Friday 2011-02-04 Dev. update and Discussion

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Kittle

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!

If you are referring to the smoke in pic 5 then Oleg said in the very first post that it was from a locomotive exploding. Otherwise I have no idea where you are getting that info/assumption from other than a illiteracy/inability to comprehend images.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

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.

The absence of a "high end gaming computer" video clip is NOT a make it or break it issue...most people don't have a "state of the art" machine, and most people feel better about buying a game that looks and runs "as advertised"...I feel better knowing that I can get close to the results I have seen, in the up-dates, without having to spend $500 to $1000.

How many times have we been let down by dishonest advertising campaigns that dangle flashy video clips and Photoshop enhanced combat sequence that look nothing like the actual game? Too many times to count...thats how many.


Yea...ok, it might be interesting to see how the game would look on an expensive machine, but we all know how anti-aliasing works, and we all know that the more you spend the better it looks. This is not a critical area...its a puff piece.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

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.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by furbs

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

Folks, we need to remember that advertising is not Olegs's or Luthier's job. It's the job of the publisher. That would be 1C in Russia and UBI everywhere else.

What Oleg and Luthier are doing in the weekly updates is taking us along on the journey of the development of the new sim. Giving us insight on how things are progressing, keeping their loyal, established, customers in the loop. They don't have to do this. Almost no other developer that I know of does. We are being allowed to see the progression of the making of the sim. Isn't that way better than say, Microsoft's misleading adverts for their flight sims that are basically just very expensive CGI and not reflective of what you actually are getting?

Isn't it better than being totally in the dark for years and then all of a sudden some publisher makes an announcement out of the blue that a new sim will be ready for sale shortly?

This is all part of the adventure of our little avocation. Stop grumbling about it and come along for the ride, it's a lot more fun.

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Robert

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.

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.

VVV Cool I just wanted to be clear. X3 Terran Conflict is a Space sim pretty comprehensive might be worth a looksy for guys here, but it's as much empire building as it is combat oriented. Made by Eggosoft (I don't work for them in anyway shape or form). VVV

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

True. I guess by stating a single instance I did imply that was the rule. D'oh! That wasn't my intent. I do believe quality is recognized. RoF had relatively good marks on a the whole, with most minuses being an incomplete game at release (4 planes, no FMB, and a few other features prominantly missing) or complaints about the level of difficulty it took to master the game. At least I don't remember reading any down right pans of RoF.

X3 Terran, I'm not familiar with.

I was surprise Maximum PC covered the game at all. They usually use the typical bench mark games to qualify a good gaming system. Because of that, having a sim in their featured reviews struck me as memorable for of it's inclusion.

More often than not, I'll look at user reviews,You Tube videos, and game forums. It seems to work for me, wherein I can get a balanced view of a game, a camera, a car....... You get the idea.

[sk065]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

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.

I mean, the fact that parachutes arnt even modeled doesnt worry any of you?

I would suggest this game has run over time and over budget and they are just pushing it out 'as is' to get some return on it. STALKER anyone? The problem is, if it turns out to not sell then Ubi WILL drop it.

At the very least, this game has had a shocking marketing philosophy.

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

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.

You are twisting his words, as this is pretty much the opposite of what Luthier has said. He's using a mid-range computer which is not able to run the game in full detail over cities. Now can you tell me any other sim which did not require a high-end system for high-end settings?

Looks like you just can't let go off you agenda. And in case you missed it, the system specs you were demanding so vehemently have been released recently.

Besides, reviewers usually test games on several configurations to check the performance, as this information is normally part of a review. You think they need detailed instructions without which they are stuck? Ridiculous.

[HFC_Dolphin]

To make it simple, I think that what many people want to know is what requirements exist in order to play the game in maximum settings.

As far as I know this is known to developers for the initial release, but nevertheless, it's not their obligation to announce it a couple of months before the release and then have people cursing them because their setup doesn't play perfectly well the game.
Developer's job is to deliver the game. Our job is to play it, with whatever means we have available and I'm 110% sure that within a week of the release, we'll have plenty of official, but mostly unofficial, reviews with the game being tested in several settings. And things will take their way from then on and so will the patches.

I do understand people's frustration, afterall I'm one of them holding my buy for a new pc (and I know that my old pc won't make it for CoD...), but that's life, you can't have everything. Some will play the game from Day 1 and some will play it a few weeks later, when they manage to setup a new rig, able to unleash CoD's power

What matters in the end, is that still the best pilots will be shooting the less skilled ones, whatever setup anyone has

Emil Akhbar!!!

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by sk065

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.

They proved themselves previously which does go a long way in building confidence.

I mean, the fact that parachutes arnt even modeled doesnt worry any of you?

What makes you think there are no parachutes...? Hopefully not the various previous pics and videos that showed parachutes.

I would suggest this game has run over time and over budget and they are just pushing it out 'as is' to get some return on it. STALKER anyone? The problem is, if it turns out to not sell then Ubi WILL drop it.

There are some statements that the team would have had more things to work on if time permitted, but that's the normal case with sims and not unlike what we had with Il2. The logic that any dropped feature would prove that the development has gone wrong and the game will come out half-finished and buggy doesn't work for me. Sure it's possible, especially with Ubi involved, but at the moment there is little to indicate that. I'd be more worried if the devs would not discuss dropped features, and use marketing smokescreens like MS usually does (or Ubi themselves with Silent Hunter V) to hide any shortcomings.

At the very least, this game has had a shocking marketing philosophy

With Ubi in charge I didn't expect differently, but you sure have a point there. Let's hope the next weeks will finally see some marketing material released as now seems the right time to do so indeed.