Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Ace Combat Thread (NSF56k)

15657585961

Posts

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    Reading through the last little bit of the thread and I'm glad people are generally enjoying the game, but am I seriously the only one who feels like the overall mission design is absolutely horrible garbage? I was so glad to have been able to pick it up earlier this week after just coming off an AC6 replay, and basically everything that I loved about 6 is missing, and in its place are a plethora of scattered missions that almost all have some twist ensuring whatever you came prepared for is wrong. Basically every 'gimmick' feels like ass (sandstorms, assorted escort missions, thunderstorms, etc) and gives me zero desire to replay those missions. The timers are also constantly ridiculous and pushing me to fly stupid just to try and make things work out. Even the gun feels so worthless as to be moot ... I wanted this game to be good so badly and instead I'm just suffering an entirely massive heartache of frustration and disappointment while playing it. :(
    Like, am I having an extra horrible time for having started on hard (having assumed that made sense as someone with a lot of previous experience)? Is there some other magical "Ah-ha!" that I'm missing?

    It's not garbage mission design, but it is a considerably more difficult game than other Ace Combats. You're not wrong about that.

    You're heavily penalized for trying to dogfight every enemy in your path when you have mission objectives to complete. You have to find the balance between keeping enemy numbers down (so you can't be shot as as much) and pursing objectives. Try building up your speed and breaking away from groups of enemies rather than getting sucked into turning fights with them. I also notice your very heavily penalized for bringing in the wrong plane with the wrong parts. Take a moment and think about what's giving you the most trouble, and pick a loadout to deal with it.

    As for the other mechanics like wind buffeting, there's no cure for that except experience.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    I was just completely exasperated after going through mission ... I forget - 14 or 15 - a number of times including a full restart because I needed to switch planes to bring a better weapon kit. Then surprise dogfight with an AI that endlessly does U-turns. It's just not fun when the SP weapon count is so low and it's such a demanding mission that you hit then end and "Oh, guess you should have brought QAMs and never fired them until this point because enjoy landing 6+ normal missile hits."

    And that other mission where you have to shoot 24-30 missiles worth of damage into the drone mother's propellers on a 90 second timer while battling the usual inaccuracies of the series' targeting system and being hounded by dozens of enemies ... Like, there are maybe two missions so far I've actually wanted to replay, and the rest are making me wonder how quickly I can sell the game if I finish the campaign. I hate feeling this way about the game ... :(

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    For Stonehenge Offensive, try picking pulse lasers and aim to line up one good cannon/laser run. It's really worth practicing with your gunsights because those two weapons together do hideous damage. Missile spam gets you so far in AC, and then it becomes counter productive when other weapons do better.

    Same for that super mobile drone, laser weapons are near hitscan and can't be spoofed.

    Also, Boss AI is really built around hounding players that constantly chase after it. Their patterns become more predictable if you break off, and try for a head on pass once in a while. Then try a sudden break and try to get a quick missile lock.

    AC for a while now has sort of... well, "parry" phases where the AI focuses entirely on avoiding the player. You want to nudge it back into attack mode, and then try to hit it.

  • BetsuniBetsuni Insert Disk 4 and Press Any Key to Continue Registered User regular
    Reading through the last little bit of the thread and I'm glad people are generally enjoying the game, but am I seriously the only one who feels like the overall mission design is absolutely horrible garbage? I was so glad to have been able to pick it up earlier this week after just coming off an AC6 replay, and basically everything that I loved about 6 is missing, and in its place are a plethora of scattered missions that almost all have some twist ensuring whatever you came prepared for is wrong. Basically every 'gimmick' feels like ass (sandstorms, assorted escort missions, thunderstorms, etc) and gives me zero desire to replay those missions. The timers are also constantly ridiculous and pushing me to fly stupid just to try and make things work out. Even the gun feels so worthless as to be moot ... I wanted this game to be good so badly and instead I'm just suffering an entirely massive heartache of frustration and disappointment while playing it. :(
    Like, am I having an extra horrible time for having started on hard (having assumed that made sense as someone with a lot of previous experience)? Is there some other magical "Ah-ha!" that I'm missing?

    It's not garbage mission design, but it is a considerably more difficult game than other Ace Combats. You're not wrong about that.

    You're heavily penalized for trying to dogfight every enemy in your path when you have mission objectives to complete. You have to find the balance between keeping enemy numbers down (so you can't be shot as as much) and pursing objectives. Try building up your speed and breaking away from groups of enemies rather than getting sucked into turning fights with them. I also notice your very heavily penalized for bringing in the wrong plane with the wrong parts. Take a moment and think about what's giving you the most trouble, and pick a loadout to deal with it.

    As for the other mechanics like wind buffeting, there's no cure for that except experience.

