Campaign Countries: Real vs Fantasy?

[martinistripes]

I don't want to encourage a huge rant (so please keep it civilised) but rather want to see what the general consensus is on this. As many of you will know the new Ka-50 campaign comes with fantasy country names; The Republic vs The Butcher. I'm curious to know if this will become the norm for future DLC campaigns.

 

My personal opinion is that we fly simulators to be immersed in a reality that we can't normally experience. All the simulators (and many other genres, for example WWII shooters) I've played to date use the correct country names. History happened and censorship doesn't change that. Fantasy has it's place in sci-fi space sims set on other planets and I can enjoy those games to. But should England and Germany be given different names for a Battle of Britain simulator?

 

DCS is great and I'll continue to enjoy it either way. But if country's names are now something ED need to censor to avoid upsetting the few, I'll simply not buy the DLC campaigns and continue to create my own missions and/or fly multiplayer.

[Abburo]

I do not share the same opinion with you.

 

 

Arma3 is also using fictional names in a fictional time period, however the logistics there are as close to reality as possibile. Nobody is upset on this.

 

We can enjoy DCS and we have to use what it really offers to us: exposure to some technologies which are not reachable for 90% of us in real life. That is the real purpose for DCS, not to make history, to rewrite it or even more to make politics. But what is more important here is that anybody is free to create their own campaign an use real names, so it is nothing about pushing fictional only. It is a matter of choice... as far as it concerns me I really don't care if I will see a battle between Jupiter and Saturn. DCS will be the very same.

[QuiGon]

Strong vote for yes. I really don't like fantasy countries in a simulator like DCS. Same thing with ArmA.

 

I discussed this already in detail in the Republic campaign thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/search.php?searchid=10098209

[Jerkzilla]

This may be a sim, and by extension, the emphasis falls on authentically representing both the workings and appearance of things, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't extend to correct historical use, or authentic geopolitical environment, especially in optional DLC. Fictional countries for fictional conflicts are fine.

 

My personal opinion is that we fly simulators to be immersed in a reality that we can't normally experience.

 

Side note: Immersing ourselves in realities we normally can't experience is something we do with the aid of many works of fiction.

[Johnny Dioxin]

ArmA did a great job of fictional names.

 

I don't care if it's a real name or not - but it has to sound convincing.

 

The names used in the campaign sound like something from a teenager's comic.

 

However, the possible responses in your poll are limited, so I didn't vote.

[martinistripes]

Arma3 is also using fictional names in a fictional time period, however the logistics there are as close to reality as possibile. Nobody is upset on this.

 

A friend actually paid me $10 to buy Arma3 in the sale. I'd been unimpressed with Bohemia's clunky game engine in the past (DayZ standalone), but did have fond memories of the original Operation Flashpoint. Anyway I bought it, and sure enough wasn't overly impressed. For a moment a was unsure if I should get Arma2 or Arma3. I noticed several Steam reviews from users who'd played both that said that they preferred the campaign and setting of Arma2 but Arma3 had the better game engine.

[martinistripes]

I discussed this already in detail in the Republic campaign thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/search.php?searchid=10098209

 

Yes, I tried to +rep you for that but it wouldn't let me for some reason.

[chev255]

The main difference is that Arma has fictional country names on fictional maps. Besides you usually play as an American (not sure about Arma3 but I think that's the way most of the previous ones are).

 

For me if we are flying over Georgia or Nevada or Iran (in Straight of Hormuz map) then I would struggle with fictional names.

 

I am not a Blackshark player (bought it to support ED but only have 30 minutes or so flight time in it) so I'm not interested in the DLC campaign anyway but I think this would put me off an A-10C or F/A-18C campaign if all the countries were fictional.

[NeilWillis]

I would leave it entirely up to the whim of the mission designer. I like historic, contextual missions, but I certainly wouldn't throw a hissy fit if Gorgonia decides to declare limited war on Dystopia.

 

If the hardware fits the scenario, what does it matter if the nations involved have non-political nomenclature?

