Taken a few too many tips from Tom Clancy games

[Lemming77]

I recently got my hands on Birds of Prey, after having bought IL-2 1946 over Steam not long ago, and it looks to me like what's happened here is what happened to the likes of Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon years ago. While the first was more of a hardcore simulation, this is more dumbed down for the 'casual gamer'.

Graphics, I'm gonna be brutally honest about. BOP's adopted this ****-ugly colour palette consisting of different shades of brown and black. Sometimes it'll get so dark in a town that targets become very difficult to distinguish, whereas everything was always crystal clear before. If anything, this is a step forward in technology which took us a step backwards in gameplay.

Every now and again I'll hear people say something over the radio which doesn't seem appropriate for the given context, and is just intended to break the silence. Which it does. But to be honest, having some wanker shouting "What're you waiting for" when all I've got left to do is land at the airfield which happens to be about 50 miles away isn't the smartest feature to have.

The controls is really bothering me too. I quickly got fed up with using a PS3 controller, so bought a PS3 compatible joystick (http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/4-/9229248/Thrustmaster-T-Flight-Hotas-X-Joystick-PC/Product.html?ptsl=1&ob=Price&fb=0). The problem with this though is the game didn't adjust the deadzones to be something more appropriate. And in the end this turned out to be more difficult to use than the PS3 controller.

But the strangest thing which has happened is there's no PC version. Besides me being crabby about having a £120 Saitek X52, and £160 TrackIR I'd like to use with BOP, IL2 established it's entire original fanbase on PC. Why leave them behind in favour of PS3 and Xbox?

The game's been fun so far, sure, but disappointing at the same time. It feels like child's play compared to 1946.

[fuzzychickens]

Deadzones on ps3 to be adjustable in first update.

Plus support for PC flight sticks on PS3- not sure to what extent though.

[Maxtor]

That joystick is only £24.99 at Argos. (CAT number 064/2516)
PC has a new version coming out -
http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/1021002/Storm-Of-War-Battle-Of-Britain/Product.html

[draux]

Maybe you should stick with 1946 then.

[Lexandro]

I have to disagree with almost your entire post. The graphics for BoP are VASTLY superior to the original PC game. If you cant see that then you must need glasses. And FYI I game on PC and have done for years so I know what Im talking about when it comes to graphics. There is no better looking combat flight game on the market at this time, FACT.

BoP wasnt "dumbed down", it was an entirely new project utilising the same franchise to launch it towards console gamers. This game was NEVER EVER designed for PC play, so there was no dumbing down. The fact that a console has much less options in controls (ie no keyboard) means that parts of what a "sim" would be considered standard had to be dropped. There is simply no point putting in hundreds of control features if you cant use them.
The fact that you have TrackIR or a 150 buck joystick is not even relevant.

Sound wise, you can actually turn off the radio if its bothering you. I quiet like it as it gives you an audio cue for when your close to an action point (ie landing/attacking). Otherwise the audio in this game is fantastic and I absolutely adore the roar of a Merlin engine at full chat in the game, is almost tone perfectly exact.

And frankly your post sounds simply like a PC gamers whinge at a console exclusive title.

[PantherAttack2]

I have to disagree with almost your entire post. The graphics for BoP are VASTLY superior to the original PC game. If you cant see that then you must need glasses. And FYI I game on PC and have done for years so I know what Im talking about when it comes to graphics. There is no better looking combat flight game on the market at this time, FACT.

BoP wasnt "dumbed down", it was an entirely new project utilising the same franchise to launch it towards console gamers. This game was NEVER EVER designed for PC play, so there was no dumbing down. The fact that a console has much less options in controls (ie no keyboard) means that parts of what a "sim" would be considered standard had to be dropped. There is simply no point putting in hundreds of control features if you cant use them.
The fact that you have TrackIR or a 150 buck joystick is not even relevant.

Sound wise, you can actually turn off the radio if its bothering you. I quiet like it as it gives you an audio cue for when your close to an action point (ie landing/attacking). Otherwise the audio in this game is fantastic and I absolutely adore the roar of a Merlin engine at full chat in the game, is almost tone perfectly exact.

And frankly your post sounds simply like a PC gamers whinge at a console exclusive title.

I agree with all of that.

[Lemming77]

I have to disagree with almost your entire post. The graphics for BoP are VASTLY superior to the original PC game. If you cant see that then you must need glasses. And FYI I game on PC and have done for years so I know what Im talking about when it comes to graphics. There is no better looking combat flight game on the market at this time, FACT.

