I've got a few questions I'd like to ask fellow gamers and developers. If you do not like or play WWII games/sims, then you likely won't have an answer to this. So don't just post that you don't like them, lol. The question only applies if you do, or think you would be interested in playing one, or have meaningful, relevant information... This is a long post, but I'm hoping to gain some insight from my peers about design concepts and theory. And I thank you in advance for listening!

Basically, the question deals with the clash between "sim" and "game". They're both generic terms, and becoming vague and interchangeable, especially with combat titles. But for the sake of simplicity, let's say that the sim is the one which pursues ultimate realism. Sims are more difficult to master than your average game, and very in-depth, immersing, and complex. A WWII sim would be extremely true to history, with the equipment maintaining the same (or nearly the same) performance as its real life counterpart. Of course, 100% realism is impossible, but the point is to achieve as high a degree of it as possible. IL-2 Sturmovik is a good example of a very realistic sim that was able to remain "playable". A WWII *game* is more casual, easier/more accessible to pick up and play, like the Call of Duty series. There's not much of a learning curve. If you've played the typical fps game before, you can likely jump into such a game and be very deadly off the bat.

But which is the best, and why? Personally, I've always been a "hardcore simmer" as some call me. There a very, very, very few "click n' kill" fps games that I will even consider playing. This is doubly true when we're talking about a WWII game/sim. I've always been a major history lover, and somewhat obsessive about aviation and firearms. When I encounter something in a WWII title that's impossible in real life, I cringe. I hate what we call "One Man Army" games and "Rambo" games, where you can kill 500 enemies in one level, and possess superhuman strength and endurance. To me, it spoils the entire point of a WWII game/sim, which I believe is to experience the combat suffered by such brave men, in so dark of days.

I think WWII games/sims belong to their own sub-genre. They're meant to take you back to a time before any of us were born, and give you a virtual "taste" of what things were like. But my team members and I have been arguing back and forth about the finer points of our design concepts. We all agree, in some form or another, that we need to blend elements of the "sim" and "game" together, and produce a product which can satisfy both tastes, if only partially, or even for the most part. But I think we've all got very different ideas on what that means.

My theory is that we must, above all, be innovative. As small developers, we're going to have to do unique things which haven't been done before, if we hope to have any success. Copying ideas from the book won't do us any good. My design theory is primarily to produce a unique sim-game which is very realistic and immersing, but is also intuitive and playable for the majority of our target market. Another team member feels we should keep the game much easier and more casual than I would like, I suppose to fit better into the broader scope of fps games.

The biggest problem I see with his feelings is the WWII genre itself. If we were making a normal fps game, like COD 4: Modern Combat, or Grand Theft Auto, I would be all for this concept. But I think different underlying motivations drive people to play a particular genre. I think if people want to player a casual "shoot em up" game, they can, and will, play COD 4, GTA, or something similar. I don't think ours, a WWII title at that, would have any chance against these big titles in the casual fps arena. I also don't think it would stand a chance in hell against the more "gamey" WWII titles like COD 2 or Medal of Honor. Apart from that, it's been done before... many times... How can we stand out in such a large crowd of giants if we intermingle with it?

Another focal point of his counter-argument to my concept is that "sims don't sell...". However, I've seen nothing to suggest this from any of the marketing research I've done. In fact, I've NEVER seen a decent WWII infantry/armor title which is even remotely a "sim". If I thought one existed, I would be ordering it right now to play it! When it comes to WWII aviation, sims are hot, games are not. Titles like IL-2 Sturmovik are STILL being sold to this day, many years after being released. It's about to be followed up by an even better sim, called Storm of War: Battle of Britain. The more "arcade-style" WWII flight games sit on the shelves collecting dust. I can't directly "swing over" that information to an infantry and armor sim, because none exist to my knowledge. Certainly none like I (and I hope "we") want to produce. I've created polls around the web several times to query WWII gamers on whether they would prefer intense realism or casual/accessibility. It was almost unanimous that realism wins out, every time.

Our target market is another major concern of mine. Like I said before, someone needs a motivation to play a WWII title. If they simply want to shoot up some enemies without much effort, there are plenty of other games which can quench their thirst better than anything we could make. The most common motivations for playing a WWII game I've seen are things like: "I love WWII history." , "I love the WWII weapons." , "I've always been interested in the war." , etc. I've absolutely never heard someone say they just enjoy shooting the enemies and exploring the world.

