Something about new "CoD" title that is truly abisimal.

[MikeC1980]

My concern would be that people might think its just another addon for tired old IL-2, when its actually a brand spanking new game.

[Tacoma74]

Yes, this should be treated as a completely new series of flight sims. Keeping the "IL-2 Sturmovik" title will be confusing for those who are new to 1946, and new to flight sims in general. Although i am already sold, i do have to say i like the "Storm of War" title alot better. And seeing as that has been the name to be for this game for the past 5 years I think thats what should be used. A name change right b4 release doesn't seem like a smart decision to me... but i'm sure Oleg and Ubisoft both have some sort of reasons for this that we are all missing.

[major_setback]

3 months from now:

"I just bought Pacific Fighters, but it won't install into Cliffs of Dover.
Nor 1946 either. I tried buying the Complete Edition just to save trouble, but I can't even find CoD in it! Help please.

BTW, what is a Storm of Vik?"

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by major_setback

3 months from now:

"I just bought Pacific Fighters, but it won't install into Cliffs of Dover.
Nor 1946 either. I tried buying the Complete Edition just to save trouble, but I can't even find CoD in it! Help please.

BTW, what is a Storm of Vik?"

Its difficult one. You want to use the popularity and recognition of the IL2 Sturmovik series but the problem is the name was never chosen to be a "brand" and is rather limiting and confusing as one. You can't just put a 2 after the name like most movies and games do and you have a title object that isn't relevant to the subject.

I think keeping the same title IL2 sturmovik will be a very confusing to newcomers, an example: I know nothing about Harry Potter, From just the names I couldn't tell you which was the first film, which was the latest film or the order of any film in between.

What I would do is compromise. Take the IL-2 designation out of the title. That just leaves you with a recognisable name that is now a russian word having a meaning (Stormer) rather than a name of a curently irrelevant plane. You could then give it a sequential number, IL-2 being Sturmovik 1.
You could then do
Sturmovik 2: Cliffs of Dover.
Sturmovik 2: Eastern front.
Sturmovik 2: Sahara
Sturmovik 2: 1950
This differentiates game 1 expansions from game 2 expansions. Without this things will get very confusing even for IL-2 fans in future as the game expands.

Anyone think we should do a vote on this?

[robtek]

You people have too much spare time and energy trying to solve someone elses imaginated problems.

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by robtek

You people have too much spare time and energy trying to solve someone elses imaginated problems.

Huh? That is rather impolite. It is a problem if almost everybody thinks it is so. Most people here are not thinking about themselves but instead new future players. Just because you know which game is which does not mean that someone in 5-10 years will.

ZaltysZ, no a vote probably wont do anything, but it would get a idea on how many people think naming the new game under IL-2 Sturmovik is a bad thing.

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

Anyone think we should do a vote on this?

It won't change anything.

[hiro]

I agree. The title is misleading. When I think of Call of Duty, I and every other CoD fan always remembers the 1940 era infantry action and game of year every year it's released. Pwnage.

Oleg said it best in one of his interviews, "No infantry, this is flight sim." But I digress.

Call of Duty makes first person simmers remember World War 2. CoD 2, same era. COD 3 was set there, but they also had a zombie patch. And for the second great war, the series was named for call of duty because every able man had to do their part. And for that era, it was applicable. Call of Duty name is epitome to World War 2.

Now it is selected for a new game.

Modern Warfare does not have a "Call of Duty." It does in a sense, that most successful standing armies are volunteer, but now it is not a call because of the whole world fighting a war or your country will fall if you don't help it scenario.

Name branding you think?

There's a difference between descriptive names and new names
Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2

and Modern Warfare Black Ops from the makers of Call of Duty 3, and this is optimal naming convention.

Not unlike having standard naming conventions like .com or .org or file extensions limited to 3 characters, because that is too limiting and new files and new Internets are completely changed from the original Internet and files.
(makes it seem 1990 going back to the old school because it's so cool).

Plus we are humans not robots and nobody cares about organization, and standardization, conventions, and it is always about the new and shiny, and different to stand out in the crowd, independent skate trucks. That is why jets, Italian carriers, Nazi super weapons, nukes, partly guided missiles, and rockets and pogos make the best part of 1946.

Call of Duty is an excellent series, but Modern Warfare and CoD needs to be absolutely clear it is for current, todays date, here and now, infantry actions, not World War II, new shiny best sim.


/TIC
tongue in cheek

[Ltbear]

geeez....

*maddox combat airplane simulation*

*Russian world war 2 virtual combat*

*forum virtual super aces*

I would have no problem with IL2 on the box.....if you get confused by the box...you proberbly will be to confused to fly the planes......Where have you seen that IT IS THE BOX!!.....its a leaked pre production box, proberbly from a meeting where they...well talk about the box art.....


crappy performer, but actualy like the song.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXCVWwi5MQk

A few people around here kinda fits the text

LTbear

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

Its difficult one. You want to use the popularity and recognition of the IL2 Sturmovik series but the problem is the name was never chosen to be a "brand" and is rather limiting and confusing as one. You can't just put a 2 after the name like most movies and games do and you have a title object that isn't relevant to the subject.

I think keeping the same title IL2 sturmovik will be a very confusing to newcomers, an example: I know nothing about Harry Potter, From just the names I couldn't tell you which was the first film, which was the latest film or the order of any film in between.

What I would do is compromise. Take the IL-2 designation out of the title. That just leaves you with a recognisable name that is now a russian word having a meaning (Stormer) rather than a name of a curently irrelevant plane. You could then give it a sequential number, IL-2 being Sturmovik 1.
You could then do
Sturmovik 2: Cliffs of Dover.
Sturmovik 2: Eastern front.
Sturmovik 2: Sahara
Sturmovik 2: 1950
This differentiates game 1 expansions from game 2 expansions. Without this things will get very confusing even for IL-2 fans in future as the game expands.

Anyone think we should do a vote on this?

I REALLY like this idea!!

110% behind this for the name!