    I didn't know that they didn't want you killing every plane/target in the sky and ground... That would explain why I failed some missions. I just figured I sucked and wrote it off as I needed more flight time. Thanks for this information, I'll go back to playing it again.

    oosik_betsuni.png
    Steam: betsuni7
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    For Stonehenge Offensive, try picking pulse lasers and aim to line up one good cannon/laser run. It's really worth practicing with your gunsights because those two weapons together do hideous damage. Missile spam gets you so far in AC, and then it becomes counter productive when other weapons do better.

    Same for that super mobile drone, laser weapons are near hitscan and can't be spoofed.

    Also, Boss AI is really built around hounding players that constantly chase after it. Their patterns become more predictable if you break off, and try for a head on pass once in a while. Then try a sudden break and try to get a quick missile lock.

    AC for a while now has sort of... well, "parry" phases where the AI focuses entirely on avoiding the player. You want to nudge it back into attack mode, and then try to hit it.
    That would be fine knowing it ahead of time and having access to those weapons. I only picked up a laser-capable plane a mission or two afterwards, and don't know that I could have even afforded one the first time I got there unless I had known I needed to have it well in advance.

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited June 28
    I don't usually cross post, but Project Nimbus just got a big update on PC. Do you like Ace Combat? Do you like radio chatter? Do you like mecha? You'll like Nimbus. It's NOT shy about hiding its blatant theft of Gundam, Macross, Eva, Armored Core, ZOE and AC, but it's still a very fun, and charming game with a lot of love put into it. With the updated graphics and framerate updates, there's no reason not to play it.

    manwiththemachinegun on
    BasilSynthesisDrovek
  • KelorKelor Registered User regular
    Oh, thanks for the heads up. I've had my eye on it for years but it never quite met what they were asking for it.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    That does look really cool.

    On the subject of AC7, I'm going to rant for a little bit. Returning to it as I hunt for aces skins...this is definitely a game that would benefit from higher resolutions on the improved consoles, and it bums me out that's not the case. I'm sure my own poor vision isn't helping (not that I ever take off my glasses), but this might be the sole game where I feel like I'm at a genuine disadvantage of I don't pull a chair up to my UHD television (a monstrous 65" Samsung affair)...but I don't want to because the sub-pixel artifacts, aliasing or "jaggies" (ugh) are so plainly visible because of the technical art style and the attempt at photorealism.

    Obviously this is not an issue on PC (PC players have to contend with a whole host of different issues apparently), but it's really a bummer that this game caps at 1080p on the improved consoles. I can sort of understand it on Playstation 4 Pro, though it's still disappointing, but it's really inexcusable that this isn't a 1440p game on Xbox One X. Yes, the attempt at 60 FPS is admirable, but Namco's....just not good with UE4. Soulcalibur VI, a UE4 game that honestly looks like it could've come out when this console generation began (albeit at 1080p only) is a good example, thanks to all of its reused art assets from SC4 and 5. Unlike SoulCalibur, AC7 actually has nice art assets and models (most of the time...a lot less so for anything on the ground, but that's not a surprise), but it fails as often as it succeeds--and most of the times when it succeeds, you're over the ocean (or some very barren green terrain) doing successive rolls against one other aircraft.

    Aside from desperately needed optimization, the game would've really benefited from a graphical setting that gave you higher resolutions (1440p at least) while trading in some of the probably unnecessary polish on things like the voluminous fog, moisture effects, shadows, and possibly even view distance (since there's shit you can't really see due to the 1080p limitation anyway). It's a little heartbreaking to see gorgeous aircraft models, even in the hangar, limited by a disappointing 1080p resolution on a UHD TV combined with substantially more powerful console hardware. That's even before considering the gameplay benefits of higher resolutions for making out distant details.

    Or my vision's just terrible.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    My biggest gripe with this game was dog fighting seemed....oddly difficult compared to past entries. That said, those difficulties went bye bye the second I strapped on the VR goggles. Being able to physically look behind me (up/down, left/right) and see what the other aircraft was doing really eliminated my frustrations with their tactics. Maybe I'm wrong and the aircraft counter evade differently in VR mode, but I'm a fucking killing machine in VR.

    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
    ArcticLancerBetsuni
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    My biggest gripe with this game was dog fighting seemed....oddly difficult compared to past entries. That said, those difficulties went bye bye the second I strapped on the VR goggles. Being able to physically look behind me (up/down, left/right) and see what the other aircraft was doing really eliminated my frustrations with their tactics. Maybe I'm wrong and the aircraft counter evade differently in VR mode, but I'm a fucking killing machine in VR.

    Am I incorrect in assuming the VR missions are fundamentally distinct from the normal game campaign? I don't know--probably none of us do--if that means different enemy AI implementation, considering the AI can vary pretty considerably simply by difficulty settings within the same missions.

