Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday Update

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Friday Update - December 9, 2011 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=28376)

Quote:

Originally Posted by superman (Post 368856)

Oleg was very very specific about not promising anything as I remember.

But I too got my expectations very high.

Like so many things in life, if you don't match your expectations with real world you will have an endless streak of disappointments top deal with.

But if it's so horrible why not cur your losses at the 50$ or so that you spent. walk away and give the money to the competion instead.

(Ok you wont get a refund, but then again the money some people spent on beer consumed in front of a computer screen whining about CoD will not be refunded either.)

Or better still:

put out your own, much better, product on the market and steal their source of income

That would show them :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 368820)

if it got broken in the mail then it's the postmans fault, is it impossible for you to wait just like the rest of us while they fix the broken product?

it was an analogy....

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 368881)

The problem with this pov is that there really isn't space for much information on the box. :)

What with all the font options aval these days I don't see listing 'dynamic weather' on the box being an issue.. Had it been included

And lets not forget the advertisements posted at official 1C/UBI web site, where space is not an issue, take note there that in both cases we received everything that was advertised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 368881)

Most of the people on this forum will have been following closely the regular dev weekly updates over the preceding year+ which went into great detail about exactly the features that would be in the game (or were expected to be in the game)

The problem with this pov is that it is a loose loose situation for game makers..

Quote:

1) If a game maker does an interview listing all the things their new graphics engine is capable of two years prior to the release of the game, and only manages to provide 8 of the 10 things they talked about come day of release, there is always going to be a vocal group who's unrealistic expectations expected 11 out of the 10 things mentioned, and thus feel let down or whose cheated.

2) If a game maker does and interview and does not say anything about what their new graphics engine is capable of two years prior to release of the game, there is always going to be a vocal group who will feel let down or whose yet cheated by not getting any details

So poor 1C.. Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 368881)

It is just being really disingenuous for some people to insist that everything that was expected was included at release. I bet even Luthier would not attempt to take that position.

Agreed 100%

Just to be crystal, I think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was ever mentioned over the past six years of CoD development to make its way into the game, but I don't think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was advertised on the box and official web site to be included at release. Problem is a lot of people can not distinguish between the two

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 368881)

I really don't know why certain folks here have such sensitivity to any implied criticism of the game that they are reduced to such distortions.

The worst part about these 'myths' is that they cloud the real issues with the game. There are plenty of problems with CoD for people to be disappointed with, tossing in myths for people to get more upset about does no one any good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 368881)

For the record, before Aces or someone else jumps in with the usual response, I'm not one of the compulsive knockers of this game (ask someone like Tree about my defense of the game in the run-up to release). I just can't have the woolly dishonesty and distortions of those who refuse to recognize any problems.

Agreed 100%

Those people who can not recognize the real problems from the myth problems are a big problem IMHO. They put so much att and effort into the myths that some of the real problems go unnoticed.. Than there is the way the 1C team must view these sorts of people.. I can only imagine that when a member from 1C reads a post that starts off complain about a 'myth' the 1C member probably stops reading the post right then and there.. Which means if that post did include some info on a real problem later in the post it will be missed by the 1C member who stop reading it at first site of the myth

Just got back from my latest vacation some mix up over what is truth and what is abusive apparently :confused:
The update isn't really an update though is it? It's more of a 'we are throwing all our resources into BOM and you beta testers will have to wait until we throw you another old bone' kinda thing. Thanks for this BS anyway.

everybody knows that all feature predicted during the devellopement may not be in the release version (because of time and be implemented later or maybe cancelled because of ressources)

but in the case of IL2 Cliffs of dover... we don't even have what we had with the old il2 when the first episode is coming out.

IA order, different weather....stability....ability to get out of his plane on ground... miror....

the fact is that they had a lot and a lot of work to do...and the minimum is to put all r'essources on BOB before doing a sequel!

we are really not in the time of first il2 where we had new plane free and lot of free patch who add feature...before buyable addons.

Quote: