What a $125 dollar game looks like:
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
does it look like team fortress 2
Maybe a little, it first came out in 2000. Here is another clip:
youtube.com
I don't see the problem, you pay for the realism (find me a more realistic tank simulator for less available to the public)
I never said it was a problem, just thought I'd show you guys what a game that costs $125 actually looks like.
Looks like a PS2 game
Again, it first came out in August of 2000, and they have been updating it and adding more stuff ever since.
Looks like a neat sim. I'd see myself playing that if I were into tanks.
Looks and sounds exactly like ArmA. Even with the same terrible Peformance.
>mid-tier graphics for literal world-class simulation/physics
why don't more devs do this? i wouldn't care if, say, a Battlefield 2142 successor looked like it's predecessor if I could have great physics, environmental destruction and 128-player lobbies with it.
That is actually a good question, I'd be more than willing to see a game with less than amazing graphics if it meant the devs could spend more time adding depth.
Because normies
Is Steel Beast worth it?
games like that wouldn't even get 128 players in a lobby and probably not even all time. even gamefreak can't shit out something and it will be successful so i wouldn't say brand quality is worthy
Well it does actually have an alternate price model, you could try the game out for subscription like an MMO. I think it is about $10 per month, so try it and if you like it then go for it.
Seemed to work for this game:
youtube.com
>a Battlefield 2142 successor looked like it's predecessor if I could have great physics, environmental destruction and 128-player lobbies with it.
even if you turned all the assets and development used into making games look good into realism, scope and netcoding, you wouldn't get close to achieving that, the technology has just completely lagged behind on that aspect.
for 20 or so years videogames have been growing laterally - only and exclusively concerned with graphics and animation and very little with actual AI and dynamic objects on screen, or new and detailed mechanics.
>for 20 or so years videogames have been growing laterally only and exclusively concerned with graphics and animation and very little with actual AI and dynamic objects on screen, or new and detailed mechanics
I wonder why...
as inflammatory as your post is, it is also literally true.
Console folk can kick and scream all they want, but they are the first ones to tell you there's only so many menus and combinations a human being can navigate with ten buttons and a stick.
Is it me or is the framerate wonky in the video
no, the direction consoles took is just a symptom of the larger problem, the original shareholders, founders of companies, and devs being replaced with individuals who focus more on profit above all.
While vidya was always a business, an entrepreneur is at least going to take risks, experiment, create, while the people who make a living buying and selling companies can only leech off of their success.
The parasites got to vidya and the entrepreneurs and passionate people left.
I would say DCS is a more successful version of this
by putting out the engine for free and then licensing it out to third parties to do the actual work seems to have worked out for them
on top of that they manage to put out a 60 dollar plane/chopper just about every year
I'm not quite sure DCS has had more success, Steel Beasts actually several different nations using the game to train their tankers.
From Wikipedia:
"Customized versions of Steel Beasts have been adopted by the armies of Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Chile, Canada, Australia, Spain and USA for training purposes."
DCS A-10 is the official USAF sim for the actual plane. i'm sure a lot of people use it
ARMA and VBS are EVERYWHERE though, and they do tanking just fine