    It's hard for me to judge, because I haven't tried AC7 in VR, though I have closely followed reviews of it--it is, fundamentally, a sort of "parallel" mini-game to the AC7 experience, which is generally how these things end up in VR, unsurprisingly. I have tried VR in actual flight combat and flight simulation games on PC, though the takeaway from that is that it's not really a surprise that the highest multiplayer-skill levels in those games completely forsake VR (and I say this as someone who firmly believes sit-down in-cockpit VR is the best VR experience, and seriously badass when done properly).

    More relevant to AC7, compared to AC5, 0, and 6, the base level from enemy AI is...higher, I'm almost certain. Not aggressively difficult by any means, but they're much more likely to use behavior more closer to the "ace behavior" in earlier titles. It's hard to remember, but most enemy AI in AC5 basically...flew on their attack path (on you, typically), turned, and then flew in a straight line and until they repeated the pattern, if they did at all. AC0 an AC6 were small, gradually increases from that. AC7 is an increase further. More likely, average AI--especially those goddamn drones--will paint you with their missile lock, then basically go into a seizure-induced turning spree the second they think you're following them in turn. That sort of behavior was typically reserved for identified "aces" in previous titles, I think.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    manwiththemachinegun
  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    You're not alone in that the game felt... off at times, certainly for me. The game was fun, but I'd agree that a number of the missions had some quirk in it that made it rather unbearable, and things like the sandstorm or the bullshiat trench run with the spotlights made it infuriating to ever play again once I got through.

    And this is more infuriating considering it's a game where you earn money to buy better planes. So you have to grind, but there's only a handful of missions you can choose that are true grinds that don't have arbitrary bullshit handicaps in them to make it more dramatic. This is the kind of game that I would love to grind in forever and get every plane and test them all out. But there's maybe half of the mission I have any true wish to play more than once, so it wasn't hard to drop the game once I beat it.

    I don't have an issue with the game, it was very fun and challenging... but I felt that some of the ideas in the game were counterproductive. You don't make a game where you grind for planes but then make most of the missions impossible to grind with. That's just silly.

    wbee62u815wj.png
    Capt Howdy
  • ThegreatcowThegreatcow Lord of All Bacons Washington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered User regular
    Holy hell I'm not alone in feeling this too. Seriously there are several missions that I straight up won't play anymore on account of how frustrating they are to play. The one that sticks out in my mind is the mission where you have to contstantly stay beneath the clouds to zap various radar and sam sites to complete the mission. At the time I didn't have a very good plane, and it took me probably a good 30-40 tries to finally beat it. I hate that level with such a fiery passion that even after beating the game with a beefed up plane I don't ever want to touch it again.

    The mission where you're having to fly close to unidentified targets to verify if they're friend or foe while also simultaneously escorting a fleeing car on the ground is also up there.

    Trajan45VoodooV
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    It's also pretty sad that you're constantly unlocking emblems and skins and titles while playing, and literally none of that matters unless you move to multiplayer.

    I haven't played since last weekend. I walked away when I failed the car-escort, which was just another "arbitrarily waste time with this opaque handicap" mission. Even though I didn't find the mission where you had to aim the bombers that enjoyable, at least it fucking empowered you a bit to do something cool for once ...
    Really hope the dev team learns some lessons from this title. It's a step-up from Assault Horizon, but geez.

  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    It also punishes you for picking slower assault craft, because you're just above the clouds longer. It's still doable, but it's pretty counter-intuitive to the mission outline.

    Thegreatcowmanwiththemachinegun
  • ThegreatcowThegreatcow Lord of All Bacons Washington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered User regular
    It also punishes you for picking slower assault craft, because you're just above the clouds longer. It's still doable, but it's pretty counter-intuitive to the mission outline.

    That was my issue initially. Since I saw it was all ground attack targets, at that point in the campaign I was rocking the A-10 and doing relatively fine up until that point, but trying to navigate the hog up and over the cloud layer, then dart back below it in order to avoid getting zorched was absolutely annoying.

  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.

    wbee62u815wj.png
    ArcticLancerThegreatcowSynthesis
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.
    Honestly, I still wouldn't even mind it if the game ever gave you an intelligent mission briefing to base your decisions off of. Most of them literally don't even properly describe the objective. Worse, sometimes briefings and radio chatter are entirely misleading ("There's a resupply line for the real pilots! You lot don't get to take advantage." except apparently it was totally fine to use that resupply line since you get a medal for finishing the mission without doing so ... :S ).
    It all compounds really effectively to frustrate and alienate the player. You might be patient enough to put up with it, or stubborn enough to push through it, but it sure could be handled better. :|

