me they fall in a category of simplified instanced games, which is why people use the term "Arcade like" to relate it to the old school definition of games that are highly instanced and accessible.

In a way where I absolutely don't care about the semantics and arbitrary use of these definitions as long as people understand that game design choices are not defined by or selected due the class of games it is in, but by the gameplay and player interactions you desire in order to keep a high pace, instanced game fun and addictive with high replay value.

 

Seems like you define first so: Arcade = Simplified Games.

For that definition i would say that all games are simplified and adjusted to the computer environment. All games. So, you can say that all games are Arcade games or express like "all games are simplified". Also a person above said that Warthunder is UnRealistic which also means adjusted/simplified compared to complex reality. If games are all simplified then why to use such 1 category for all of them at all?

 

Next seems you define that: Wows = "simplified instanced game".

So you seem to use the previous definition for Arcade/Simplified but you add in the middle "instanced". I don't understand that word and i am not sure what you mean by that.

Seemsl ike you mean by that term "Arcade like" later. So: Wows = Arcade Like = Simplified Like. I believe you mean by "Arcade Like" something like that: little bit unrealistic but not totally cartoon-like. By such definition i asked above where is defined where to draw a line when a game becomes enough realistic but not entirely and deserves a title "Arcade like" or "enough Realistic". If there is no such definition where the Arcade Like begins then why to use the subjective term Arcade Like at all?

 

Your overall explanation violates WG's explanation which sounded: Wows=Arcade as i remember. In my opinion cartoon-like and arcade-like are both very misleading terms because Wows don't look like Mario and other cartoons.

 

At the end you seems to say that there is no possibility that games and programs would look 100% realistic and also it wouldn't make the game experience better. Most agree with such opinion of course.

 

But why to call wows and al lthe elements in it including Subs as Arcade and what it means- i haven't heard any reasonable exlanations.

[Pikkozoikum]

11 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

So the term Arcade is old and was i nthe history for coin-machine games which all looked far from realism. If the term hasn't changed it meaning then it is inappropriate for today because nowadays we don't have such simplified old computer games anymore.

The origin comes from the old arcade games to describe modern games design.

 

11 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

You just don't have such games today. Does Wows or Warthunder look like such coin machine games? No. So, why to use such term then when speaking about Wows or any other modern game?

Then ask WarThunder, why they have the "Arcade Mode", if it's an incorrect term ;)

 

You compare Arcade games from the past with the word "arcade". The word arcade is just an adjective to describe a certain design type

 

12 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

If the term Arcade meant originally "cartoon-like" and during the years it changed to "not enough realistic" then where is the description which amount od unrealism is needed to be qualified to be "not enough realistic" or in other words Arcade? But first prove that the meaning of the term Arcade has changed during the history.

Arcade mostly describes simpler mechanics, simpler controls, lack of in depth story and features like that. That fits quite well with World of Warships: Instead of having a hole in a ship, flooding with water, we have a DOT (Damage over time). That is a simplified mechanic, instead of making it more complex. The AA is only a DOT. It has simple controls, mostly only moving and shooting, aside some special buttons. Not like a Simulation with like 30-50 buttons or even more. There are many arcadey features in WOWs

 

12 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

I t think that Salami pizza is a non-veg pizza and also a non-fruit pizza but better to call it as a meat-pizza as i did above

And we want call it meat pizza (arcadey shooter) and not non-fruit pizza (un-realistic) ^^

 

12 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

I don't see that the Warthunder Real mode game is much different than arcade mode. The real mode does not have on the minimap the enemy tanks visible but in the Arcade mode it has. I don't see much difference in reality in there. I think both minimap with enemy spots and without it are both realistic and adjusted for the computer world. Also the mentioned 10 minute torpedo time compared to 10 sec time doesn't make one game somehow totally different. One is just more playable but both in general model the reality well enough on the screen.

You already noticed a lot arcade attributes here like enemies are always visible. But there are also non-visible differences like how the vehicles physics are, in case of realistic air mode, the planes will be affect by high-G effects.

 

I try to get some examples for air mode

 

Air Arcade

-Enemies visible

-No realistic physics

-Accelerated Gameplay

-No realistic circumstances (no reloading on airfield, reloading happens midflight with a Cooldown)

 

Air Realistic

-Allies are visible with Icons, but Enemies not

-Realistic physics

-Still a bit faster gameplay via game mode design

 

Air Simulation

-Many different physical effects applied (planes drift because of the rotation of the engine)

-No 3rd person view, only 1st person inside the cockpit

-No help indicators or very limited

 

12 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

Wows and Warthunder look all equally realistic to me.

