Cliffs of Dover, a Year Later - Page 30

Chivas · #**291** 03-29-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesdietz

777 Studios - Jason
( This is probably a bit OT & unsollicited,but...
I just wanted to say what a good job I feel 777 studios is doing with RoF,in particulat their website design,whicj makes good clear announcements from time to time & show plenty of screenshots of up & coming features.Although I can't say I'm fond of buying new aircraft,at least the store makes it easy to do.It seems like a very professional out fit.
All this and a steadily improving Sim too. RoF hit the market a very flawed Game , but after a year's time it was clear it was in the market to stay. I really wish the folks at Clod can follow 777's example. )

The ROF development definitely had problems at release, but it was closer to being finished than COD and they didn't have to do a major performance rewrite. The COD development has been like a Keystone Cop excesses with alligators everywhere. Once the game engine is done and running smoothly you will probably find that the developers will have more time, to refine their website, and have a better idea on what features they can implement and in what time frame.

Insuber · #**292** 03-29-2012, 07:33 PM

Chivas I agree. I'll have a glass of C. Regal in your honor ..

OB1 · #**293** 03-30-2012, 03:19 AM

The reason why ROF was better and more finished at release is because 777 is its own developer and distributor.

MadBlaster · #**294** 03-30-2012, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furbs

Remember this Chivas...

Posted by TreeUK 28/8/11

For those that were/are still under the belief that CLOD was financed by Ubisoft then read this below, especially Chivas who as been on my case about this for a long time.

Originally Posted By: 777 Studios - Jason

I'm sorry, but I need to say something because your comments are not correct.

1.) Luthier is a long-time friend of mine and you are smearing him with no proof or knowledge of what really happened that caused the less than stellar release of CLOD. Oleg didn't hand Luthier anything. Luthier was asked by 1C to try to finish the project after Oleg was, depending who you talk to, relieved of duty by 1C or he quit 1C. You make the call. Luthier is making the best of a bad situation and he is a good guy and from what I can tell a good manager. My point is you can't blame him for the release or bad decisions that were forced upon him by others. He was given 12 months to correct 6 years of bad decisions made by others. A good analogy is blaming me for every decision made regarding ROF before my company took over. Coming from someone who had to take over a not so great situation I know what he is going through.

2.) Again, you see to blame Ubi for all this. Why don't you ask 1C if $8 million and 7 years was enough time and money for a team to eventually be held accountable for there work and produce a product? Ubi is not quite the monster they are being portrayed as. Again, see my comments about Oleg's departure. Only Duke Nukem' can have a never ending dev cycle and hell even that got released eventually. Bringing Oleg back isn't going to solve anything. 1C loves when you blame Ubi. 1C was the day to day manager and owners of IL-2 franchise, not to the mention the primary funding source so why aren't they held accountable? Some of you hold Oleg and 1C up like some sort of gods and people who can do no wrong which is foolish.

I'm not going to say anymore, but what you've said about Luthier isn't fair to him. There is no need to be an Oleg or 1C apologist.

Jason

I wonder how much was spent on ROF by release day. We could do a cost vs. quality analysis for fun.

Robert · #**295** 03-30-2012, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OB1

The reason why ROF was better and more finished at release is because 777 is its own developer and distributor.

neoQB was the original developer publisher. Jason didn't come aboard until a year or a year and a half into release. RoF was a jewel in the rough, and many folks had issues with it. I myself never experienced the issues that were common in the beginning. Still, as a whole, it was a better release than CoD's....... sadly.

That said it appears CoD will have further backing and that means a chance to right the ship. I'll support that.

David Hayward · #**296** 03-30-2012, 12:39 PM

Can anyone explain to me why I should care how CoD was financed?

GraveyardJimmy · #**297** 03-30-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Can anyone explain to me why I should care how CoD was financed?

It can have a bearing on who dictated the release date (eg. Epilepsy filter controversy). No-one is telling you personally, so ignore the posts if you are not interested, others are.

David Hayward · #**298** 03-30-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

It can have a bearing on who dictated the release date (eg. Epilepsy filter controversy). No-one is telling you personally, so ignore the posts if you are not interested, others are.

Why should anyone care who dictated the release date? That ship sailed a long time ago.

GraveyardJimmy · #**299** 03-30-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Why should anyone care who dictated the release date? That ship sailed a long time ago.

That doesn't mean its irrelevant. As I said, if you aren't interested- ignore it. Some people are interested in the publishing and financing of who made the game they play. If you aren't thats fine.

David Hayward · #**300** 03-30-2012, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Some people are interested in the publishing and financing of who made the game they play.

I know they are. I'm trying to find out why. It seems pointless. If there is a point (other than the usual internet pissing contest), I'd like to know what it is.