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.
    Honestly, I still wouldn't even mind it if the game ever gave you an intelligent mission briefing to base your decisions off of. Most of them literally don't even properly describe the objective. Worse, sometimes briefings and radio chatter are entirely misleading ("There's a resupply line for the real pilots! You lot don't get to take advantage." except apparently it was totally fine to use that resupply line since you get a medal for finishing the mission without doing so ... :S ).
    It all compounds really effectively to frustrate and alienate the player. You might be patient enough to put up with it, or stubborn enough to push through it, but it sure could be handled better. :|

    The bullshit dialog ("Here's a supply line for the real pilots, not you!" [AUDIO SCRIPT: INTRODUCE RESUPPLY MECHANIC]) is classic Namco/Project Aces, annoyingly. And some of these further issues could be alleviated if they'd simply loosened the time limits a little more.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.
    Honestly, I still wouldn't even mind it if the game ever gave you an intelligent mission briefing to base your decisions off of. Most of them literally don't even properly describe the objective. Worse, sometimes briefings and radio chatter are entirely misleading ("There's a resupply line for the real pilots! You lot don't get to take advantage." except apparently it was totally fine to use that resupply line since you get a medal for finishing the mission without doing so ... :S ).
    It all compounds really effectively to frustrate and alienate the player. You might be patient enough to put up with it, or stubborn enough to push through it, but it sure could be handled better. :|

    The bullshit dialog ("Here's a supply line for the real pilots, not you!" [AUDIO SCRIPT: INTRODUCE RESUPPLY MECHANIC]) is classic Namco/Project Aces, annoyingly. And some of these further issues could be alleviated if they'd simply loosened the time limits a little more.

    I dunno how many times I desperately wanted to use the A-10 on missions only for them to put arbitrary post mission bullshit in so that I can't use it. The Pipeline Destruction mission is a great example. 'Take on this ground target rich environment for 10 minutes. Have fun? Alright, now tankers are escaping in a sandstorm, good luck getting tossed around like a windsock because you have no thrust... also drones are taking potshots at you. Enjoy.'

    wbee62u815wj.png
    ThegreatcowArcticLancerSynthesis
  • DaMoonRulzDaMoonRulz Mare ImbriumRegistered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.
    Honestly, I still wouldn't even mind it if the game ever gave you an intelligent mission briefing to base your decisions off of. Most of them literally don't even properly describe the objective. Worse, sometimes briefings and radio chatter are entirely misleading ("There's a resupply line for the real pilots! You lot don't get to take advantage." except apparently it was totally fine to use that resupply line since you get a medal for finishing the mission without doing so ... :S ).
    It all compounds really effectively to frustrate and alienate the player. You might be patient enough to put up with it, or stubborn enough to push through it, but it sure could be handled better. :|

    The bullshit dialog ("Here's a supply line for the real pilots, not you!" [AUDIO SCRIPT: INTRODUCE RESUPPLY MECHANIC]) is classic Namco/Project Aces, annoyingly. And some of these further issues could be alleviated if they'd simply loosened the time limits a little more.

    I dunno how many times I desperately wanted to use the A-10 on missions only for them to put arbitrary post mission bullshit in so that I can't use it. The Pipeline Destruction mission is a great example. 'Take on this ground target rich environment for 10 minutes. Have fun? Alright, now tankers are escaping in a sandstorm, good luck getting tossed around like a windsock because you have no thrust... also drones are taking potshots at you. Enjoy.'

    Maybe next time you'll think twice before shooting down the President.

    That's solitary, for you.

    19904925_10212110475210016_877199487209228783_n.jpg?oh=da06b077303b0c8114ab8b0fbb667c4f&oe=59C4B278

    "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are smarter than one man. How's that again? I missed something" Lazarus Long

    manwiththemachinegunDrovekThegreatcowSynthesisTrajan45VoodooV
  • LD50LD50 Registered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.
    Honestly, I still wouldn't even mind it if the game ever gave you an intelligent mission briefing to base your decisions off of. Most of them literally don't even properly describe the objective. Worse, sometimes briefings and radio chatter are entirely misleading ("There's a resupply line for the real pilots! You lot don't get to take advantage." except apparently it was totally fine to use that resupply line since you get a medal for finishing the mission without doing so ... :S ).
    It all compounds really effectively to frustrate and alienate the player. You might be patient enough to put up with it, or stubborn enough to push through it, but it sure could be handled better. :|

    The bullshit dialog ("Here's a supply line for the real pilots, not you!" [AUDIO SCRIPT: INTRODUCE RESUPPLY MECHANIC]) is classic Namco/Project Aces, annoyingly. And some of these further issues could be alleviated if they'd simply loosened the time limits a little more.

