The Crystal Ball

[philip.ed]

Eloquent whinging, masquerading as hypocriticism? Interesting.

Bongo...for pity's sake...it isn't a semantic game for the vast majority. It's a game that doesn't work anywhere near how it should, for a great number of people, some of whom have spent a great deal of money.

Dragging it down to a keyboard fest does no-one any favours at all, least of all the devs. It may suit the fans to enmesh it all in meta-games and cod-witticisms (of a very low level), but the critics see through it by and large. It is a tactic, and a cheap one at that. And recognised as such.

Ben

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Eloquent whinging, masquerading as hypocriticism? Interesting.

masquerading? I don't like an even playing field either, I much prefer being on the underdog side, the whingeing is quite overwhelming but I will take it on.

That soundss a bit am-dram to my ears, even for a game forum.

The irony being, of course, that an awful lot of criticism is drowned out, or ner-ner'd into non-existence, or deleted, or otherwise kicked into touch. The stuff of a personal nature I can understand.

Much less easy to discount, and answer, are the sheer facts.

How many people here with an opinion have been involved in complex dev with a public audience?

Ben

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Ben Scammell

Bongo...for pity's sake...it isn't a semantic game for the vast majority. It's a game that doesn't work anywhere near how it should, for a great number of people, some of whom have spent a great deal of money.

Dragging it down to a keyboard fest does no-one any favours at all, least of all the devs. It may suit the fans to enmesh it all in meta-games and cod-witticisms (of a very low level), but the critics see through it by and large. It is a tactic, and a cheap one at that. And recognised as such.

Ben

interesting.....a great deal of money? a vast majority?

I bet most of us here have shelves stacked with games.......some that just gather dust....for that matter most of us probably have other items that cost far more just gathering dust, if you spent your kids college fund on a game then it's your problem.

I won't be so bold as to claim I have any statistics to claim a vast majority are happy, but I have noticed that I am not the only one that doesn't share your oppinions.

+1

Calm and rational is the way to do it, as above. The game itself in its present state says enough. Ultimately the more vociferous defender-of-the-faith fans must deal with that, and not the critics. No amount of pretending one is the other is going to achieve anything.

The various game modules have an uncanny way of popping up and saying' sorry, I dont work just yet' depsite what the faithful defenders may say.

The problem is, it's still a dawn chorus.

Ben

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Ben Scammell

That soundss a bit am-dram to my ears, even for a game forum.

The irony being, of course, that an awful lot of criticism is drowned out, or ner-ner'd into non-existence, or deleted, or otherwise kicked into touch. The stuff of a personal nature I can understand.

Much less easy to discount, and answer, are the sheer facts.

How many people here with an opinion have been involved in complex dev with a public audience?

Ben

if you spent any time actually reading these forums before spouting your internet tourettes you will se plenty of criticism remains.....it's just not nearly scathing enough for you.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

No-one is going to take 1C to court based on Oleg and Luthier's posts on this forum.

Bingo

Originally Posted by philip.ed

If you bought the game based on the website and the box, then of course (as a customer) you don't have many reasons to grumble about content.

Agreed 100%

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Aces, you're taking it too far. Lawsuits? No-one is going to take 1C to court based on Oleg and Luthier's posts on this forum.

But you weren't around when those posts were made. If you bought the game based on the website and the box, then of course (as a customer) you don't have many reasons to grumble about content.

But as a forum member who was frequently in contact with Oleg and saw his posts about what would be included in the game, then one would have every-reason to feel misled. When I was talking to Oleg privately about the flight-kit modelled in the game, he told me that all my criticisms would be taken on board (following revision they did following information I sent them). This never happened. I won't grumble about something so petty, but it's quite symbolical of the way this game turned out.

You can sit there telling people they are wrong to think a certain way in as many forms as you wish. The truth is that people did buy the game based on the aforementioned, and the truth is that a lot of fans felt let-down. You can't escape this.

What I don't understand, though, is the need for people to prove this to you. Why would a lot of people lie about their motives for purchasing the game? Oleg's posts may have been taken too seriously, but until the announcement he was stepping down he was tangibly related to the game. It seemed official enough.

Hmm.

Well it was the same in the IL2 Series, years of research and direct contact but nothing corrected or added after many e-mails with aircraft data in black and white from the manufacturer, the Russian data was the data they were sticking with, (the FW 190A8 with the Stuka prop data was the funniest though), and still we have aircraft not reaching altitude performance figures after 10 years of the same old stuff.

It's a waste of time unless there's complete public outcry unfortunately nothings listened to it would seem.

Chin up though it will soon be all fixed.

Ignore my previous post - it was in suppor tof Philip_ed in a now-deleted 'Friday update' thread, as of a minute go, and mis-applied here.

Bondriver said:

I won't be so bold as to claim I have any statistics to claim a vast majority are happy, but I have noticed that I am not the only one that doesn't share your oppinions.

Of course. But the damning nature of much criticism-of-the-criticism leads me to believe you are a wee bit more passionate, and annoyed about it, than that. Or perhaps the realisation that having a go at the critics is not going to improve the game itself?

It isn't about having a monopoly on opion, or even a diversity. It's about getting to the core of just how bad things are, and why, and what is being done to improve them. If the past is skated-over semi-apologetically, and the future made a never-never land of rosy improvements (that seldom happen) what is the point?

There has to be a place for stating core issues in order of seriousness, and what is to be done about them in a meaningful way.

Until we see a proper diagnosis of just how bad things are, things are not likely to really improve, if at all. That is partly why the sillier defenders-of-the-faith should not be allowed to scattergun all critics just because it suits them. It benefits no-one - least of all them. At least, that is if they really do want to see major improvements and not just sling keyboards around. It is self-defeating, ultimately, to deny perfectly valid criticism, or attack it purely because of its tone. That is childish beyond words.

The outcry could be much worse than it is. It isn't about being scathing, or one-upmanship, it's about getting the facts down, and the extent of the breakages (severe).

Ben