There's nothing wrong with my eyesight. I have no difficulty reading very small writing, but have trouble spotting targets in a few places. My eyesight is not the problem.

BoP wasnt "dumbed down", it was an entirely new project utilising the same franchise to launch it towards console gamers. This game was NEVER EVER designed for PC play, so there was no dumbing down. The fact that a console has much less options in controls (ie no keyboard) means that parts of what a "sim" would be considered standard had to be dropped. There is simply no point putting in hundreds of control features if you cant use them.

You've pretty much confirmed my point right here.

I know a lot of the dropped features are justified by the hideously limited controls options. What a flight simulator's even doing on said controls is a good question, but irrelevant.

I suppose it'd bother me less if I didn't find myself shooting down loads and loads of enemies each mission. In 1946, all the planes could take as much damage as yours. Basically, if you shoot down 2 planes, you've beaten the odds. This degree of equality really separates the men from the boys (leaving me on the latter side of the scale XP), but in BOP I find myself shooting down 10-20 planes on some of the missions. And I'm a hideously inexperienced pilot.

The fact that you have TrackIR or a 150 buck joystick is not even relevant.

True, just frustrated because I bought the two hoping I'd get some use out of BOP with them, amongst other games. Just venting I suppose.

Sound wise, you can actually turn off the radio if its bothering you. I quiet like it as it gives you an audio cue for when your close to an action point (ie landing/attacking). Otherwise the audio in this game is fantastic and I absolutely adore the roar of a Merlin engine at full chat in the game, is almost tone perfectly exact.

Hm, didn't know you could do that, thanks for the advice. :)

And frankly your post sounds simply like a PC gamers whinge at a console exclusive title.

I know it sounds like the usual PC gamer's complaints over a console game, but the only reason I mentioned the lack of a PC release is IL-2 already had a lot of fans it had gained from releases on PC. So why leave them out this time round? Just doesn't make sense.

[QBlackDeathQ]

I recently got my hands on Birds of Prey, after having bought IL-2 1946 over Steam not long ago, and it looks to me like what's happened here is what happened to the likes of Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon years ago. While the first was more of a hardcore simulation, this is more dumbed down for the 'casual gamer'.

Graphics, I'm gonna be brutally honest about. BOP's adopted this ****-ugly colour palette consisting of different shades of brown and black. Sometimes it'll get so dark in a town that targets become very difficult to distinguish, whereas everything was always crystal clear before. If anything, this is a step forward in technology which took us a step backwards in gameplay.

Every now and again I'll hear people say something over the radio which doesn't seem appropriate for the given context, and is just intended to break the silence. Which it does. But to be honest, having some wanker shouting "What're you waiting for" when all I've got left to do is land at the airfield which happens to be about 50 miles away isn't the smartest feature to have.

The controls is really bothering me too. I quickly got fed up with using a PS3 controller, so bought a PS3 compatible joystick (http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/4-/9229248/Thrustmaster-T-Flight-Hotas-X-Joystick-PC/Product.html?ptsl=1&ob=Price&fb=0). The problem with this though is the game didn't adjust the deadzones to be something more appropriate. And in the end this turned out to be more difficult to use than the PS3 controller.

But the strangest thing which has happened is there's no PC version. Besides me being crabby about having a £120 Saitek X52, and £160 TrackIR I'd like to use with BOP, IL2 established it's entire original fanbase on PC. Why leave them behind in favour of PS3 and Xbox?

The game's been fun so far, sure, but disappointing at the same time. It feels like child's play compared to 1946.

The game is almost perfect in fact, its the best sim i have seen on the next gen systems. I dont really think your problem is the joystick or controls. i just think it takes some time to get use to. keep playing you will get better

P.S i also hate the fact that the camo on the birds really works they should all be painted hotpink and have strobs. :roll:

[Lemming77]

P.S i also hate the fact that the camo on the birds really works they should all be painted hotpink and have strobs. :roll:

If we're still talking about WWII, why are the camo patterns more effective than they were before? :roll:

Oh wait, brown mixes with brown, yeah, my mistake.

[Lexandro]

A well considered reply Lemming, and you taken my post in the manner it was intended (non-offensive, just straight to the point).

On the subject of "dumbing down" you are missing my point and reading what you want to see in to it. BoP is not a PC sim game, its a console "sim" game. There are major differences in how the two are constructed and played. The point I was making is that what you expect of a PC title is not the same as a console title.

