Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN???

[bw_wolverine]

If a developer releases a first person shooter, but never explicitly states that the guns will actually fire, does that mean they haven't broken any promises when none of the guns work?

Also, the movie that plays on Steam's store when looking at purchasing the game still has all the fancy graphical stuff that has been taken out of the game and, going by the readme of this final release candidate patch (and note that by calling it a release candidate there is NO POSSIBILITY that anything not mentioned in the readme will be added at this point - only things in the readme will be fixed if they're broken...HOPEFULLY) that's a pretty dishonest advertising movie since there will be no chance for anyone who gets the game to make it look like that.

There's a whole lot of mess here. I have no problem with anyone being vocal in 2949842 threads about a major game breaking problem if it means that we get it fixed before MG and 1C cut the cord on this game and don't look back.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Note the lack of listing any specific effect in the video that were removed.. and the implied dishonesty but no actual proof of it..

These are the sort of vague accusation I was referring to in my post..

That in essence provide no real information and are intended to prey upon peoples imaginations!

Alfred Hitchcock used this tactic in his movies..

As in don't be specific, don't show the knife entering the body..

Be vague, and just show the shadow of the knife on the wall..

Thus allowing the persons imagination to fill in the blanks (vagueness)..

Alfred knew each person would imagine the worst case stabbing and in turn scare the heck of of themselves!

Don't let the nay-sayers spook ya with this Hollywood tactic!

Demand the nay-sayers be specific!

They won't!

But demand it anyway in that it will just highlight how weak their arguments are and thus how short the list is!

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!
Well Aces as you have been around here since the original IL-2 and then when 2004 Oleg announced the Storm Of War aka Cliffs Of Dover, he did say MANY times that CoD will be the starting theatre on which new expansions will be merged on like in the successfull IL-2 series. But that seems to have been thrown out from the window as can be read from answers to community. Sequel is a standalone more or less, CoD a bargain bin product after last official patch. No big deal, but kiss goodbye to merged installs?

I think that there is a misreading here of what Luthier means. I think you're looking at this question:

Quote:
Can the sequel be merged with COD like the original il2 series and if it can will we get to test features that will be appearing in the sequel I.e. Weather etc.
This question Ilya! Please confirm that the sequel will be able to be merged with our current game as in all previous IL2 releases.

Definitely not planning to release any sequel features as add-ons for Cliffs of Dover, sorry.

I think the main part of Luthier's response was about the possibility of sequel features being introduced into COD in further patches prior to the sequel release - which won't be happening.

This is not the same though as features from the sequel (eg weather) being usable in COD as part of a merged install. The whole thing is a bit needlessly confusing, but I understand it this way.

Surely this is confirmed by the following (from later on in the thread):

Quote:
I know you stated the next CloD patch will be the last, so that means any fixes, advances and such into the game engine that come from the sequel will not be translated at some time or another back into CloD? Will Clod be completely abandoned in whatever state the final patch leaves it with no hope small updates, etc?

Why would you think that? We’ve never done that before, and I’ve always stated that our plans remain the same. There were many issues in the original IL-2 in 2001. After a few updates to the original, Forgotten Battles was released and there were no more updates to the original Il-2. That doesn’t mean it was abandoned however! You can still play all of the original Il-2 content with 1946, all carried over and updated with the rest of the engine.

[Codex]

While I'm still the "wait and see" camp before I'll buy BoM, I seriously think people need to calm the f#$k down. As Chivas and other are trying to highlight, its not the final patch Illya was talking about.

While I agree the devs seemed to have gone backwards with this RC in terms of bringing back some old bugs (this is nothing new mind you ... remember the Pacific Fighters patches?), it is still an RC and when you look it from a development point of view, it's still a beta at the end of the day. If this RC patch is bogus, report it in the proper channels.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Note the lack of listing any specific effect in the video that was removed.. and the implied dishonesty but no actual proof of it.. These are the sort of vague accusation I was referring to in my post that in essence provide no real information and are intended to use people imaginations to fill in the blanks..

Alfred Hitchcock used this tactic in his movies.. Don't spell out the details (show the knife entering the body) it is much scarier to just 'hint' at the knife entering the body and allowing the persons imagination to fill in the rest!

Don't let them spook ya!

Demand the nay-sayers be specific!

They won't!

But demand it anyway in that it will just highlight how weak their arguments are and thus how short the list is!

I think there's a few easy examples to give (I can't be bothered to trawl through the posts):

Recommended specs

I'll be back later to answer the questions

Developers diary

etc

Now of course in none of these declarations etc was the word "promise" mentioned, so you could probably say that no promises were broken at all. there is the legal definition of a promise though and as I couldn't be bothered to look through my reference books I found this:

A written or oral declaration given in exchange for something of value that binds the maker to do, or forbear from, a certain specific act and gives to the person to whom the declaration is made the right to expect and enforce performance or forbearance. An undertaking that something will or will not occur. It is a manifestation of intent to act, or refrain from acting, in a certain manner.

To me, taking money for a "working" game seems to be the biggest broken promise.

And as always, I kick myself because when you see the game in motion it can look stunningly beautiful and it has this amazing potential just out of reach. Sadly I cannot bring myself to believe there was any internal testing of this patch though.

Oh well.

Hood

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Hood

Now of course in none of these declarations etc was the word "promise" mentioned, so you could probably say that no promises were broken at all.

Bingo!

Which is NOT to say there are none!

My only point in asking people to list them

Is that in doing so

They will realize just how short the list is!

Which in turn will keep thier imaginations from running wild!

[Hood]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Bingo!

But of course, in common everyday language a promise doesn't need to have the word "promise" in the statement at all. Look at the synonyms for the word promise to see what I mean. My personal view is that if someone says they'll do something then that has the status of a promise even if it doesn't include that word in the declaration of intent.

And what is your fascination with a numbers game?



Hood

[Stirwenn]

Some should be lawyer or they already are... hard to believe they can ignore/can't see what game is playing on their screen...
Chapeau bas Monsieur AoA...

[Sokol1]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

The idea of merged is a little misleading..
1) The sequel installs over CoD and we can use all of the maps and planes of CoD.

No thanks, this means that the sequel will have all CLoD BUGS!!!

2) The sequel is stand alone but contains all the maps and planes of CoD.

This is OK, like IL-2 Forgothen Battles that have IL-2 (original) planes and maps, but
DONT install over this. A "new" game.

Sokol1

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Hood

But of course, in common everyday language a promise doesn't need to have the word "promise" in the statement at all.

Agreed..

Sorry if you got the impression that I was saying the word 'promise' had to exist on the side of the box for each listed feature, on the 1C website, or in anything any 1C rep said..

My point is a simple one.. The list of so called broken promises is short.. But due to some people here using Alfred Hitchcock tactics the list 'feels' long.. It is not until each so called broken promises is listed will 'REALITY' take the place of 'IMAGINATION' at which point people will not feel as if they were lied to, taken advantage of, ripped off, etc..