Well, I dont totally agree with this one...We have been shown many many features in the course of the past 5 years...Dynamic weather, pilot's bailout animation, highly detailed lighting, leaked videos with better visuals thant what we have today, and many visual effects that were shown as part of the " developpement updates"...
Remember that Oleg was there every Fryday and was himself presenting those features as 'included' in the game...Go back to earlier photo buckets and you will find some gems in there. And compare with today's version...
Oleg did promise (!) Cinematic Photorealistic visuals...So good it would be used in upcoming movies as the new code would be a great tool for movie makers.
So the high expectations were not ours 2 years ago...They were Oleg's.

Salute !

I think this is what you are referring to...
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...81&postcount=1

Yes, thank you. That is why I wrote:
These statements have absolutely different meaning. Luthier talks about "testing" which means that the engine does not work yet and it is not clear if it would, otherwise testing would not be needed already. Then he talks about "final version" which is different from the "next official version". And "it shouldn’t be less than 50%" does not mean "it will be not less than 50%" but means that doubts still exist and no one knows for sure.

There are always 2 sides in communication process and receiving side is also responsible for correct interpretation of communication. People usually tend to see only what they want to see.

Same was with Oleg's updates. He described features that they worked on, planned (and eagerly wanted) to include in the release version. Because we did not have a demo or videos 6 months prior to release, it was an easy logical conclusion that various features that work separately may not fit together when assembled into one piece in a hurry. This happens every time. All people want to do their best but real life circumstances change their plans.

Thus, it is not reasonable to have high (or low) expectations before actually experiencing anything. This eliminates the only reason for frustration (and whining) - a gap between expectations and reality. Only my own opinion of cause.

Yes, this is a reason he got very frustrated afterwards. Same was with me. We are all humans, not gods or machines but our own expectations (or feelings) are our own responsibility only, not someone else's. (Not talking about kids here, they can not be responsible for their feelings.)

I agree...I would although , with all due respect, rephrase my thinking:
Even as adults, we cannot be responsable for our feelings, or prevent our feelings to be hurt, or heve deep disappointement...just like the kids...that we still are since we are playing games on computers...;) What makes the difference, I would say, between an adult and a kid ,is how you behave and manage those feelings...
Have a nice day ! Or night ?

SAlute !

Ataros said:

This is over-simplistic, and draws wrong conclusions.

Who created the high expectations? Users only? Of course not.

Who created the initial feature-set? Users only? Of course not.

Products routinely do not deliver what is expected of them - especially at first. But a gap as wide as this one, where many features were simply missing or non-functioning, needs addressing properly. ...not just a latent 'we're kind of sorry' tacked-on to ,uch later posts about subsequent patches.

To put it all down to the psychological whimsy of end-users is silly, and patronising. It is also removes the factual component, which is harder to explain away (i.e. the missing/half-working features).

The two recurring themes in all apologist arguments are: 'respect' for the devs, and 'we're all human' i.e. cut them some slack. Plenty of slack has been given, and taken...enough knicker elastic to stretch round the world.

Far too many excuses are made on behalf of the devs. This is why concrete details are needed, not diluted promises and yet more high expectations.

I'd trust the dev process a lot more if, for example, we were told 'there's a whacking great memory leak that needs fixing, yadada yadada', *not* stuff about banjos and 50% improvement in graphics architecture which then slowly morphs into ifs, buts and a slow shrug of the shoulders...

Ben/Falstaff

No Way! And and set myself up to buy another unfinished game that won't get fixed. Forget it. And if you can only get CoD optimized by buying the sequel, that would be deceitful and possibly fraudulent and I'm not biting.

If they don't fix CoD first only a sucker would buy the sequel.:rolleyes: 1C needs to prove themselves before I'd spend another penny. I'd rather have a meal at a restaurant than buy another buggy piece of unfinished software.

The only way they can prove to me they are worth a future purchase is to make good on the first one.

If they fix CoD first I will buy.:-D

Cool. I read that before and I hope that its true.

I said IF because I read that someone mentioned it might have been shelved for the sequel and I said IF that is true.....and gave my response.

Luthier HAS set expectations high
 

I think Luthier HAS set expectations very high for the next patch and for CloD in general…”50 percent better performance, fixed AI, better FM, more immersive sound design, new, breakthrough game feature that will be the envy of the genre, etc, etc, etc. If the next patch does not deliver in a big way, his and 1C’s credibility will be greatly diminished. And will certainly hurt sales of the sequel. I think that is why the patch is no where in sight. It’s so far away in fact that there is nothing to communicate beyond open ended statements like “We are working on it and it will be done when it’s done.”

I dont understand why they dont get minor bugs fixed on a regular basis and deliver the big thing in salami tactics slice by slice..