I just need a vehicular game with the physics of Nuclear Option, where flying around feel like a constant games of avoiding radar, missiles and hiding your signatures.

>>716468628
>Good movement does not actually make the game better.
>what matters is how the game is designed around its movement
That's what "Good movement" means, disingenuous smartass.

>I would rather have a game where I move slowly and don't have many movement
Speed is irrelevant.

>than "do the cool speed strat that gets boring halfway through the game (at best)."
But that's like... just your opinion anon.
Everyone's tastes are different.
No matter ho much you dislike having to move around, you won't convince anyone that games should be limited to slow, flat, no-jump, movements in a corridor.

>Mario 64
I hate Nintendo, but Mario 64 was still a superb demonstration of the power of inertia-driven movement mechanic.

>>530094258
It's basically like "what if we assumed Strangereal's absurdly robust datalink and aircraft ease-of-use was canon, and then accurately simulated everything else?" It's fun but it's you need to know about actual flying stuff, you can't just dodge missiles by constantly looping in place.

This game is the perfect example of why sams in air rb would make the game so much better.

This game is the perfect example of why sams in air rb would make the game so much better.

This game is the perfect example of why sams in air rb would make the game so much better.

This game is the perfect example of why sams in air rb would make the game so much better.

This game is the perfect example of why sams in air rb would make the game so much better.

This game is the perfect example of why sams in air rb would make the game so much better.

This game is the perfect example of why sams in air rb would make the game so much better.