Originally Posted by vdek
Yeah, well the only games I really consider Simulators are games like Falcon 4.0 and iRacing.
Gotcha. Space Sim has just been the defacto genre for these games, simply because 'Space Shooter' has been used for so long by 2D arcade shooters, and these types are usually little more complex than point and shoot.
Obviously they're usually very far off in physics, and it's usually about as realistic as Lord of the Rings is to medieval warfare, but it's the closest we generally have.
Do you have a suggestion, considering that 'Space Shooter' is already taken?
Edit: Space flight and the physics of a vacuum are so incredibly complex (yes, they are, to people that don't know them) that games need to bridge the gap and make it seem familiar. Wings could be 'feasible' for a spread of weapons hardpoints while being sturdy enough to not easily break off. (Weak explanation, I know) Controlling something with no significant friction and no top speed is very difficult - I've messed with newtonian physics space simulators, and while they're fun in their own, it's considerably harder to grasp than Star Wars combat, and you lose the 'AWESOME ZOOOOOOOM' effect.
Another example - in harder scifi where they follow the laws of physics, they even bridge the gap by making space seem like an ocean. Submarine styled combat - even if you don't see an enemy, it's treated with lots of radar, etc. All but even the HARDEST of sci-fi don't even acknowledge that it's nigh impossible to fortify a large location (a planet, a system) in three dimensions. How many times in stories/movies/games have you seen a row of ships fly up to another row of ships.. which are sitting in a ring around a planet? Why don't you.. go around?
All space/scifi needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and things need to be done to bridge the gap.Edited by Tainok - 1/5/10 at 11:57am