Originally Posted by Kittle (Post 220618)

Is the smoke some sort of defensive measure from units on the ground? I know in tactical ground combat and over industral areas it was common place, but against tactical air attacks I have no clue. I hope so, make the AI seem a bit less like AI and more like a real enemy trying to save their own life!

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 220604)

Wasting time to make a 3 minute recording on a high end PC. Have a word with yourself Badaim, think of how many more sales will be generated knowing that if you have the right gear you can run this game maxed out. We want this game to be successful, we want it to sell shed loads of copies, we want reviewers to sing its praises, but we also want to see it to believe it. For the record i dont really give a rats ass about the dynamic campaign, or the dynamic weather or the manned AA guns, I never believed that the game engine could cope with such features in the first place and I said so 2 years ago, Im not upset about the DRM, its all cool with me. However I would like to know that if im chasing a Bomber over a town or city that Im not going to drop down to 5 FPS.

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo (Post 220593)

You're assuming a reviewer will have a crappy system, and not an advanced "high end" system that most review houses have. I think you are a detractor/troll/sperglord from what I've seen, and certainly a pessimist. Will it get high scores from most mass market reviewers? Probably not, but they review for the average gamer and not for niche market gamers like us. You frequently post non-constructive criticisms, and frankly have turned many people who are excited about this sim off of these forums, and I say that not as an uniformed poster, but as someone who reads other forums that are excited about this particular sim.

Originally Posted by furbs (Post 220614)

wouldnt it be easier if we had a fantastic HD video to show them?

Originally Posted by Robert (Post 220631)

I used to subscribe to Maximum PC back in the day. It is a magazine aimed mostly at hardware verses an actual gaming software, though they reviewed 2 games a month. They reviewed FB quite highly (9 out of 10 if I recall). I was surprised because it was so out of the ordinary to see a simulation reviewed in that magazine. People will recognize quality.

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo (Post 220635)

A single instance does not an effective argument make. Most review magazines/sights are paid to review a game, and what they get paid makes a difference on how well the game is reviewed. I did make a point to say "mainstream reviewers." There will be exceptions to every rule, and pointing out one such exception does not prove a contrary point. They don't recognize quality in most instances they recognize what their readers will enjoy over what is quality. I am not saying that everyone without exclusion will say Cliffs of Dover is not fun, but most will at VERY LEAST say it is not for the average gamer, and therefore most will review it poorly for being "too complex/hard" to be enjoyable.

I hope I am wrong in this regard, but I've been gaming long enough and reading reviews long enough that I know that filler garbage like Halo, Call of Duty, and World of Warcraft get excellent reviews while quality complex stuff like Rise of Flight and X3 Terran conflict (both of which are simmy, and have the developers hearts and souls in them) get horrible reviews.

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo (Post 220586)

Pretty sure that both Oleg and Ilya have posted on these topics before, or are misleading questions.

1. They have said they don't want to make misleading and shopped videos like other companies do. Most companies' early videos are teaser trailers that are rendered and not in game.

2. Ubisoft made the release statement, and they really don't give 2 shits they just want to get money.

3. I would hardly call those the "Main attractive features" sure they are great, and it has already been told to us that it just won't make initial release. This is the team that has continued to support a decade old simulator WHILE making a brand new significantly cutting edge simulator

4. The DRM doesn't sound awful, but 1C Maddox has little input on this, and yes I am against limited install DRM even if this isn't super restrictive like some we have seen in the past from Ubi.

5. This is far from half finished, and they have to get their money to continue supporting themselves and their families. They will support this game they aren't some huge dev house that fire and forgets what they make. They have proven that if nothing they are loyal to their fans.

I have to say yes I am a little disappointed about some of those facts (dynamic weather and DRM to be specific), but I have faith that 1C Maddox will support this simulator for years to come, and any features that aren't ready the day of release won't be as important as the features that are. Furthermore, that features that have been promised to this community will be in in future releases, and I don't believe it will be only with the purchase of expansions like other dev houses would do. They will be patches given freely, and that expansions and additions to the title that are paid for will add much more life both online and in single-plaI yer modes.

Once again Thank You to all the people at 1C Maddox for all your hard work and your diligent attention to this sometimes winy community.

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 220591)

Well theres no point sending the game to be reviewed by any PC mags without at first telling the potential reviewer what system specs he/she need to run the game smoothly, the first thing anybody will do in a battle of britian sim is whack the detail up and try and bomb London or defend it. As luthier as said this will only create a slide show hence the game review score will ultimately be very low.

Originally Posted by sk065 (Post 220644)

I have to say that I think a lot of you have the blinkers on and are treating the devs with too much reverence. hey have yet to prove anything by means of decent gamplay videos, previews, reviews.