Return to “Polls”

Space Game/Simulator

Pure Simulator: (Top priority is creating the feel of space exploration and travel)
Total votes: 3 (4%)
Simulator Dominant: (Top priority is creating the feel of space exploration and travel, with slight compromise)
Total votes: 19 (25%)
Co-Simulator/Game Priorities: (Working equally to balance realism and player convenience)
Total votes: 38 (50%)
Game Dominant: (Top priority is allowing the game play mechanics to be convenient player, with slight compromise)
Total votes: 13 (17%)
Pure Game: (Top priority is allowing the game play mechanics to be convenient player)
Total votes: 3 (4%)
Total votes: 76
Post

Re: Space Game VS Space Simulator

#16
If a game's objective is that player actions are fun, and a simulation's objective is that player actions translate directly to their real world counterparts, I'd say that LT should be and is a game first, and that any simulation aspect should not stand in the way of that.

But simulation seems like a misnomer anyway when referring to a space age game because it is fictional. All that can accurately be called a simulation is how you abstractly interact with the celestial bodies, which is mainly expessed physically.

Frankly, in this area LT has chosen to stand decidedly far on the game side in the game-sim balance. There is a fixed inertial frame, all celestial bodies have a fixed position on this frame and there is no sign of gravity. All to relieve workload to focus on a more fun game.
Post

Re: Space Game VS Space Simulator

#17
Eery Petrol wrote:But simulation seems like a misnomer anyway when referring to a space age game because it is fictional. All that can accurately be called a simulation is how you abstractly interact with the celestial bodies, which is mainly expessed physically.
I'm not sure that a simulator stops being a simulator only because it's simulating something fictional.
Eery Petrol wrote:Frankly, in this area LT has chosen to stand decidedly far on the game side in the game-sim balance. There is a fixed inertial frame, all celestial bodies have a fixed position on this frame and there is no sign of gravity. All to relieve workload to focus on a more fun game.
I'm also not sure that the characteristics of Limit Theory that you listed are sufficient to argue that Limit Theory is game-focused. Those characteristics are featured in the game due to hardware limitations, not as concessions towards implementing "better gameplay". I am sure that if computers were more powerful then Josh would have been implemented proper orbital dynamics.

Edit: And before the point is raised, this is how you could combine "trade lanes" (or transfer lanes) with proper orbital dynamics.
Post

Re: Space Game VS Space Simulator

#18
ThymineC wrote: I'm not sure that a simulator stops being a simulator only because it's simulating something fictional.
I think you're right, what is being authentically simulated could be generalised to be anything. But I still feel that for something to be a simulator, you should be able to check that authenticity. For a game such as LT I can't see how you would do that. It is only simulating Josh's vision which is iteratively taking shape through the development of the game itself.
ThymineC wrote: I'm also not sure that the characteristics of Limit Theory that you listed are sufficient to argue that Limit Theory is game-focused. Those characteristics are featured in the game due to hardware limitations, not as concessions towards implementing "better gameplay". I am sure that if computers were more powerful then Josh would have been implemented proper orbital dynamics.
True, but I argue that it is sufficient to say that it is not simulation-focussed. The game gives a very free interpretation of space. Your argument that technological limits could cause this is a good alternative. But I don't feel LT is trying to be something and failing at it due to limitations. I'm enjoying Josh's programming wizardry immensly and feel that it is allowing him to very faithfully pursue his vision. I'd go so far as to say that if he really wanted orbitals, there would have been orbitals (in fixed paths at least) at the cost of other features. I don't know if you would agree :squirrel:
Post

Re: Space Game VS Space Simulator

#19
Eery Petrol wrote:I'd go so far as to say that if he really wanted orbitals, there would have been orbitals (in fixed paths at least) at the cost of other features. I don't know if you would agree :squirrel:
Hmm, I don't agree with that, at some point you will have to chose between features, maybe he wanted everything but he had to chose the best one, that doesn't mean he doesn't want it.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Space Game VS Space Simulator

#20
Yea, choices are always there. But I hope those made in Limit Theory feel more like opportunities.

Anyway, breaks from authenticity like these can also add more fun. To me the real universe is most fun for exploring with a telescope, unless you are looking to land on planets. For that reason alone I say abandon authenticity and make the LT world most fun to explore with spaceships, like Josh is doing. The only limit is your suspension of disbelief. As long as you can believe this is a living world, it can look like anything.

EDIT: A recent post from Josh is relevant here.
JoshParnell wrote:I prefer a non-realistic structure of space. I find it more compelling for gameplay and, overall, more visually interesting. It's a preference, nothing more and nothing less.

In the grand scheme of things, though, the code that positions generated objects is tiny, trivial, and easily-modifiable. It is not 'lazy' that I have this preference, make no mistake, generating 'realistic' system layouts is 100% easy. A sin here, a cos there, that's about all there is to it. So I am sure we will be seeing plenty of realism mods shortly after release :)

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron