well see i think this is where some are missing the point, even in that discussion at frugals it was always centered on the "missions" generated..
and not so much as the missions being connected as a whole, and inter-connected from other entities (the war simulator part)..
infact the missions actually generated are probably not that much different when you look at them individually.. and i would agree that static campaigns do tend to have higher detailed missions (more scripted triggered events)
the real strength of the dynamic campaign (at least IMO) is the fact that all missions have an impact irregardless or success of failure.. success makes the future easier, failure makes the future more difficult, even having different degrees of success (did you get 1 SA site or 3).. The effects of your earlier missions may not even be felt until you get 5 10 20 missions down the road..
the main problem i have with static campaigns is that much of the impact of your mission is boiled down to success or failure, with the actual impact you have made being predetermined.
eg. a mission to take out a fuel depot really has no impact on the game as a whole, because the next mission just plays off whether you succeed. its predetermined that if you succeed X scenario will happen, and if you fail (rarely is there partial successes in static campaigns that means anything) Y scenario will happen..
granted branching campaigns can give the illusion of impacting the war but it still a very much predetermined setting..
you look at even some of the RPG PC games in general (Non sim) and they all try to give the sense of personal impact on hte game and story (how will people react if i make certain choices). Some go the Hero route like oblivion and kotor, in the sim style game its a "just another pilot" type situation.
i don't want to turn this into a F4 Campaign debate, but it is a great example.. and the philosophy behind it is a strong one ,
and more importantly us the player, has a direct impact on how the bigger war progresses.
now understand the reason why i think DCS is missing a big opportunity here,
with all the future AC addons, you just plug them in set your parameters and they are instantaneously integrated into the exact same campaign as your Black Shark.. A10 (i think this is the first addon from DCS?) squadrons now effect your black shark missions and vice versa.. Here they have plans to plug in multiple peices into a great potential complete sim but in the end they will all just be seperated in a static world..
reading what DCS Blackshark will have is sort of trying to take multiple missions and and earning some sort of points/goals to move the the next phase..
So you essentially have X number of missions in a pool of missions the system can select from, and you need X number of goals/points finished o move to the next phase (or back a phase).. It doesn't say how it chooses missions but my guess is its just random, or hopefully can be set in the editor (maybe a branching system inside a phase?)
but moving to the next phase is yet another pool of static missions with goals to complete/or fail to earn points enough to move to yet the next phase.
but you can see that, even with this type of system the player has no real impact on the war.. but there is hope for the future (and i will be first in line to buy BlacksharK) as in that same thread they talk about the possibility of a dynamic campaign.. Hopefully when the A10 addon gets ready they'll see teh strength that a DC has in building that sense of War and how the player can have that feeling being part of the bigger picture..
