Damage model is rubbish!

[thundermuffin]

Originally Posted by sod16

You quoted me on the wrong stuff, READ WHAT I SAID ABOUT PC GAMES AND CONSOLE GAMES, i didnt say it wont SELL or anything, and believe me i know more about economy then you, i know what'l sell more and wont, as i said im criticising SIMPLE things they could have added to make the game more convincing, and yet you go on.

LMAO again forza 2 out sold burnout baradise 4 to 1 so i dont know what you are talking about...... You cannot compared forza 1 to that, they are not of the same era.
Wow i may be a nerd but i cant stand console n00bs.

Your arrogance is deceiving you. And fine, forget what I said about sales (again would like to see your marketing/economist credentials to make such a claim) and forget what I said about console to PC comparisons. If you really want to attack my comment w/o ACTUALLY addressing the statement itself, fine, be a child.

But know this: The console crowd is more focused and, with limited releases compared to PC, their attention is easily swayed. Concessions must be made to please them. EVERY SINGLE write up of this game I have read has boasted about how this is the perfect blend of game for an arcade console audience while still giving enough gravy for the hardcore. So complaining about G-Fore deformation is falling on deaf ears. If you want those features, play the earlier versions of the game.

And about Burnout: Paradise... where are you getting your numbers... because that claim is both ludicrous and idiotic... For example: Forza 2 in the month of June 2007 debuted at #6 and eventually moved into the 5 spot selling 500,000 copies... Burnout was in 1st for both consoles in January 2008 and is continuing to sell AMAZINGLY given their after release support.

All of this is off topic, I know, but you brought the fight to me with your sheer arrogance.

[sod16]

Originally Posted by thundermuffin

Your arrogance is deceiving you. And fine, forget what I said about sales (again would like to see your marketing/economist credentials to make such a claim) and forget what I said about console to PC comparisons. If you really want to attack my comment w/o ACTUALLY addressing the statement itself, fine, be a child.

But know this: The console crowd is more focused and, with limited releases compared to PC, their attention is easily swayed. Concessions must be made to please them. EVERY SINGLE write up of this game I have read has boasted about how this is the perfect blend of game for an arcade console audience while still giving enough gravy for the hardcore. So complaining about G-Fore deformation is falling on deaf ears. If you want those features, play the earlier versions of the game.

And about Burnout: Paradise... where are you getting your numbers... because that claim is both ludicrous and idiotic... For example: Forza 2 in the month of June 2007 debuted at #6 and eventually moved into the 5 spot selling 500,000 copies... Burnout was in 1st for both consoles in January 2008 and is continuing to sell AMAZINGLY given their after release support.

All of this is off topic, I know, but you brought the fight to me with your sheer arrogance.

I knew arrogance was going to come into this, but you know, what can you do... Look it does not matter, i like burnout paradise because its smooth, i also love forza 2. You know what though, forza is brilliant at being a simulator (well getting better), burnout is a famous series which was exremely fun to play with friends online. Flight sims on the other hand are known to be quiet boring and not well done such as blazing angels. Those fat 50 year old men in charge of everything are too blind to notist that even a 12 year old likes the idea of realistic, and that if this was a sucess (3 million copies or more) it might go two ways, either the publisher is too blind to notice its the simulation thats selling it, so they bug them to make it more fake and more like eurofighter physics on meth, or for a second release they might boast about more realistic features. We'l have to see.. My personal opinion is that it might not fly off the shelves because people think its another "boring crappy blazing angels thats too hard to play or too easy to play".

[Antinko1]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I agree with Butterfield to a large extent and I would love to see the damage model be as complex as it is in the PC version of the game; however, I don't think it's too much of a big deal when it boils down to it.

I'd rather take a slightly 'dumbed down' damage model and great 'everything else' over super accurate damage and empty game lobbies. I don't wish to sound too hyperbolic but my point is that I don't think that the (God I sound like a snob here) 'masses' will appreciate simulation like we do. The majority of XBOX Live players I know simply like to plug and play*. IL-2 BoP's learning curve is still going to be steep to a player who is used to arcade style flying games and I doubt that they'll stick around very long to appreciate the nuances of having individual aelerons shot off!