I think our target market is going to be very similar to the market of games like IL-2, WWII Online, and even pickups from Ostfront, Red Orchestra, etc. The majority of these people are at least 18-22yrs old, and there are even many players over 40yrs old. There are a good bit of kids, but kids generally aren't very interested in WWII anyway. They are interested deeply in the history and weapons, and know a lot about how they functioned and performed. When they see BS, they're going to know it, and point it out. They won't be very satisfied by another "shoot em up" arcade run. They also want a challenge. They don't want a game that you master in 2 days, or even a week. They desire "endless playability", a game which can be played over and over, which you never fully master, and has a different outcome every time. A few of them might play a more arcade-style game when it first comes out, but they'll put it down in a week to play other things, causing our customer base to collapse. (The previous paragraph's information, though reworded, was actually collected by a friend of mine who's a financier/economist during some of his research for me. It hit my gut feeling spot on.)

I also realize, there can be a dark side to realism. You could make a game "too realistic" if you're not careful. I'm not just talking about making a game that only a real life pilot could fly a plane in, or a real tank commander could only drive in. That is possible, but very marginally. You could easily over-complicate a game with ultra-realistic features and "suck out" the fun. You could also over-complicate to a degree that your game becomes narrow, only able to focus on one small part of the battlefield and combat. You could also make a game that's too performance demanding to be run online by the average connection, or even too "hot" for the average CPU to process offline. Another downside is the potential for development to lag on for years and years, possible drying up your company's pool of resources. There are lots of dangers like these, which I'm well aware of, and have every intention of preventing. However, I think if you have to fall on the wrong side, it would be better to fall on this one. I think making an "easymode" aka "arcadish" WWII game is suicide. Essentially, I think we'd shoot ourselves in the foot and slowly bleed to death for a few months after release. The other route is a prolonged suffering, which at least has a chance of payoff, if handled properly.

So, let me try my best to wrap this up before I laggggg on much longer. Sorry, I take this pretty serious, heheh. What is "too sim" and what is "too arcade" in your opinion? You do you think of my assessments? What do you think of my friend's assessments? Are we both just being stubborn? A smaller disagreement, which might put this into a better scope and give a pertinent example of design is this:

We have the question of how to prevent machine guns, like the MG-42, from becoming "ultimate and infallible Rambo" weapons in the game. They enjoy FAR too much of an advantage in other games, which is totally ludicrous. Prolonged firing on a real WWII machine gun would melt or permanently damage the barrel. Crews carried extras into combat which could be rapidly changed out, almost as fast as reloading. They learned to fire only short 4-5sec bursts to allow for cooling and accuracy. That's why they couldn't "pwn" everyone in WWII, and many MG crews died. I feel that machine gunners should have to do the same in game; control their itchy trigger finger, or have to change out barrels, even possibly render the gun useless until they are resupplied in a depot or by a comrade. He thinks it's crazy and "way too sim" to require this and render a player's gun useless if they run out of barrels. He thinks we should simply make a "heat meter" which displays how hot the gun is. When it gets too hot, the player just has to wait for it to cool off, and can continue firing indefinitely. But, what about ammo? Running out of it also renders your gun useless, until you're resupplied. Is it also too inconvenient to the player to limit ammunition? At what point does this end? Where do we draw the line between WWII and utter fantasies? There is one game, Ostfront I think, which does it like my idea. His idea has been around in some form for ages. Players have had only praises for that game's barrel changing feature from reviews I've read, and enjoy the realism. So, what's your take?

Sorry for the huge post, but I'm really passionate about this, as you can tell, lol. My motivations are not totally, or really even mostly financial, though like everyone, I do want money, lol. Much of my motivation is from my passion for the history, and my desire to take the players back to that time and let them experience it, in "virtual-person". Thanks again for your time, and I hope to hear some meaningful and genuine answers!

A very long post - I will need to consider before replying on the conceptual level. I am a bit of a WW2 buff and I do fit into your over 40 crowd. I grew up knowing men that were fortunate enough to return from the war, some of whom actually talked with me about some aspects of their experiences.

With regard to the question in your second last paragraph, one veteran I spoke with was assigned to a tank detail when the Allies invaded France. Infantry (either parachuted or glided into the area ahead of the main ground forces) were stationed at the sides of city streets providing key defensive coverage using Bren machine guns. These were well suited to prolonged firing with a flared barrel, however burnout was a concern so (as you indicated) the gunners were trained to use short bursts. This was important for more than just preserving the weapon though. Certainly accuracy was increased since there would be substantial kick from these weapons and with the two support feet at the front, the guns had a tendency to skip side-to-side. More importantly, ammo was limited and wasting shots would soon render the position useless. The person that I spoke with had the task of dropping steal ammo canisters to these gunners as the tanks passed by.

I think that Wolfenstein - Enemy Territory had a style similar to the way your team member is describing for the Sten and the Churchill tank machine gun. As I see it, you might be able to come to an agreement on this by combining your ideas in such that prolonged usage will require a "cool down" period. If the cool down is ignored, the gun would soon stop working and the player would be forced to change out parts. With regard to limiting ammo, parts, etc., the game style dictates the direction. Leaning heavily to the sim style would dictate that supplies would be limited. This was the reality.

ok, so i didnt read all of your post, its pretty long but after reaching a certain poinn i realized what you were concerened about...

i must agree with you in some cases and disagree with others, first of all, "sims dont sell".. well, ofcourse they do sell but we all know that they can never sell as much as arcade games.. there's no competition there, you have to draw the line between realism and playability...

i too despise call of duty for their arcade like approach to war games, killing 200 men in a tv room? wtf? what were they thinking? the game should FEEL realistic but still be easy to play and you have to know what youre gonna make, if youre aiming for fast paced action then ofcourse you cant aim for too much realism...

i personally wont buy a game that is too sim like... sure you might say, oh well... am just one guy... but alot of gamers will the say the same, you have to kno how to draw the line... plus we cant help much here if we dont know what you had in mind when you said realism, how would you code a standard machine gun to behave then? it spreads alot without aiming and you get a tighter cone of fire when aiming down the site? or do you have something else in mind such as bullet drops, wind and all a that???

at the end of the day, you can either go full sim and risk releasing yet another game that doesnt sell great, argue this if you want but we all know that sims dont sell alot in comparison with arcade... all the major shooter titles out there are arcade like... you have to blend them to get what you want, so this thread should be aimed more about how to balance it and keep great gameplay.. i wouldnt buy a sim, i wouldnt even download it if its free, not trying to sounds harsh but i honestly dont have the time but i AM aware that there are ppl out there that like sims..

i also have couple ideas for war game but i prefer not to say what they are

i love game design threads like these.. hopefully i can help

Im no WWII fan OR a sim fan, but I think I fit into the "have meaningful, relevant information" category.
Im more a EITHER an FPS or Strategy player, depending on mood, but I am exposed to a couple of WWII realism nuts,
and I have picked their brains on advice on how to target a larger client-base, even though none of my projects
are even remotely WWII.

With this in mind, my 'opinion' is (as other have said), go for the middle ground. But I will expand on this
a bit further. I dont know if it was Sturmovic, or maybe one of "Jane's" flight 'sims', that gave a great
deal of adjustment over the games "sim-ness" by having a simple slider bar in the config that radically
altered the planes handling from "arcade" simplicity to "pilots licence required" complexity.
The coding for this would have been a bitch, but I feel it really smoothed and lengthened the games learning curve,
so you'll want to play if for longer. BTW, this slider had NOTHING to do with the mission difficuly settings, it was entirely separate.

So if you could code in a "sim-ness" slider it would slow a players "mastering" of the game, and appeal to a wider audience.
Eg if you are at the Arcade and of the slider, you get unlimited replacement MG barrels, but if you are at the SIM and
you can only carry two with you and must wait for resupply.

(short post)

its not true that you should aim towards arcade players for commercial success. though its easier to sell them things fact is that sim freaks are one of the most reliable customers out there. if one of them likes your game, he will like it a looooong time and with all the benefits that comes with it: no piracy, word of mouth, longplayability and and and.
so arcade aint easier at all as a target audience. you have way more competition and hardly any sellingpoints that can compete with games like cod or wolfenstein3d.

my advice: pick your audience and stick to it. dont try to please "as many as possible"!


should games be realistic? short: no. i want to be able to hunt down zombienazidragons with my hand made nuke launcher for 14.990credits.
when playing a ww2 game i want to be able to survive. not easy back then as a soldier.
also a real soldiers life is lots of waiting, patroling, exercising and and and.
so forget realism of that kind.

focus on realistc things that will upgrade your gameplay!
overheating guns, jamming, repairing guns, stuck heavy armor and none existant supports can mean a lot of fun during play.
all of this stuff has already been added to games: running will make you aim less good, in sniper mode breathing is important, keeping you finger on the trigger all the time will make the guns overheat or spread the bullets all arround.
you can add to that anything you like, just dont make a pain out of the feature.
it should change your way of playing the game not liking it!
anything anoying or to repeatative will not help, make this things an option.

low ammo needs sneaking abilities and melee fight options. the old "you can solve most of the game without firing one shot" can be a option.

chess is a very strategic game though its very minimalistic and has simple rules.
call of duty or today ww2 games focus on "experience" and an intense gameplay. so there are basicly a big show. maybe you should cut in here and try something different.

for example: death. this days it means replay a level.
do you know the game cannon fodder? why not punishing the player by replacing the hero with another soldier. you lose rank, abilities and much more.
my highest motivatin in cannon fodder was to get the original soldiers from the start alive thru the game. i replayed levels again and again if one of them died.
a whole other level of motivation.

another option: like in cod advance in packs of soldiers. once you die you switch to the next one near to you. success is determined by how many of those "deaths and switches" you need. this raises the rank of your commander and therefor the missions you can play, the support you get or the men you can "command".

because if there is one thing that is very realistic about the war then its the death. make it part of the game.
then you can have jamming guns, overheating and repair and much more.

just my "few" little thoughts
cheers

you guys seem to be missing the point here, he WANTS realism, he just wants to handle it in a way that the majority will like, i think adding a realism slider or option to a shooter is an horrible idea, no offense, call of duty is not a good example of a war game to me...

also dont try to please "as many as possible"!

y would u not try to do that, we are aware he's aiming at sim fans but every major company knows their target audience but also try their best to incorporate others... this it what gives success in my eyes...

nobody said anything against it.
my point is simple: dont add features (even as realistic as they might be) that kill gameplay. dont add features just for the sake of it. dont add features that are anoying and dont add any substance to the game (no matter if realistic or not).

hence my point about rethinking death in games. or other examples.
keep in mind its a game, so main focus is entertainment and not the replica of the real world.

about "reaching as many people as possible" i totaly dissagree with above. thats total bullshit and you wont benefit from this attitude at all.
this way you lose casual games because you are too sim and you lose sim players because you are too casual.
find your market!

having a uber sim like ww2 is a strong selling point. you compete with a hand full of other games for all teh sim nerds out on this planet.
sim games last waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay much longer then any call of duty or doom will ever be able to.

being able to repair guns doesnt sound like a bad idea. but if its just a pain for the player then ditch this idea. if on the other hand the enemy ai has the same limits and acts like that, then this feature is legit.
if it adds ontop of that more playability to the game then add it.

dont ask what people like. there is no golden rule for game development.
you are not the only sim guy on this planet so focus on that. make a sim ww2 game that a hardcore sim gamer like you would enjoy!

and be aware of the fact that no matter how simmy you make your game, sooner or later you will get comments like "good game, i just wished it would be more realistic"

cheers

nobody said anything against it.
my point is simple: dont add features (even as realistic as they might be) that kill gameplay. dont add features just for the sake of it. dont add features that are anoying and dont add any substance to the game (no matter if realistic or not).

hence my point about rethinking death in games. or other examples.
keep in mind its a game, so main focus is entertainment and not the replica of the real world.

about "reaching as many people as possible" i totaly dissagree with above. thats total bullshit and you wont benefit from this attitude at all.
this way you lose casual games because you are too sim and you lose sim players because you are too casual.
find your market!

having a uber sim like ww2 is a strong selling point. you compete with a hand full of other games for all teh sim nerds out on this planet.
sim games last waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay much longer then any call of duty or doom will ever be able to.

being able to repair guns doesnt sound like a bad idea. but if its just a pain for the player then ditch this idea. if on the other hand the enemy ai has the same limits and acts like that, then this feature is legit.
if it adds ontop of that more playability to the game then add it.

dont ask what people like. there is no golden rule for game development.
you are not the only sim guy on this planet so focus on that. make a sim ww2 game that a hardcore sim gamer like you would enjoy!

and be aware of the fact that no matter how simmy you make your game, sooner or later you will get comments like "good game, i just wished it would be more realistic"

cheers

To decide on this, play with the idea and setting.

I'm always up to science. Find the two absolutes (sim and "game"), see what makes the best parts, list them then find a generic mixture of it and see what is good in that execution.

Then just play with the features. Remember though that everything the player experiences, is what makes a game to "align". Is it the graphical style? Is it the accuracy to the book? Is it the gameplay? Is it the sounds? It's all of these, and more.

I'd try to find a compromise. Make a few throws here and there and think which one is the best and pick it, evolve it, dump it, make new ones with the information of the previous ones... Finally you have something you all agree that is the AWESOME EVER.