|
|
|||||||
| Pilot's Lounge Members meetup |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
12-02-2012, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I think the Devs should take a trip to the 90's.
I was cleaning out my closet and noticed some of my old titles (Microprose fanboy ahoy!)
Task Force 1942 1942: The Pacific Air War European Air War Falcon 4.0 B-17, The Mighty Eighth Red Baron 3D, and a few other titles. What a lot of these have in common were more in depth single player games that better immersed the playing in the character they were playing, gave them control over larger operations, or gave them a feeling that they were in some way making a difference. Task Force, Pacific Air War, and European Air War allowed the player to stick with their own little ship/plane, or take control of larger elements like task forces, carrier groups, CAPs or their squadron. They could allow you to sit back and watch your units do their work, or jump into the cockpit and take direct control. If you had a particularly bad mission, you could expect the next one to have worse odds, and your men to have inferior replacements. On the other hand, if you did well, you could expect to be in a better position the next time you tangled with the enemy. Menus, briefings, and maps were a lot more immersive, and the debriefings were actually useful or relevant to what just transpired. Campaigns were dynamic, and you could even change the date that certain events occurred given how well or poorly you did. I know that with modern simulators, everything is more difficult, but to me, it seems that CLOD and undoubtedly the sequel are (going to be) missing a lot of heart, being too sterile, and basically giving the impression that this is a sterile sim, and not a war you are taking part in. I don't know how much of this is feasable, but if the devs release some tools (other than a map maker) they would see that the most popular mods would be the ones that try and recapture some of the elements that made these classics, well, classics. 
|
|
#2
12-02-2012, 02:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Maybe they HAVE taken a trip to the 90's...
There's no sign of them here 
__________________
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 Quad-Core Socket 1155 @3.4GHz GPU: ASUS NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 2GB GDDR5 RAM: Corsair Vengeance Blue 16GB (4x4) SSD: Intel 520 Series 240GB HDD: WD Black 1000GB (1TB) MoBo: ASUS P8Z77-V Socket 1155 Intel Z77 Chipset OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
|
|
#4
12-02-2012, 02:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
but at the heart of this we only just got a "working" game after many years of development. to add the elements you speak of would take significantly more time, which the developers dont have and the way luthier was speaking they largely left it up to the community to build around/onto the game they provided if you/we can identify methods of asking some of those elements on, great, but dont expect the developers to release source code that would put their commercial investment at risk. from the start of this SoW series oleg mentioned he wanted to open up significant parts of the game for addon creators (scenery, objects, planes etc). i havnt looked in detail at the mission design features, but there are significant undocumented elements available in various parts of the game that some people are already tapping into to create mod expansions, like the recently implemented British ww2 chain radar system (fully working). there is lots available under the hood in this game that many people are simply not aware of (due to lack of documentation). for ex - you can create scripts to have a fully working civilian rail and road system (with trains and buses running on time schedules on specific routes, and making stops etc). - similarly you can/could create military supply convoys on rail and road, but i have no idea if those supplies could be integrated with frontline troop fighting performance or effectiveness. this concept is already active in the AA flak units that have various elements (search light, AA battery, generators, munitions), if you knock one part of those elements out, the whole unit becomes less effective. - oleg did indicate during development that they had worked on having airfield and ground troop performance being dependent on the appropriate supplies in order to perform. for ex, if all fuel storage at an airfield was destroyed by a ground attack, aircraft located there would have no fuel available, and aircraft that wanted to land to refuel there would not be able to do so, forcing these aircraft to use more rear located resupply points (and hence having a longer flight time). - the airfield would then be rebuilt during a preset xyz time, unless re-attacked by the enemy during that time, and resupply would be dependent on an open supply line to friendly troops with rail or road to bring in fresh supplies. a lot of those features are already built in, some are available but undocumented, others are near finished and still need more time spent by the dev's. remember that the game's problem at release time is not the lack of these elements, but the fact their CoD gfx engine was not performing as expected when they assembled the various completed parts of the game in the last few months before release (oleg used a modular development process since the original il2 game, where each sub element was worked on and completed separately, with all elements being assembled into a working game in the last phase just before release). this gfx engine problem has now largely been fixed (in the last 2 months), but no further time or effort has been put in by luthier to provide better documentation on what we already have (a major error on 1C's part i believe, since the fan base would really run with those concepts and expand the game, thereby improving its reputation). what we need is better documentation on these various undocumented components that fans have discovered, so others can take the ball and run with it to create more immerse elements 
__________________
President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children Last edited by zapatista; 12-02-2012 at 02:59 AM.
|
|
#5
12-02-2012, 02:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's all about "sandbox" these days. A handy little escape card that lets you give no thought to gameplay and allows you to shift the blame to the user if the title is a barren wasteland.
|
|
#6
12-02-2012, 05:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe you should try Heinkill's reworked RAF campaign before judging CloD as "being too sterile".
|
|
#7
12-02-2012, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Though, unfortunately not everyone knows how to script - which I suppose is where the FMB should have been made more fluent and user friendly for those who can't.
|
|
#8
12-02-2012, 06:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree in some points.