[Dudikoff]

A friend actually paid me $10 to buy Arma3 in the sale. I'd been unimpressed with Bohemia's clunky game engine in the past (DayZ standalone), but did have fond memories of the original Operation Flashpoint. Anyway I bought it, and sure enough wasn't overly impressed. For a moment a was unsure if I should get Arma2 or Arma3. I noticed several Steam reviews from users who'd played both that said that they preferred the campaign and setting of Arma2 but Arma3 had the better game engine.

 

Personally, I loved the Cold War setting and campaigns of the original Operation Flashpoint, while the subsequent Arma campaigns were getting progressively worse IMHO - with their ever more modern weaponry and fictional sides/enemies, it was really hard to get 'into' it for me - and Arma 3 reached a new low level here by using futuristic fictional vehicles and weapons, although it made a big step forward in the engine department which runs and looks noticeably better than the old ones. I keep hoping they might consider going back to the roots as not only it provided a more immersive setting, but the weapons and tech were not too powerful allowing a more enjoyable gameplay IMHO. But, that's rather subjective, of course.

 

More relevant to the thread, when I checked the new Ka-50 DLC campaign and saw that one side are "The Butchers" or whatever and read the campaign description, I decided not to buy the campaign or read more about it as it sounded rather childish to be honest.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Dudikoff

[whitehot]

as personal preference, I prefer country names used realistically. That said, having fictional names used instead won't change in the slightest my determination to buy content.

[the_soupdragon]

I am not really bothered by fictional countries in a campaign

But as has already been said, the names of the protagonists really should be better than what we have in the Ka-50 campaign. The Butchers vs the Republic does sound a bit silly.

Once you get passed that though the campaign itself is fine.

 

SD

[Sabre-TLA]

I say leave it up to the mission designer.

 

They can place their scenario in a realistic setting or use names like REDLAND, ORANGELAND and BLUELAND to indicate different fractions (ala Red Flag).

[vicx]

The main difference is that Arma has fictional country names on fictional maps.

 

So you haven't been to the Greek Islands before :)

 

I would call Arma maps fictional "based on a true stories".

 

It's set in the future so they can make things more interesting. You have a NATO but not as we know it. You have something that looks like the military arm of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which doesn't yet exist but probably will sometime in the future. And you have Russia acting as a peace keeping force which is role they may be destined to play in that area of the world (where you have a Orthodox Christians and Muslims living together).

 

I say leave it up to the mission designer.

 

Yeah for sure but I wish ED would just make a simple and easy BLUFOR and REDFOR ... each with ALL the units.

 

People say but this isn't realistic but what has ED done to make the "USAF Aggressors". The "USAF Aggressors" have EVERY UNIT from every country. Well aint that just dandy ... why can't I have that in RED and BLUE? So why is it not OK to have a REDFOR or BLUEFOR with all the units? What was the reason again?

Edited November 11, 2015 by vicx

[Exorcet]

Rewriting history doesn't appeal to me much, but alternate history is fine. Simulations don't have to follow text book history. With some of the more modern modules, it's unlikely that they will because there won't be anything to do if you're looking for a challenging war theater. In a way the same applies to some older modules given map options (ie future F-5E in the Black Sea).

[WinterH]

I think people are way too obsessed over "real countries and/or historical events only" attitude with combat sims. In fact, while I agree those are nice, personally I still have a preference towards fictional settings, pitting some what if forces against one another.

[baltic_dragon]

From my side - in the upcoming "The Enemy Within" DLC not only you will have real life country names (obviously), but also more or less realistic storyline (realistic = not fantasy, though the sole fact that the campaign starts at the point where Georgia is awarded the NATO Membership Action Plan is by itself not very likely to happen in real life at the moment).

 

Moreover, all the units appearing in the campaign are based on their real life equivalents (at least the US and Israeli ones) with real life logos, subunits etc. I did my best to do enough research for everything to be as close to real as possible.