They are very different in terms of realism ;D

And Realism is not really described on how the tecture looks, unless you only talk about the visuals. The gameplay is arcadey in WoWS and arcadey to realistic to simulation in War Thunder

 

12 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

Torpedo 10 sec time is totally reasonable for computers. The real realistic game would be if your viewpoint/camera would be the captains eyes in the game and the whole screen would show mainly captains room or the engine room- that would be 99.9% real.

If you accelerate the speed by 3 times, then it's very unrealistic imo. If you have a different camera view, it doesn't make a game unrealistic to me, because the ship is still acting in the realistic boundaries. The point of view (camera) has nothing to do with the grade of realism imo. It doesn't interfere with the game mechanics

 

12 hours ago, Fastmotion said:

I looked the War thunder from Youutube and didn't see it to be more realistic and different. Both the Arcade and Real mode are almost equal.

I don't think that torpedo speeds make someone feel more realistic way because most people haven't seen real war in their life.

They are very different, I think, you don't see it, because you are not very experienced with War Thunder and you don't know, where the differences are.

You speak of Torpedos, but it's not just Torpedo speed. Play War Thunder, pick a battle ship and move only with 1/3 speed and never higher. Does this make no difference in how the game plays? Battleships in War Thunder feeel like they are stationary, because they use realistic speeds. They move with 30-40km/h instead of 100km/h. Shells take 15-20s for only 10km distance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tanaka_15]

1 minute ago, Fastmotion said:

You can provide explanations to your opinions. For example i explained what i mean when i said that people understand Football after few evening. I explained what i mean by that but you didn't provide explanations when you said that people don't understand football. So, if you don't provide explanations to your believes then there is a big chance that your opinions are far from truth.

Foodball is about creating and blocking space not about kickng the ball. 

 

10 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

 

I don't see any ignorance or inadequate methods in my text.

Well this is definition os ignoracne you cant see your errors cos you dont have nessesary tools (knowalge) to see them. 

 

11 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

Can you say where your community proved anything?

Community precicted that CVs rework will be dissater and it is a dissaster. Dead eye is another example. There ar littelary toons of examples where community was right. 

[Fastmotion]

24 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Foodball is about creating and blocking space not about kickng the ball.

If your such definition is different from other definitions in the internet then how do you prove that your version is better and more right?

Can you give an evidence that others define the same way or prove with other adequate methods?

I can after that prove that your definition is not adequate because many sports do space creation what you said. Your definition is like: "Apple is about seems in the middle and skin above." Well, many fruits are liek this and therefore such definition along with your footbal ldefinition are not adequate.

 

24 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Well this is definition os ignoracne you cant see your errors cos you dont have nessesary tools (knowalge) to see them. 

Seems that you repeat the popular belief that entertainment games require a lot of knowledge. I think you mean by Knowledge something else than knowledge. As i described earlier about professional football level there is not much more knowledge on the professional and hobby level. If want to make a listing about football ,snooker and wows knowledge then all 3 listings will be very short. This is another separate topic and we can do it elsewhere. So, there is not much knowledge in entertainment games and that knowledge doesn't make anyones opinions better or smarter. The same way you can have a smart opinion about climate politics and no matter which grades you got in highschool. You don't need to be a professional climate doctor and it is irrelevant which stats you have in highschool or in Wows to say a smart opinion about the climate.

 

24 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Community precicted that CVs rework will be dissater and it is a dissaster. Dead eye is another example. There ar littelary toons of examples where community was right. 

I don't think that Subs or Cvs are a disaster and i have never heard any adequate arguments about that topic.

In my opinion the Dead Eye existed so short time that it is irrelevant. I remember that some say that CVs used have like multiple plane groups flying at the same time. something liek that and after that was made a change which you call a rework as i understand. I am not sure that doing such change worsened the game. I think both sounds nice: to have multiple plane groups in action or only 1- for me both sounds fine but seems the community liked the 1st earlier multiple version more. Or what do you mean?

[Tanaka_15]

2 minutes ago, Fastmotion said:

I don't think that Subs or Cvs are a disaster

Agian. you are wrong. simple as that. 

[Fastmotion]

2 minutes ago, Tanaka_15 said:

Agian. you are wrong. simple as that. 

what do you mean by simple?

If i respond to you so:

Quote

Tanaka, Agian. you are wrong. simple as that. 

Would you consider such reply as simple? Or even adequate? If No ,then why do you yourself use inadequate methods and why don't you behave the way you want to be treated yourself? If you like my answer which is in your style then it defines the argumentation over with you being wrong and loosing the debate. Simple as that, isn't it?