    I dunno how many times I desperately wanted to use the A-10 on missions only for them to put arbitrary post mission bullshit in so that I can't use it. The Pipeline Destruction mission is a great example. 'Take on this ground target rich environment for 10 minutes. Have fun? Alright, now tankers are escaping in a sandstorm, good luck getting tossed around like a windsock because you have no thrust... also drones are taking potshots at you. Enjoy.'

    I think this is the worst thing about the game. Never ever take a ground assault plane on a mission. Almost every ground attack mission is really a air to air mission in the end, and you can do ground assaults in a dogfighter but not the reverse.

    Capt Howdy
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    LD50 wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.
    Honestly, I still wouldn't even mind it if the game ever gave you an intelligent mission briefing to base your decisions off of. Most of them literally don't even properly describe the objective. Worse, sometimes briefings and radio chatter are entirely misleading ("There's a resupply line for the real pilots! You lot don't get to take advantage." except apparently it was totally fine to use that resupply line since you get a medal for finishing the mission without doing so ... :S ).
    It all compounds really effectively to frustrate and alienate the player. You might be patient enough to put up with it, or stubborn enough to push through it, but it sure could be handled better. :|

    The bullshit dialog ("Here's a supply line for the real pilots, not you!" [AUDIO SCRIPT: INTRODUCE RESUPPLY MECHANIC]) is classic Namco/Project Aces, annoyingly. And some of these further issues could be alleviated if they'd simply loosened the time limits a little more.

    I dunno how many times I desperately wanted to use the A-10 on missions only for them to put arbitrary post mission bullshit in so that I can't use it. The Pipeline Destruction mission is a great example. 'Take on this ground target rich environment for 10 minutes. Have fun? Alright, now tankers are escaping in a sandstorm, good luck getting tossed around like a windsock because you have no thrust... also drones are taking potshots at you. Enjoy.'

    I think this is the worst thing about the game. Never ever take a ground assault plane on a mission. Almost every ground attack mission is really a air to air mission in the end, and you can do ground assaults in a dogfighter but not the reverse.
    Yep. I just went through the island assistance mission this morning.
    "Hey, support the ground troops." *5 minutes later* THIS IS NOW AN AIR DEFENSE MISSION! *2 minutes later* NEW GROUND TARGETS! *2 minutes later* SHOOT DOWN THOSE HIGH SPEED PLANES AND DON'T GET SHOT DOWN BY THE MAGICALLY TELEPORTED ENEMY REINFORCEMENTS!
    I swear, the game has major commitment issues. :P It feels idiotic to not just default to multirole on your first play because you're going to need to do literally everything every time. Like, hey, remember the one where you were bombing silos and then suddenly had to chase down missiles accelerating towards the exosphere? :|

    Synthesis
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    Did you know that that mission doesn't actually require you to destroy any silos with the B2s to clear it? :P

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Also, fuck that ace fight on the "Bunker Buster" mission (which, frankly, was already a chore).

    Triggering the ace is fine. But some asshole at Namco had to go, "Hey, what if we make make sure the ace fight is positioned to waste the maximum amount of time possible on in the second half of the mission where timing already sucks because you need to shoot down missiles? Then they have to replay the entire tedious first half when they fail! Yeah, I'm so smart!"

    At least it wasn't all that nice looking a skin anyway.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    IDK, the mission designs weren't the best, but even with some annoying ones, they didn't have anything nearly as bad as Ace Combat 5's mission 19 and 27. And I enjoyed them way more than AC:AH. Was the story weirdly dis-jointed? yep, but I still liked it more than Ace Combat 6.

    I think they did ok, given the constraints they had. There are plenty of stories around the troubled development. They were also playing around with weather for the first time. On top of all that, as a developer, you're looking to push the envelope on what you did before, which is probably where the ground/air/ground/air stuff came in (probably originally thought of as an additional challenge). When you don't have the budget or timeline to allow for mission redesign once you're in the playtesting stage, it's too late.

    Was it better than AC 4/5/0? Nope, but it was still ok. I'm glad it sold well and I hope it buys the team more trust from the higher ups and a larger budget when dealing with the next game; which will hopefully be on the next gen systems.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
    manwiththemachinegunJohnny Chopsocky
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    IDK, the mission designs weren't the best, but even with some annoying ones, they didn't have anything nearly as bad as Ace Combat 5's mission 19 and 27. And I enjoyed them way more than AC:AH. Was the story weirdly dis-jointed? yep, but I still liked it more than Ace Combat 6.

    I think they did ok, given the constraints they had. There are plenty of stories around the troubled development. They were also playing around with weather for the first time. On top of all that, as a developer, you're looking to push the envelope on what you did before, which is probably where the ground/air/ground/air stuff came in (probably originally thought of as an additional challenge). When you don't have the budget or timeline to allow for mission redesign once you're in the playtesting stage, it's too late.

