What makes a sim?

It seems to me that many define a sim in terms of whether it is difficult or hard to play, or not.

But I haven’t seen a more detailed discussion about what a sim is. I probably need to stress that there's nothing wrong with preferring one type of game over the other.

Also it should be noted that we are, most of us armchair pilots, and those amongst us who are pilots irl have not always had the chance of flying the particular aircraft that are modelled in a given sim/game. This means that there will always be an element of subjective evaluation and guestimation involved. The totally objective truth is probably impossible to ascertain. Besides, none of us were there, (as far s WW1 is concerned) so we must acknowledge that we're basing a lot of our logic on the available sources.

Now, imagine a scale from 1 to 100. Now consider that the highest value is used to indicate full sim, 50 is used to indicate "middle-of-the road, and 1 is full arcade.

Next we need to think about what parameters should go into the system. I'll suggest the following:

1. Flight-models; how well does the flight model compare with real life
2. Models; how well do the models of planes, vehicles, buildings, weapons compare with real life
3. Terrain; how well does the terrain compare with real life terrain
4. Gameplay; How well does the gameplay (missions, campaign, objectives, tactics, AI behaviour) compare with real life
5. Historical accuracy; how well are historical facts incorporated (Squadrons, markings, a/c developments, frontlines, battles)
6. Credibility/fidelity to the experience; Does the sim/game give you and me the impression that this is really like it could have been, even if the mission or campaign is not 100% backed up by established historical events? This is where the "feel" of the package comes into play.

I think those are the more obvious ones, the ones that are the first to come to mind.

Now place a couple of sims and games in that system. And see what you get. We can probably agree to quite a large extent on titles like BoB, RB3, FCG, Il-2 to being placed somewhere between 70 and 100, and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe being between, I don't know, let's say 70 to 40.

Note that a parameter such as difficulty, or hard to play has not been mentioned yet. And that I haven't mentioned the scaleability thereof either.

These are important elements, but they really are not connected to the evaluation of a given games "sim-yness".

So we have to use a scale system again, this time to say something about these other parameters. This time we'll have to define a different scale though: 0 is for not present, 100 for present and perfect. Values in between are used to indicate that element is present but with some sort of qualifyer against it.

The parameters are (amongst others):
1. Scaleability of Flight-models, models (weapons-effectiveness, instruments), Gameplay (Easy mission/campaign, Easy objectives, Easy tactics, Easy AI)
2. Support of Mouse-look/TrackIR
3. Introduction of Aids such as e.g. threat-markers, radar-HUD

Now place the same sims you chose under the sim-scale and see what you come up with.

And in terms of Gameplay, and the scale is the one used under the scaleability section:
1. Mission Generator
2. Multiplayer, Internet, LAN, split-screen or other form of dual play
3. "What-if" scenarios or missions/campaigns that are developed to give the player "instant gratification", perhaps as "quick-shots" or "fly now" missions/campaigns.
4. That elusive quality of ambience: Some games have them some don't. It's the quality that let's you play your favourite over and over again in spite of it being technically inferior, or replaced with newer titles, with better graphics or models with more polys.
5. RPG/character development
6. Fantasy elements like power ups, your plane can be upgraded to a UFO what have you.


Same exercise as with the previous two scales.

Now we have defined the sims/gaames in 3 main categories; one that attempts to place any game or sim on a scale defining its qualities as a sim, one that defines it in terms of scaleablility/user-friendliness, and finally one scale that defines it in terms of gameplay/logevity.

Now what about the fun aspect, I hear you ask.

Well, fun is totally subjective, my idea of fun may and probably will differ from your idea of fun. That's why fun cannot be, and should not be attempted to be, pre-programmed into any kind of entertainment software. Imo it can't be done.

Determining is a game or sim is fun for you should be slightly easier, And discussing what exactly a sim is should also be slightly less confusing if you had those 6+3+5 paramaters in mind when describing a given sim or game.

With this system you can make a more informed descision (and make a more detailed review as well, if you write reviews). Consider two flight sims that score as follows (just a hypothetical example):

Sim-scale:
Sim a b
Flight-models: 60 80
Models: 60 80
Terrain: 60 80
Gameplay: 60 80
Historical: 60 80
Credibility: 80 80
Subtotal: 400 480

All this will tell us is that b is slightly more simmy than a.


Scaleablility-scale
Sim a b
Scaleability: 80 20
TIr etc. 50 80
Aids: 80 20
Subtotal 2: 210 120

Ok, now we know that the slightly less simmy alternative is the best with regards to scaleablility.

Gameplay-scale
Sim a b
Mission Gen.: 60 80
Multiplay: 80 80
Inst.Action: 80 20
Ambience: 60 80
RPG/Character: 60 0
Storyline: 80 20
Fantasy: 80 20
Subtotal 3: 500 300

And the slightly less simmy alternative scores high in terms of attempts to add RPF and other elements. Additionally it provides easy access to instant action.

So we have:
Sim a b
Subtotal 2: 210 120
Subtotal 3: 500 300
Total Score: 710 400

You see that although both alternatives seemed quite close, there are many differences too, and one or more of those differences might be very important to you, when you decide which sim to get. I'd want the one with the lowest total score. What you'd want is entirely up to you to decide.