What did you prefer?

[Mav23]

Reading another post reminded me of this: in the older WC's, WC 1 and 2 I believe, you could have specific parts damaged/destroyed, as the series went on, damage became much more general. Which did you prefer? The more realistic damage or the "arcade" style of later games?

Personally, I liked the later games, at least I could still shoot at people when I was almost dead

 

[BlueClaw]

While it was annoying to have my guns shot off, my missiles scrapped while they were still on their hardpoints, and the engines reduced to garbage (which could happen at the most inconvenient of times), it did give the first two Wing Commander games a better sort of challenge and realism, at least from my point of view. I often missed the experience of having to fight with absolutely no guns left when playing the later Wing Commanders, or having my computer and intercom units totally trashed and thus not being able to call out for help to my wingmen, or ask for landing clearance. The first two Wing Commanders made you feel more vulnerable, and therefore made you put you fighter's other qualities, like speed and maneuverability (rather than just guns and missiles), to their full potential.

 

[mpanty]

I 100% agree with BlueClaw... having localized damage was a lot more realistic and fun. Granted, trying a dozen times to ask for landing clearance when your communications system was damaged, was very annoying...

 

[Starkey]

Originally posted by mpanty
Granted, trying a dozen times to ask for landing clearance when your communications system was damaged, was very annoying...

True.
BlueClaw said everything. I think the later games emphasize firepower a lot. Take the Devastator, for instance, it rendered torpedoes useless, since you can fire a couple of shots instead of a Valiant LT.
I really miss flying ol' crappy Epee with one Particle cannon and no targeting system. I also think the new repair systems are not realistic, there is no logical way for you to lose 50% of your systems (by physical damage) and the ships' computer fixes it in one minute or two.

(before some people start shooting me, I do think the Epee sucks, but it is fun flying with it, because of the challenge.)

 

[Penguin]

The damage in WC1/2 is quite realistic and makes those games more challenging than later WCs. However I prefer the later WCs. For all those people who think the Epee sucks, try flying one that's had one of its guns shot off. I felt bloody stupid putting around with one particle gun.

 

[Soma]

I'd have to say I like the WC/WC2 way of damage, it was always gratifying to limp home after a nasty scrape with no comms, no radar, on half engine power with the eject warning blaring to high hell... Hey, I never said I was a skilled pilot

 

[Penguin]

Originally posted by Soma
no comms,

How exactly did you land then?

When I first got WC3 the most frustrating thing was that I'd always run out of memory. The speech would go off, so I couldn't ask for clearance. Thus I could never finish missions. That and the fact that I sucked really badly in those days

 

[Soma]

Well, maybe that was an exaggeration, really damaged comms anyway. I never got to the point where I couldn't land, sometimes it would just take a couple of minutes...

 

[WildWeasel]

Originally posted by Starkey
I also think the new repair systems are not realistic, there is no logical way for you to lose 50% of your systems (by physical damage) and the ships' computer fixes it in one minute or two.

Well, that's a silly statement. First of all, it's ridiculous to complain that technology in a fantasy universe is unrealistic. It's not supposed to be. Second of all, you don't even know how those repair systems work or what kind of technology they're using. For all we know, the repair systems in Wing Commander may be very advanced compared to some of the other technology we see.

 

[Anagram]

Ahh, back in the day... Limp home, no guns, no missiles, no wingmates (having told them to return to base at Nav 1), gum barely keeping the ejector systems from going off accidentally if they weren't also destroyed...

I loved those days.

 

[Starkey]

Originally posted by WildWeasel


Well, that's a silly statement. First of all, it's ridiculous to complain that technology in a fantasy universe is unrealistic. It's not supposed to be. Second of all, you don't even know how those repair systems work or what kind of technology they're using. For all we know, the repair systems in Wing Commander may be very advanced compared to some of the other technology we see.

I just expect a minimum of logic, at least, which I fail to see when a missile rips through your armor and blasts into your systems, probably destroying cables, parts, computers, little dwarfs or whatever they use to get those ships running, and then it's all working perfectly 30 seconds later.

My point is: I prefer the old way, where you would lose part of your comm, targeting and shields systems and you would have to work with what's left of them to finish your mission.

 

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Anagram
Ahh, back in the day... Limp home, no guns, no missiles, no wingmates (having told them to return to base at Nav 1),

You let them go home?

I had them prove their worthiness then we all went home.

Its shows that education hurts

 

[Soma]

Originally posted by Anagram
Ahh, back in the day... Limp home, no guns, no missiles, no wingmates (having told them to return to base at Nav 1), gum barely keeping the ejector systems from going off accidentally if they weren't also destroyed...

I loved those days.

Ahhhh, yes. Although I appreciated the damage repair systems in Privateer, I always hated shelling out hard earned credits for repairs.

 

[Crowley]

I also prefer the older way, but I absolutely HATED how the only system that seemed to get damaged in enemy ships was shields. Nearly destroyed Kilrathi ships have escaped me at top speed more times than I can count. Sigh, memory constraints, I guess.

Going a bit off-topic, how many games are out there anyway where the enemies' performance is downgraded when they get more damaged/injured?

 

[Penguin]

I know that in Red Alert a unit damaged beyond 50% definitely slows down.

 

[vax]

Originally posted by Anagram
Ahh, back in the day... Limp home, no guns, no missiles, no wingmates (having told them to return to base at Nav 1)

Anybody else ever get annoyed by Paladin in WC1? "We're gonna die!" "I'm gonna die!" "Keep radio silence Paladin!" "OK, not that it will matter anyway, we're gonna die!" Man he's annoying!

 

[BlueClaw]

Originally posted by vax


Anybody else ever get annoyed by Paladin in WC1? "We're gonna die!" "I'm gonna die!" "Keep radio silence Paladin!" "OK, not that it will matter anyway, we're gonna die!" Man he's annoying!

Isn't that Doomsday who always proclaims that he is going to die?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yeah, you're thinking of Doomsday, who replaced Paladin in SM2.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Starkey

I just expect a minimum of logic, at least, which I fail to see when a missile rips through your armor and blasts into your systems, probably destroying cables, parts, computers, little dwarfs or whatever they use to get those ships running, and then it's all working perfectly 30 seconds later.

It's perfectly logical... It's also reasonable, however... They have their nice repair robots that can patch things back together, fix the computer, and save the little dwarves. They obviously can't work with nothing, however, and anything past that point is therefore listed as destroyed.

TC

 

[Mekt-Hakkikt]

Originally posted by Crowley
I also prefer the older way, but I absolutely HATED how the only system that seemed to get damaged in enemy ships was shields. Nearly destroyed Kilrathi ships have escaped me at top speed more times than I can count. Sigh, memory constraints, I guess.
(...)

Hmm, I thought they could lose at least their guns as well...