    Was it better than AC 4/5/0? Nope, but it was still ok. I'm glad it sold well and I hope it buys the team more trust from the higher ups and a larger budget when dealing with the next game; which will hopefully be on the next gen systems.
    Madness.
    7 has definitely made me curious to try the older titles. Is there a suggested starting point for that, or "anything is fine" and whatever is easiest to obtain is the best bet?

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    I think it's better than AC4, but that's not particularly high praise.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    AC4 was my first AC game so flaws are going to be covered in nostalgia. It's also been a really long time since I played it. AC5 came with my AC7 order which allowed me to go back to it; and AC6 was on the x360, so a bit more recent.

    For AC6, if you have the disc still, seems you can play it on the Xbox1. For all the others, it's going to be tough. It's rumored that AC5 and Zero will come to the PS4, but for now AC5 was a pre-order bonus only.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    My biggest gripe with this game was dog fighting seemed....oddly difficult compared to past entries. That said, those difficulties went bye bye the second I strapped on the VR goggles. Being able to physically look behind me (up/down, left/right) and see what the other aircraft was doing really eliminated my frustrations with their tactics. Maybe I'm wrong and the aircraft counter evade differently in VR mode, but I'm a fucking killing machine in VR.

    Am I incorrect in assuming the VR missions are fundamentally distinct from the normal game campaign? I don't know--probably none of us do--if that means different enemy AI implementation, considering the AI can vary pretty considerably simply by difficulty settings within the same missions.

    It's hard for me to judge, because I haven't tried AC7 in VR, though I have closely followed reviews of it--it is, fundamentally, a sort of "parallel" mini-game to the AC7 experience, which is generally how these things end up in VR, unsurprisingly. I have tried VR in actual flight combat and flight simulation games on PC, though the takeaway from that is that it's not really a surprise that the highest multiplayer-skill levels in those games completely forsake VR (and I say this as someone who firmly believes sit-down in-cockpit VR is the best VR experience, and seriously badass when done properly).

    More relevant to AC7, compared to AC5, 0, and 6, the base level from enemy AI is...higher, I'm almost certain. Not aggressively difficult by any means, but they're much more likely to use behavior more closer to the "ace behavior" in earlier titles. It's hard to remember, but most enemy AI in AC5 basically...flew on their attack path (on you, typically), turned, and then flew in a straight line and until they repeated the pattern, if they did at all. AC0 an AC6 were small, gradually increases from that. AC7 is an increase further. More likely, average AI--especially those goddamn drones--will paint you with their missile lock, then basically go into a seizure-induced turning spree the second they think you're following them in turn. That sort of behavior was typically reserved for identified "aces" in previous titles, I think.

    Yeah, the VR missions are entirely self contained from the main game minus your air craft selection. The enemy AI certainly felt like they were going turn crazy like the main game, only now with VR I could see the maneuvers they were using much easier. (I know the game lets you use the sticks to look left/right up/down, but I suck at it for some reason)
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Quiotu wrote: »
    Mmm, I felt the missions were appropriate, I appreciated there were situations that forced you to act more like a pilot. ID'ing targets before wasting them, dealing with weather conditions, planning your approach etc.

    That radar mission for example is explicitly designed to punish those that rush straight in. If you check your map, there's a clear cloud path that circles back around the base.

    I don't mind there being a specific best path to finish the mission... I think the issue is that the missions are constrained to the point where the best path is the ONLY path. Meaning that only select planes work well, and any others severely handicap you or makes it nearly impossible to finish the objectives. The challenge of games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne and even Monster Hunter work in some genres... but this is an arcade dogfight sim, there's not much realistic to the series other than the planes themselves. It was a drastic turn from the 'use the plane you want and have fun' style of the previous titles. It's not bad, but... it's a MUCH different experience.
    Honestly, I still wouldn't even mind it if the game ever gave you an intelligent mission briefing to base your decisions off of. Most of them literally don't even properly describe the objective. Worse, sometimes briefings and radio chatter are entirely misleading ("There's a resupply line for the real pilots! You lot don't get to take advantage." except apparently it was totally fine to use that resupply line since you get a medal for finishing the mission without doing so ... :S ).
    It all compounds really effectively to frustrate and alienate the player. You might be patient enough to put up with it, or stubborn enough to push through it, but it sure could be handled better. :|

    The bullshit dialog ("Here's a supply line for the real pilots, not you!" [AUDIO SCRIPT: INTRODUCE RESUPPLY MECHANIC]) is classic Namco/Project Aces, annoyingly. And some of these further issues could be alleviated if they'd simply loosened the time limits a little more.

    I dunno how many times I desperately wanted to use the A-10 on missions only for them to put arbitrary post mission bullshit in so that I can't use it. The Pipeline Destruction mission is a great example. 'Take on this ground target rich environment for 10 minutes. Have fun? Alright, now tankers are escaping in a sandstorm, good luck getting tossed around like a windsock because you have no thrust... also drones are taking potshots at you. Enjoy.'

