More on epilepsy in Cliffs of Dover

[Mauloch]

The Russian forums sound very level-headed compared to ours. It's no wonder they got the game ahead of us here in North America.

Also, these forms belong to the 1C Company, don't they? If so, why are you working so hard to keep us all safe from epilepsy in CoD while allowing funny man "Biggs" to flash that icon in our faces without him getting a big 1C boot planted where it belongs?

Just one more thing, how disrespectful to go on a company's forums and tell them you cancelled your order followed with a long-winded spew of why we should care! What ever happened to just cancelling the order after saying nothing about it, ever?

P.S Why are these few (who already stated they are not going to buy your game) still here?? Most here are looking forward to your game CoD, so how long do we have to keep reading the trash talk about Ubisoft and your game? You do have Ubisoft selling your game for you, don't you? I though you Russians had more snap in your walk then this!

[Mick]

Originally Posted by mazex

Just make it work and delay the release in the rest of the world until you have acceptable frame rate with medium settings on a decent midrange computer bought last year. Not having that is something the reviewers will never accept, even though I will accept if until version 1.08 like I did with RoF.

If an 8Gb Core i7 with a GTX460/HD 5870 does not run the game decently you will crash in flames when the big reviewers put their teeth in this game... They don't care who's fault it is, and neither do the potential REAL customers. If making the anti epilepsy code optional is necessary then make 1C and Ubisoft understand that - or work around it.

You said it all mate, this is really pathetic ...

[choctaw111]

Thank you the explanation, Luthier.
Before now, I never knew that an epilepsy filter was applied to any game.
I only saw the "epilepsy warning" on the game box.
The only thing that I am left wondering is that since not everyone who will use Cliffs of Dover has epilepsy, and if the filter causes decreased performance, why not have the filter as an option?

[mazex]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

A delay is the most reasonable thing to do now. There are already cancellations all over the place, just browse through various flight sim related forums. It will hurt the sales, no question about that.

I do agree that the pre-order cancellations are for sure real even though I can't understand how long time followers can be so short sighted and abandon MG in "their finest hour". The RAF lost in France but when pushed against the wall in Britain they delivered - in version 1.04

They just have to fix the stuttering which I am sure depend on a lof of things as I would be very surprised if the game was running at 50fps on a top notch single GPU rig while chasing 30 He 111:s over London with a squadron of Spitfires before this problem... And this engine MUST do that.

Those customers that have pre-ordered must be simmers, how else could they have heard of the game considering Ubisofts lack of advertising efforts on this title? And as Ubisoft sure must have known about the problems, the lack of a proper marketing campaign may have been very much a deliberate action. If they did not believe that they would get the game into a stable release state until late March - why put down a big advertising campaign? Postponing release dates is hardly something any gamer will be surprised about. Look at Diablo III, GTA 5, The Old Republic etc. The list is long.

And we even don't know if it was Ubisoft or 1C that put the pressure up. It is 1C that is the main publisher and they DID publish the game with stuttering problems that are now blamed on the anti epilepsy scheme pushed down the throat by Ubisoft (?) (if that is the main problem).... Have we heard anyone bashing 1C here? Maybe it is 1C that really has put the ultimatum up, no more money if you don't have an RC done before the first week of march... This time we mean ít. Someone has paid for the six years of development, and when gold platers like Oleg get free hands they can continue adding knobs and rivets for ages. Sorry to sound harsh but as a development manager myself for a team that is of about the same size as MG I have some experience of that myself.

Anyway - my pre-orders stays whatever the next storm in the water glass will be - and I wish the team good luck on getting the bugs squashed!


EDIT: In my BoB allegory above, is it really Ubisoft that is Germany and 1C that is Italy pushing them into the wall before being prepared? We don't know if it is the opposite

[Il2Pongo]

Originally Posted by kalimba

Nope...Read carefully...1C decided to implement the "filter" themselves cause they were not able to adjust and modify their code in time for release...
As for the obligation of reducing the risk of seizures to a minimum, 1C must have been knowlegable of that for a while...ANd agreed to this obligation...
They were caught by surprise when the tests results came in,,,
And luthier has good words for UBI in this matter...
So UBI bashing is not justified here...

Salute !

Your a plant.

Smoking is allowed in all of these countries, as is alcohol consumption, sky diving, motor bike riding, skate boards, snow boards.


But a FREAKING video game cannot just have a warning.
Please, there is no law about this, creepysoft just got on this band wagon because some epileptic found out during a game that he was epileptic.

There is no law about this in canada, the US, probebly not in the UK.
This is just absolute crap and the dev is saying what he has to say to pacify his distributor.
Its like all the crippling DRM that microsoft insisted be implemented in all vista video card drivers. The card manufactures took all the flack for being late with their drivers and the slow performance but it was all Microsoft putting the nanny state into the driver requirements that caused it.

[Hveding]

Really hope they fix this before 31th.
Im tired of getting disappointed every time im looking forward to a game.
Archlor and APB got closed up after short time.

Originally Posted by Winger

Slowly i am starting to think the epilepsy filter thingie might just be an argument to hide poor game optimisation behind. I hope the 31th will proove me wrong. I just cant think of an other reason to make this "feature" optional. I mean this "problem" already damaged the reputation of the game pretty much. But maybe the damage is less with the "epilepsy scapegoat" than it would have been without?

