But we can still live with it, I guess…

[IceFire]

Are scripted handcrafted campaigns not enough to satisfy that single player need?

I find quite a bit of immersion can be built into these and hopefully CoD has more value there than before. Dynamic campaigns often feel somewhat stark to me... maybe I've not seen it done right?

I used to have plenty of fun with the Aces of the Pacific and Aces Over Europe and those had mostly two sentence briefings (except the historical missions).

I think with a large community of mission builders in the short term single player folks won't be bored and Oleg said there were hooks so I wonder how long it will be before one of the third party dynamic campaigns is adapted for IL2.

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Are scripted handcrafted campaigns not enough to satisfy that single player need?

Absolutely not.

At BEST (which is very, very rare), they're fun 1 time through, but they have zero replay value because you know EXACTLY what to expect. Where's the feeling of having to check six constantly and wonder what you'll be getting into this time when you know full well that the only enemies out there are those you saw the last time you played this mission.

At worst (most of the time), scripted campaigns are so corny that they're unplayable even once. Instead of just letting you be a regular pilot of that time and place, you repeatedly have to do some utterly bogus thing like kill a particular enemy ace flying some ridiculously amped-up uberplane, or rescue "spit girl" (I'd rather rescue "swallow girl"), or what have you, with the fate of the world hanging on your actions, and you have to keep playing the same damn mission over and over until you finally beat it.

Either way, the ONLY replay value of a scripted campaign is trying to beat your previous score by memorizing a pattern of actions based on complete familiarity with the situation. This might appeal to the Nintendo crowd but not to anybody beyond puberty.

Look, I'm a game designer myself, and I tell you, a "hand-crafted scripted campaign" is a complete joke. The "hand-crafted" part is just a marketing ploy to cover up the fact that the devs put next to zero effort into it. It's just a series of linked scenarios with little if any carry-over from one to the next. Anybody with a mission editor can do the same thing. The only thing the devs add is bogus things like your best friend from childhood always going down in flames during this one mission while saving you from some enemies who always magically spawn right behind you no matter how well you check six. Gee, what fun.

So, to me, in the absence of MMO action, a flightsim simply must have a truly dynamic campaign or I won't buy it. If I can't join any squadron on either side, and fly whatever missions come my way (and they're different each time I play that squadron), then forget it. It doesn't matter how pretty the game looks or how realistic it is if there's nothing meaningful to do with the aircraft. I'm not spending $50 to fly a few corny missions and be done with it.

[nearmiss]

Bullethead

I've never enjoyed a computer generated campaign.

I have enjoyed plenty of human created IL2 campaigns. The new FMB tools in the COD should improve all campaigns.

Discussing this is too time consuming for me. It is a topic that has been covered several thousand times over the years from Il2 users.

I'm not alone there are plenty of IL2 users that will not agree with you.

[BadAim]

For the most part, the "IL2 Aficionados" are here for the simulation of WWII flight. After 10+ years, I'm convinced that's what Oleg and his team are here for. If "we" look for casual gamers to subsidize "our" hobby, so what? "They" will be just as happy with their 20hrs of game play as we will be with "our" hundreds. Why all the fuss? By the freakin game for your own reasons, or don't. Either way, it's a pastime. If it's more than that, it will never bring you any joy. (unless your on the development team)

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by BadAim

For the most part, the "IL2 Aficionados" are here for the simulation of WWII flight. After 10+ years, I'm convinced that's what Oleg and his team are here for. If "we" look for casual gamers to subsidize "our" hobby, so what? "They" will be just as happy with their 20hrs of game play as we will be with "our" hundreds. Why all the fuss? By the freakin game for your own reasons, or don't. Either way, it's a pastime. If it's more than that, it will never bring you any joy. (unless your on the development team)

Look, I'm not dissing IL-2, Oleg, or anybody who plays these games. While I have never owned an IL-2 title myself, I've flown them a few times over the years at friends' houses and have always been very impressed by the overall quality, both visually and mechanically. It's only been the rather limited forms of gameplay of the franchise that have kept me from buying the games. Obviously, the existing IL2 community is quite happy with it, but they're a niche within a niche. While all serious simmers want realism, most of them are willing to settle for a bit less to get the gameplay they want. So until the IL2 franchise puts out that type of gameplay, it won't attract much in the way of new customers, no matter how realistic and graphically stunning it is.

I only got into this conversation because, from lurking here and at Ubi in anticipation of COD, I've noticed a lot of folks (such as the one I quoted in my 1st post here) hoping COD will bring in more customers, thus allowing Oleg to do more IL-2 stuff in the future. Or at the very least, that it would generate enough sales that Ubi would quit dictating release dates that cut planned features from Oleg's games. Being both a potential new IL2 customer and an indy game developer myself, I felt qualified to comment on these subjects. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

[BadAim]

My reply was not meant to be directed at you alone, nor if I'm to be honest this thread alone. I'm not sure why I even read these damn threads. If anyone who is remotely interested in WWII flight doesn't buy COD because it doesn't have a dynamic campaign or dynamic weather, they are just being foolhardy. It's $50 for crying out loud! Most Games get you 10-20hrs of gameplay for your $50. You will probably spend that much time just getting the hang of one aircraft (at least I will, I'm not that good).