    Yep, this is my other big gripe with the game. The mission brief says you're going after ground targets so of course I choose the A-10. Then after destroying the ground targets I'm told to fight an Ace in a SU who can deflect missile damage. Getting that prick down in an A-10 was a serious PITA.

    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • DaMoonRulzDaMoonRulz Mare ImbriumRegistered User regular

    19904925_10212110475210016_877199487209228783_n.jpg?oh=da06b077303b0c8114ab8b0fbb667c4f&oe=59C4B278

    "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are smarter than one man. How's that again? I missed something" Lazarus Long

    manwiththemachinegunBetsuniIanatorDrovek
  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular


    It's not Ace Combat, but dang I'm just a mark for planes that go fast and I imagine others in this thread share this sentiment.

    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
    manwiththemachinegunBetsuniDrovek
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    It's really not a complaint, but since the retirement of the F-14, the carrier-borne F-18 variant really is the only "realistic" option, huh?

    It's kind of surprising, given that the United States probably has more carrier-based naval fighters than the rest of the world combined.

    Oooh...they should have an encounter scene with Iranian F-14! Maybe escorting some misidentified Russian VVS aircraft! Spooky!

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • JOE_1967JOE_1967 Registered User regular
    It still bothers me more than it should that in the first Top Gun the "MiGs" they were shooting down were F-5s. At least Iron Eagle had the decency to have Israeli Kfirs standing in for the enemy fighters.

    Betsuni
  • BetsuniBetsuni Insert Disk 4 and Press Any Key to Continue Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    It's really not a complaint, but since the retirement of the F-14, the carrier-borne F-18 variant really is the only "realistic" option, huh?

    It's kind of surprising, given that the United States probably has more carrier-based naval fighters than the rest of the world combined.

    Oooh...they should have an encounter scene with Iranian F-14! Maybe escorting some misidentified Russian VVS aircraft! Spooky!

    Yeah, I still am not a fan of the 18... But that trailer made it look good. I'd love it if that scene with the F-14 was against an Iranian F-14!!! I'm wondering if any of the flying scenes are CGI though.
    JOE_1967 wrote: »
    It still bothers me more than it should that in the first Top Gun the "MiGs" they were shooting down were F-5s. At least Iron Eagle had the decency to have Israeli Kfirs standing in for the enemy fighters.

    At least they made up a name and number for the fake MiGs. But yeah, I'm with you there that it bummed me out that they were not real MiGs.

    oosik_betsuni.png
    Steam: betsuni7
    JOE_1967
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    JOE_1967 wrote: »
    It still bothers me more than it should that in the first Top Gun the "MiGs" they were shooting down were F-5s. At least Iron Eagle had the decency to have Israeli Kfirs standing in for the enemy fighters.

    I can kind of forgive that, but considering how much work they put into the film, it still bothers me they made a lazy mistake with the aircraft designation conventions used by the Soviet VVS: the MiG-28 is clearly a fighter, like the Tomcat, but since MiG never delivered a large multi-engine bomber, none of their accepted aircraft use even numbers, because attack aircraft, fighters, and interceptors were exclusively given odd numbers. Hence the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, and so forth.

    For comparison, Tupolev never delivered a fighter, and exclusively designed bombers (and civilian airliners), so practically all of their aircraft were given even numbers: Tu-134, Tu-144, Tu-154, Tu-22, Tu-26, etc.

    This was actually common knowledge both in the USA and USSR when the film was made, since the conventions were routinely circulated in military journals in both countries (even if certain aircraft developments were still concealed).

    A MiG-28 makes no sense. They probably wanted something between the MiG-27 and MiG-29, which were both well known in American circles? They should've just called it "a MiG", or at most, "a MiG-33" or something.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    JOE_1967BetsuniArcticLancerStormwatcher
  • JOE_1967JOE_1967 Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    JOE_1967 wrote: »
    It still bothers me more than it should that in the first Top Gun the "MiGs" they were shooting down were F-5s. At least Iron Eagle had the decency to have Israeli Kfirs standing in for the enemy fighters.

    I can kind of forgive that, but considering how much work they put into the film, it still bothers me they made a lazy mistake with the aircraft designation conventions used by the Soviet VVS: the MiG-28 is clearly a fighter, like the Tomcat, but since MiG never delivered a large multi-engine bomber, none of their accepted aircraft use even numbers, because attack aircraft, fighters, and interceptors were exclusively given odd numbers. Hence the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, and so forth.

    For comparison, Tupolev never delivered a fighter, and exclusively designed bombers (and civilian airliners), so practically all of their aircraft were given even numbers: Tu-134, Tu-144, Tu-154, Tu-22, Tu-26, etc.