The controls were simplified thats all there is to it really. As a PC flight sim player I know only to well that the vast amount of buttons in a flight game will put off 99% of people who try them. The market for full sim games is extremely small, and is limited to the PC.

IL2 may have a fan base but that is never enough to gaurantee a titles success. With the PC game market as stagnant as it is, for the team to make another PC sim game would be suicide for the franchise. And with BoP as it is now, far to many of the former IL2 players would be demanding features from the old title in a PC version of the same game. This would create major problems for the team, as it would be seen as favouring one system over another, especially at a time when even the mighty MS have cancelled the MS flight simulator series due to budgetary requirements.

As for your comment of the kills attained per mission. Its a game, its supposed to be fun first and foremost. While us PC simmers are happy to sit staring at a screen for hours on end scanning for a single black pixel in a blue sky to do a single mission, console players are not. In the same fashion, console gamers dont like games where its simply one or two kills per mission. Thats why the game has such a high kill ratio, gamers want to kill stuff and lots of it!

If we're still talking about WWII, why are the camo patterns more effective than they were before? :roll:

Oh wait, brown mixes with brown, yeah, my mistake.

Oh come now, what colour is the ground in RL? Just take a look at ANY colour photo of a spit and you will see similar colour markings used. THe reason its so easy to see on a the PC game is because the PC game itself is so old that there are no proper lighting effects and the graphics are terribly simplified compared to any modern game ( no offence to dev team, just stating fact). In RL when your flying at 1000 feet its bloody hard to see an aircraft below you if its camo'd, many pilots in the WW2 era went out to a target and simply couldnt find it. Thats as it is in the game.

[TexRoadkill]

PC didn't get overlooked. They have their own sequel.
Storm of War
http://pc.ign.com/objects/827/827819.html

[Lexandro]

Er didnt this game get dropped for HAWKS? According to that site the game is out now. I seem to remember a while back that Ubi were making a flight game that got cancelled.

[David603]

Ubisoft has nothing to do with Storm of War. The game is being developed by Maddox Games, who are the creators and developers of the PC Il2 series, and will be published by 1C Publishing. The first game in the Storm of War series will be SoW: Battle of Britain, due out in September 2010, and SoW: Korea is also under development.

[jack3auer]

The radio broadcasts that "aren't in the appropriate context" are just radio chatter that is from other aircraft / operations happening at the time. just because your flying your mission, doesn't mean no-one else can speak. i quite like it, it adds to the experience.

[Houndstone Hawk]

Re: "when all I've got left to do is land at the airfield which happens to be about 50 miles away isn't the smartest feature to have".

Ha Ha. Enjoy that whilst you can as pretty soon, even that gets taken away from you as soon as you hit Sicily!!!

[Smidlee]

I agree with some points of both Lemming and Lexandro. I really miss Track IR from the PC but also I really like the fact I'm not looking at the clear blue sky for 5 minutes hoping to kill one or two planes. While this is probably closer to being realistic I find it very fun killing 10-20 planes a mission as well as unlimited ammo. (I'm far from being a pro at PC IL-2)
So sometimes a "dumb down" version isn't a bad thing. Who knows if this version will get more console gamers interested in PC flight sims.

[PantherAttack2]

If you want something more realistic, fly a real fighter plane!

Until then, just have fun and enjoy the game. It is made very well and although some things could be improved on, it's only a game. Don't forget, a flight sim is still a game anyways, even with full features. ;)

[KurtG85]

You are right about the radio chatter, it is annoying and terribly out of context, at least the english chatter (russian is fine as it is just filler and not really repetitively annoying because its so foreign IMO).

Your complaints about graphics being ugly are your opinion but calling this game ugly seriously puts the credibility of the rest of your comments in question for me. I mean... look at the competing games' graphics... ??

As for your comment of, "What a flight simulator's even doing on said controls is a good question, but irrelevant.", that's pretty much the clincher for me showing your bias; that is, your insinuating that you can't understand why a massive group of gamers would be allowed to experience an adapted genre of game because the game shouldn't have been made unless it had a keyboard to back up its controls. The answer to the question should be common sense: the developers brought a sim (with simplified specific plane control functions) to the consoles because they wanted console players to be able to experience a sim-physics style flight game. They thought players would enjoy it and want to buy it.... so they made it. Whether a game is deemed a 'sim' or not whether you have a specific button to press in order to adjust your testicle position is a matter of subjectivity but you would have to be quite an extremely neurotic individual to honestly find it entirely illogical why a flight sim would be adapted for console.