I guess I just don't understand what people expect from COD. It's going to be twice the Sim as IL2, and IL2 is twice the sim as any other (in the WWII genre anyway). If that ain't worth $50 because it doesn't have a dynamic campaign, you've probably wandered onto the wrong forum.

BTW, COD is not unfinished guys, The dynamic campaign and the dynamic weather are. COD will still be a ground breaking sim, I'd rather enjoy it now than wait for these features that my computer probably can't handle anyway.

This is all just my opinion, we'll all vote with our wallets.

BTW: My feathers aren't ruffled, I'm just cranky.

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Bullethead

Look, I'm not dissing IL-2, Oleg, or anybody who plays these games. While I have never owned an IL-2 title myself, I've flown them a few times over the years at friends' houses and have always been very impressed by the overall quality, both visually and mechanically. It's only been the rather limited forms of gameplay of the franchise that have kept me from buying the games. Obviously, the existing IL2 community is quite happy with it, but they're a niche within a niche. While all serious simmers want realism, most of them are willing to settle for a bit less to get the gameplay they want. So until the IL2 franchise puts out that type of gameplay, it won't attract much in the way of new customers, no matter how realistic and graphically stunning it is.

I only got into this conversation because, from lurking here and at Ubi in anticipation of COD, I've noticed a lot of folks (such as the one I quoted in my 1st post here) hoping COD will bring in more customers, thus allowing Oleg to do more IL-2 stuff in the future. Or at the very least, that it would generate enough sales that Ubi would quit dictating release dates that cut planned features from Oleg's games. Being both a potential new IL2 customer and an indy game developer myself, I felt qualified to comment on these subjects. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

I don't believe anyone is truly upset about your providing of a contrary view point. Personally I see where you are coming from and what you mean. I must,however; point out that our tastes obviously differ. I can live with two campaigns that are scripted and then the countless scripted campaigns that this community will invariably come up with. Oleg's campaigns I doubt will have scripted "friends deaths," and I don't seem to recall any such scenario in any of the other Combat Flight Sims I've ever played. Seen it a lot in arcade flight games.

I personally prefer the realism of a flight sim (I too have been playing them for quite some time). Over the more "user friendly" types of sims. I like jumping on line and doing a co-op dynamic campaign, or a good old fashioned
dogfight. Just because our two tastes differ doesn't mean that either of us is inherently wrong or right. No game ever will appeal to all consumers, and will always miss out on a demographic of one kind or another. Yes Combat Flight sims are a niche market of the Flight Sim niche market, but that shoe fits the other foot too. MMOFS are in fact a niche of a niche as you say.

In time we will have dynamic campaigns, and hopefully then you will give it a shot. I am sorry you can't really enjoy online play due to the latency inherent in satellite.

[Sven]

I've also like Nearmiss never enjoyed a computer generated campaign, a good scripted campaign gives me much more enjoyment, immersion and historical accuracy a computer generated campaign cannot deliver.

All I want is to focus the time spared by not creating a dynamic campaign to be put into the dynamic weather, that is something we'll all benefit from, in any aspect of the sim. If time was not limited I'd of course say we would be best off with both, a dynamic campaign and a dynamic weather system, but there so much more to work on after BoB has been released.

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Bullethead

Obviously, the existing IL2 community is quite happy with it, but they're a niche within a niche. While all serious simmers want realism, most of them are willing to settle for a bit less to get the gameplay they want. So until the IL2 franchise puts out that type of gameplay, it won't attract much in the way of new customers, no matter how realistic and graphically stunning it is.

But if you consider currently successful game franchises, or what is remembered as "classics", aren't they usually those with a clear focus on storylines and scripted events? When I mention "Wing Commander", is the first game you think of "Armada" or rather the main series? Case in point, maybe this approach for CoD is exactly what is needed to bring in new players, who would feel lost or bored with a realistic dynamic campaign.

Take the BoB2 WoV campaign, which is certainly an accomplishment: it's so complex to just get going that it would overwhelm any beginner. I mean, I too play flight sims since the early 80s and felt pretty lost at times.

I'm also flying offline only, but my experience with various dynamic campaign systems is that they are either a buggy mess (Rowan's BoB & MiG Alley, Falcon4), boring (EAW, Il2 FB) or unrealistic (Longbow II, CFS3, EE:CH, TAW). Sometimes all combined. Not that I didn't have fun with some of them, but it usually doesn't take long to find out what works and what doesn't, especially if there's a strategic layer involved.

I haven't played OFF but all I've heard about the campaign sure sounds great. But it's been a huge effort in itself and if resources aren't enough for that, then I'd rather not even see the team waste time with some halfhearted approach. Having another DCG-like random mission generator put into CoD is apparently what many people would be happy with, but personally I'm much more excited about other features important for offline play, mostly what's been revealed about the AI so far. Because only if that part works right do many other features people are asking for make any sense. What's the sense of any squadron management if half of the flight dies in each mission?

So for me the focus is right. 3rd party devs can and will come up with a campaign system, which they couldn't for any other feature that might have been dropped instead.

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

You didn't - thanks for keeping things civil, sure doesn't happen too often anymore in this forum.