    This was actually common knowledge both in the USA and USSR when the film was made, since the conventions were routinely circulated in military journals in both countries (even if certain aircraft developments were still concealed).

    A MiG-28 makes no sense. They probably wanted something between the MiG-27 and MiG-29, which were both well known in American circles? They should've just called it "a MiG", or at most, "a MiG-33" or something.

    Yeah, I haven't seen the movie in 20+ years (although I just dropped it at the head of my Netflix queue) and didn't remember that detail, but that's another thing that would've bothered me more than it should.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited July 19
    JOE_1967 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    JOE_1967 wrote: »
    It still bothers me more than it should that in the first Top Gun the "MiGs" they were shooting down were F-5s. At least Iron Eagle had the decency to have Israeli Kfirs standing in for the enemy fighters.

    I can kind of forgive that, but considering how much work they put into the film, it still bothers me they made a lazy mistake with the aircraft designation conventions used by the Soviet VVS: the MiG-28 is clearly a fighter, like the Tomcat, but since MiG never delivered a large multi-engine bomber, none of their accepted aircraft use even numbers, because attack aircraft, fighters, and interceptors were exclusively given odd numbers. Hence the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, and so forth.

    For comparison, Tupolev never delivered a fighter, and exclusively designed bombers (and civilian airliners), so practically all of their aircraft were given even numbers: Tu-134, Tu-144, Tu-154, Tu-22, Tu-26, etc.

    This was actually common knowledge both in the USA and USSR when the film was made, since the conventions were routinely circulated in military journals in both countries (even if certain aircraft developments were still concealed).

    A MiG-28 makes no sense. They probably wanted something between the MiG-27 and MiG-29, which were both well known in American circles? They should've just called it "a MiG", or at most, "a MiG-33" or something.

    Yeah, I haven't seen the movie in 20+ years (although I just dropped it at the head of my Netflix queue) and didn't remember that detail, but that's another thing that would've bothered me more than it should.

    I don't recall where I originally read this, years ago (way before any hint of a sequel), it was pointed out on a website discussion of the film, and I thought "Son of a bitch, that's true!" and its bothered me since.

    I've also heard the explanation that it's supposed to be wrong, and reflect the USAF/NATO's occasional habit of incorrectly designating aircraft when first encountered, but I don't think that was the case.

    Though compared to, for example, a MiG-31 being operated via telepathy, it's not so much of a hum-dinger.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    JOE_1967BetsuniVoodooV
  • JOE_1967JOE_1967 Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    JOE_1967 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    JOE_1967 wrote: »
    It still bothers me more than it should that in the first Top Gun the "MiGs" they were shooting down were F-5s. At least Iron Eagle had the decency to have Israeli Kfirs standing in for the enemy fighters.

    I can kind of forgive that, but considering how much work they put into the film, it still bothers me they made a lazy mistake with the aircraft designation conventions used by the Soviet VVS: the MiG-28 is clearly a fighter, like the Tomcat, but since MiG never delivered a large multi-engine bomber, none of their accepted aircraft use even numbers, because attack aircraft, fighters, and interceptors were exclusively given odd numbers. Hence the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, and so forth.

    For comparison, Tupolev never delivered a fighter, and exclusively designed bombers (and civilian airliners), so practically all of their aircraft were given even numbers: Tu-134, Tu-144, Tu-154, Tu-22, Tu-26, etc.

    This was actually common knowledge both in the USA and USSR when the film was made, since the conventions were routinely circulated in military journals in both countries (even if certain aircraft developments were still concealed).

    A MiG-28 makes no sense. They probably wanted something between the MiG-27 and MiG-29, which were both well known in American circles? They should've just called it "a MiG", or at most, "a MiG-33" or something.

    Yeah, I haven't seen the movie in 20+ years (although I just dropped it at the head of my Netflix queue) and didn't remember that detail, but that's another thing that would've bothered me more than it should.

    I don't recall where I originally read this, years ago (way before any hint of a sequel), it was pointed out on a website discussion of the film, and I thought "Son of a bitch, that's true!" and its bothered me since.

    I've also heard the explanation that it's supposed to be wrong, and reflect the USAF/NATO's occasional habit of incorrectly designating aircraft when first encountered, but I don't think that was the case.

    Though compared to, for example, a MiG-31 being operated via telepathy, it's not so much of a hum-dinger.

    Yeah, in the pantheon of 1980s fighter jet movies, Firefox comes in a distant third despite all of Clint Eastwood's scowling. Maybe fourth if you stretch the definition to include Flight of the Intruder.

    (Personally, I always liked Iron Eagle best, but that's mostly because I imprinted on the F-16 at a very early age.)

    manwiththemachinegun
Sign In or Register to comment.