Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo
1) Define "good game"
2) What's wrong with that?
3) We know the game has optimization issues, but thanks for the reminder. 
4) Bugs, no one has refuted that. Opinions = not factual information.
5) Recreated physics for flight models. Extensive research, impressive modeling, and the list goes on.
6) Publisher issue not developer.
7) Each of these games on your list are a) from this developer, and/or b) have been on the market for awhile after dealing with similar issues.
In short your flaming is straw man arguments coupled with opinion and short sighted thinking.
The game needs work, undoubtedly, but calling it a failure after a week of being on the market in an extremely niche market with highly complex issues to deal with is short sighted, and frankly ignorant. |
lol fanboy CoD you should look people around you and around the world.
For il-2 1946's the game is actually a fail.
I should make a video of all things wich are not real in the game compare to il-2 1946 ...
Maximum speed has not effect ... G effect are not really dangerous for the plane (it's rare to breack the plane because of speed + G ) ... Landing are sooooo easy ! The list goes on and a fanboy won't understand it.
By physics i don't speak about visual aspect, but fly aspect.
6th aspect , both have failed.
Go to fly in the real life , and play rof/ il-1946 , and go back to clod maybe you will understand.
I'm here just to say the reality in order that developper can improve the game. I won't say "your game is perfect oh yesss" , it's false it is not.
ps: read, i told you good game ( WW air plane sim ) RoF and il-2 1946 + AEP
And agree with you , the game need lot of work to be finished. ^^