 

In my view keeping as much realism as possible adds a lot to immersion. Although, having said that, I have nothing against made up countries or enemies, but that would work more for a Red Flag type of campaign.

[Tirak]

Purely fictional maps, wars and folk are perfectly fine in my opinon. Strangereal is more interesting than Earth in the Ace Combat games. By embracing that sort of fiction we get more interesting matchups in multiplayer, and far more imaginative campaigns in single player. Being bound purely to real events makes things dull. I'm not "Captain Soandso" i didn't fight in that mission where people died, I'm a sim pilot looking to enjoy the fantasy of being a real one, not a war reenactor.

[Dudikoff]

Rewriting history doesn't appeal to me much, but alternate history is fine. Simulations don't have to follow text book history. With some of the more modern modules, it's unlikely that they will because there won't be anything to do if you're looking for a challenging war theater. In a way the same applies to some older modules given map options (ie future F-5E in the Black Sea).

 

Just to be clear, I agree wholeheartedly. I don't like the limited historical events (which are also open to various interpretations) and much prefer alternate history scenarios (within a certain realm of plausibility, of course). But, I don't see the need for completely fictional countries and sides - it totally kills any potential immersion IMHO.

 

I see some fiction-friendly comments are putting those two together (i.e. that insisting on real countries also means insisting on historical events and scenarios) while the poll is not about historical events, just real/historical actors.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Dudikoff

[WildBillKelsoe]

I think realism is key. Period.

[Bushmanni]

I think there is a place for hypothetical and fictional campaigns that focus more on gameplay than historical immersion. I wouldn't mind a Strike Commander / Ace Combat like campaign but with realistic equipment and tactics.

[MegOhm_SD]

Prefer historically accurate scenarios. While fictitious countries can work for many games like ARMA, I'd rather flight sims be as accurate and realistic as possible. I do not get the point of fictitious countries in a flight sim really. Yes for immersion.

 

Flying along and recognizing nothing is not really appealing.

 

@KH... :doh: As far as NTTR being just a generic Desert map...Well really get your head out of the sand and look around.

Edited November 11, 2015 by MegOhm_SD

[Gladman]

I clicked yes but I have an allowance on that. I like the real countries and I like the real terrain but I don't care if I'm flying a Mig-21bis in the Vietnam conflict or a first gen, only that its against F-4's in the proper part of the world. I don't feel the need for 100% operational accuracy but at the same time don't want to be flying over Chinam instead of Vietnam.

[King_Hrothgar]

Both work, but I prefer historical conflicts over fictional ones unless you go full fictional like the old enemy engaged series did with its dynamic campaign. The DCS devs don't agree with me however, as every single member of the Flanker/LOMAC/DCS series has always been around a linear fictional conflict in a real place. Looking forwards, nothing appears set to change. The first new map is NTTR, a place where the latest armed conflict involved muskets and cavalry charges. After that is the SoH, which other than a minor one day skirmish between the US and Iranian navies in the 1980's, is a place that hasn't seen armed conflict in hundreds of years, if ever as far as I know. And these maps were chosen over places like the northern Persian Gulf which has seen 4 major wars in the last 30 years, with the 4th one ongoing. Never mind other places like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ethiopia/Eritrea and many other places.

 

It has always struck me as strange that ED is so obsessed with getting the details on the planes and maps right, but then avoids representing actual wars the planes fought in like the plague. I don't know why they are even bothering trying to make accurate maps tbh. Why not just make "Generic desert map #1" instead of NTTR or SoH? It would be more consistent and a lot easier.

 

Anyways, this is not a complaint, just an observation. To me dirt is dirt, sand is sand and NTTR really is just "Generic Desert Map #1.":smilewink:

[danilop]

I'll just say this:

 

Overzealous political correctness has been slowly destroying western civilization for the last 50 years or so. And western market is the main market for DCS. You don't change your market, you adapt to it.

 

So there you go ... :)

Edited November 11, 2015 by danilop