Clod would have been much better if it didn't have the problems to start, and was a stable working game. Then the devs could have made a campaign / controllable ground vehicles / AAA, worked on the AI, gave the weather, made the graphics and sound improvements . . . And the BOM would have had more features . . . like the ones the OP mentioned. But they had to beta max it and start from the basics . . . yeah right about the sandbox thing, as an excuse for a lame game, but also its a sign of laziness, in which the developers don't even care to develop a story. And even good dev companies (bioware) that were known for epic stories and games flop major tiles with a easily winning franchise (Star Wars; a franchise that can take average games and make them slightly above average and awesome games into epic ones). I have hopes for the Il-2 series . . . maybe keep document it, so when BOM comes out and if its successful, you can throw down those ideas when the devs are a in a position to work on additional features and launching planes instead of working the bilge and putting fires out in the engine room. ---- speaking of the 90's stuff that came out, had more depth, had more heart, and it was more common to find awesome that bad, unlike today where its common to have the bad to worse, and rare for good to awesome things. yeah not only just the devs, but freakin' all industries should take a cue from the stuff that came out in the 90's . . . music, that was the golden era of rap n hip hop, and other genres had great music (nirvana, guns n roses . .. ), even dance / electronica / techno . . . TV and movies (disney did actual cool animation, aladdin, mulan, etc), in living color, family matters, friends braveheart, shawshank redemption, matrix, terminator 2, last of the mohicans, office space import cars were awesome like the supra and prelude, integra . . . domestic (US) cars were pretty good, they still made awesome cars like station wagons. console games were awesome, SNES! and stuff like street fighter 2, final fantasy 7 . . . metal gear solid, even the US military owned with battleships, tomcats, phantoms, the economy was awesome in the 90's . . . the internet didn't have all the ads, viruses / trojans etc, but it was alot harder to navigate though.
|
|
#9
12-02-2012, 07:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Taking into account the rose-tinred specs, I miss the really thick manuals/background books, seemed like you were getting an all-round package for your hard-earned. I remember thinking the CFS2 Corsair (modded sounds) was as good as it was ever going to get. Loved setting up EAW, pressing the 'action cam' (F12?) and watching a virtual movie, and the spinning newspaper that would stop to reveal my latest exploit in Knights of the Sky. Chasing a couple of pixels for hours on end over an 8 colour background ahd thinking "This is just what it was like", finally getting a multi floppy Aces of the Pacific to run (thanks to a computer-nerdy friend, and it nearly beat him), not buying into CFS3 and thinking Flying Corps Gold was over-hyped and poor. Being blown away by the original Il-2 and thinking (yet again) it's never going to get better than this...all sounding like confessions of a flight sim geek, eh?
Well, now I flit between RoF, FSX, CLoD and occaisional (modded) 1946 (yes, yes, there's goblin botherin' and Playstation Yakuza mayhem as well) and wonder what it all could have been like if today's devs had yesterday's way of doing things. Do we only remember the good times? There was some bloody awful offerings about then, weren't there? There's some bloody awful ones about now, but on the whole, I think the atmosphere was different then, and for the better - maybe like the latter chapters of Richey's 'Fighter Pilot', there's an air of lost innocence about the whole thing. Today's devs are trying to be all things to all men - and it ain't a cheap business to get involved in. The simple fact is they're going to have to follow the markets, and the sad truth is flashy, unrealistic, joystick-virgin friendly games (rather than simulations) appeal a lot more to spotty 'erberts weaned on Harry Potter,Transformers and Pokemon. We are a minority. Now, lots of businesses do very well, thank you, out of catering for minorities, so the hope that our little minority will be catered for in the future always remains. There will be frustrations and setbacks for sure, compromises and contention will litter the path ahead - a path that can only exist if enough customers walk it. CLoD? So much potential. Will anybody pick up the ball and run with it? I hope so. Either way, I've had my money's worth. I sincerely hope there's a next installment and it's handled better - but then we all do, don't we? Think positive, chums!
|
|
#10
12-02-2012, 09:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I fly the 1 click up from the European release, it is completely stable.
__________________
 GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