Winger

LOL Winger; thats what crossed my mind....all the puzzles are here...and we have painfull experience with "optimisations" in Rise Of Flight (and its still unsolved).....It would be easier for all if both smiling characters admit that they have problems whit optimisations and that we will need few years for PC`s which could handle their products in online battles....and then again....maybe it was UBI with their demand but he wont admit...who would know....nowadays nobody is 100% honest...shity times I say......

and just for the record..I might get "epilepsy" after trying the game with that stupid filter and bloomsih/blurish motion...But I think Ill just get drunk...

Originally Posted by Devastat

It seems that because of epilepsy-gate muzzleflashes, sparks and flying debree have been removed as well from current version of CoD. But the game sounds very good ..

noooooo...aaarghhh

[Herra Tohtori]

Ok, see, I realize the post-processing filter is one reason for bad performance. And I realize it'll eventually be removed as the mentioned individual issues are "addressed" one-by-one.


I have a problem with the need to address those issues in the first place.

To put it in simple terms: If the real situation has a flash and it's removed from game graphics because of some arbitrary epilepsy screening method saying it could trigger seizures, that's detrimental to the quality of the graphics of the game even if it runs at fluid 60 FPS on a five years old PC.

Flashes are part of reality, and removing flashes from simulation where they would be appropriate will reduce the realism factor of said situations.

Artificially degrading the quality of the effects for everyone just to appease some lobbyist group worried about seizures makes about as much sense as removing killing from first person shooters to appease Mr. Jack Thompson.

This is the main problem I have: Ubisoft's blanket policy on this matter. If they have this requirement as part of their quality assurance testing, then that quality assurance testing is misguided.

And if they categorically refuse to release games where it's possible to turn neutered anti-epileptic effects off in favour of more realistic effects, then that policy is a failure for a simulation game.

I'm not going to comment on speculation that this is just a smoke screen for bad performance etc. etc. What I want is a game with realistic portrayal of flight and associated plays of light and shadow, within reasonable limits of current hardware of course.

This filter thing, regardless of whose decision it was to apply it to the game, is not reasonable in my books. If it were voluntary, fine - but mandatory reduction of performance and quality, especially for a reason such as this is not something I could be happy with.


I'm not going to cancel my pre-order for this, however. I'll get the game, try it on my rig, and if it doesn't run properly I'll wait for patches to address relevant issues. I would, however, be tremendously disappointed if future patches don't fix the effects to satisfactory realistic levels.

I wish that somehow, at some point, the developers and players can both be satisfied with the game, that the developers find a way to deliver a version to the players that they originally intended it to be.


Well, I think I have said all I have to say about the subject at this time. I wish all the best to the developers in their quest to deliver a functional game to customers, and I'll be following the state of the game with great interest.

Meanwhile, while the problems are addressed, I can always return to the skies in IL-2 1946...

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Il2Pongo

Your a plant.

Smoking is allowed in all of these countries, as is alcohol consumption, sky diving, motor bike riding, skate boards, snow boards.


But a FREAKING video game cannot just have a warning.
Please, there is no law about this, creepysoft just got on this band wagon because some epileptic found out during a game that he was epileptic.

There is no law about this in canada, the US, probebly not in the UK.
This is just absolute crap and the dev is saying what he has to say to pacify his distributor.
Its like all the crippling DRM that microsoft insisted be implemented in all vista video card drivers. The card manufactures took all the flack for being late with their drivers and the slow performance but it was all Microsoft putting the nanny state into the driver requirements that caused it.

Considering the risk of having a seizure, strob lights should be outlawed... no more strob lights in clubs... nada... I'm calling my representative...

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

Ok, see, I realize the post-processing filter is one reason for bad performance. And I realize it'll eventually be removed as the mentioned individual issues are "addressed" one-by-one.


I have a problem with the need to address those issues in the first place.

To put it in simple terms: If the real situation has a flash and it's removed from game graphics because of some arbitrary epilepsy screening method saying it could trigger seizures, that's detrimental to the quality of the graphics of the game even if it runs at fluid 60 FPS on a five years old PC.

Flashes are part of reality, and removing flashes from simulation where they would be appropriate will reduce the realism factor of said situations.

Artificially degrading the quality of the effects for everyone just to appease some lobbyist group worried about seizures makes about as much sense as removing killing from first person shooters to appease Mr. Jack Thompson.

This is the main problem I have: Ubisoft's blanket policy on this matter. If they have this requirement as part of their quality assurance testing, then that quality assurance testing is misguided.

And if they categorically refuse to release games where it's possible to turn neutered anti-epileptic effects off in favour of more realistic effects, then that policy is a failure for a simulation game.

I'm not going to comment on speculation that this is just a smoke screen for bad performance etc. etc. What I want is a game with realistic portrayal of flight and associated plays of light and shadow, within reasonable limits of current hardware of course.

This filter thing, regardless of whose decision it was to apply it to the game, is not reasonable in my books. If it were voluntary, fine - but mandatory reduction of performance and quality, especially for a reason such as this is not something I could be happy with.


I'm not going to cancel my pre-order for this, however. I'll get the game, try it on my rig, and if it doesn't run properly I'll wait for patches to address relevant issues. I would, however, be tremendously disappointed if future patches don't fix the effects to satisfactory realistic levels.

I wish that somehow, at some point, the developers and players can both be satisfied with the game, that the developers find a way to deliver a version to the players that they originally intended it to be.


Well, I think I have said all I have to say about the subject at this time. I wish all the best to the developers in their quest to deliver a functional game to customers, and I'll be following the state of the game with great interest.

Meanwhile, while the problems are addressed, I can always return to the skies in IL-2 1946...

+1