So I think it's a matter of give and take. 1C are breaking into a new market and they have to attract new players whilst remaining as loyal as they can to their current player based. I think that they're doing mostly everything right and I'm certainly going to be more forgiving since this is their first attempt. This game certainly beats the living daylights out of H.A.W.X, Blazing Angels and that new one which is coming out which looks rubbish...Heroes over Europe.

*I may be wrong when it comes to applying my perspective to a wider context: I'm just writing from experience and I've only been exposed to what probably is a small percentage of XBOX Live players.

[H Lecter]

Originally Posted by sod16

too blind to notist that even a 12 year old likes the idea of realistic

Yup. When I was 12 I played Microprose's (what an awesome company, I miss them!) Gunship on Commodore C64. I was amazed by the level of detail and invested a lot of time into learning how to do an autorotation landing and understanding the different weapon systems of my helicopter and the opposing enemy forces.

Maybe this is different today. Or wait, actually it's not. The reason why console players are playing dumb games is that they hardly get anything else.

IL-2 tries at least to go into a different direction and if the success proves that they were right we may see a sequel that will hopefully include also a more complex damage model like in the original PC game.

Give the publishers a bit of time to see that their decision to go down the sim route was right

[butterfield]

Originally Posted by H Lecter

Yup. When I was 12 I played Microprose's (what an awesome company, I miss them!) Gunship on Commodore C64. I was amazed by the level of detail and invested a lot of time into learning how to do an autorotation landing and understanding the different weapon systems of my helicopter and the opposing enemy forces.

Maybe this is different today. Or wait, actually it's not. The reason why console players are playing dumb games is that they hardly get anything else.

IL-2 tries at least to go into a different direction and if the success proves that they were right we may see a sequel that will hopefully include also a more complex damage model like in the original PC game.

Give the publishers a bit of time to see that their decision to go down the sim route was right

I remember Gunship on my Amiga 500! For me though the start was flight simulator 1 or 2 on the Apple IIe when I was like 8.... I remember being instantly hooked just sitting on the runway trying to figure out how to take off. Anyway, I was amazed by like you said "the level of detail". Most kids are not stupid and like a realistic game/sim that immerses them.

[sod16]

Originally Posted by butterfield

I remember Gunship on my Amiga 500! For me though the start was flight simulator 1 or 2 on the Apple IIe when I was like 8.... I remember being instantly hooked just sitting on the runway trying to figure out how to take off. Anyway, I was amazed by like you said "the level of detail". Most kids are not stupid and like a realistic game/sim that immerses them.

Publishers are to stupid to know that everyone likes a bit of realistic, they think it wont sell, they are taking the wii approach.

[IamKFAM]

ummmm all the way to the bank. Publishers publish what sells. Instead of telling them they are dumb for selling things. Work on your fellow gamers.
It will work better.

To put it another way:

If everyone is buying turd sammiches...

Soon everyone will be selling turd sammiches.

Tell everyone to stop buying it. Make mine a Ham and Swiss with amazingly detailed holes coded in.

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by IamKFAM

ummmm all the way to the bank. Publishers publish what sells. Instead of telling them they are dumb for selling things. Work on your fellow gamers.
It will work better.

Exactly.
I guess, if BoP won't succeed there won't be any console realisitc flight sim game in next decade.

EDIT: Hadn't meant it to sound like a blackmail Just my own thoughts. Of course, don't buy the game if you don't like it.

[Bael]

Originally Posted by sod16

Publishers are to stupid to know that everyone likes a bit of realistic, they think it wont sell, they are taking the wii approach.

They're not 'too stupid' - they're businessmen with enough experience to know where the real money is at. Games that are easy to pick up sell more units, period. Most gamers measure 'realism' with far less scrutiny than Sim fanatics - "Whoa, my plane stalled - this is so realistic!" vs "Arcade rubbish - why don't my wheels rip off at this airspeed?!!". They're worlds apart, and most gamers are too intimidated by sim levels of realism. Sims, and flight sims in particular (due to their high barrier-to-entry), are a niche category.. no matter how many people are on these forums and clamoring for more realism we're still just a very small portion of the huge potential install-base publishers are going after.

The only way consoles are ever going to get a full sim is by approaching it gradually like BoP - by primarily creating an arcade flyer and sneaking in as many optional sim elements as they can for the fanatics. Until a sim developer is in a position where they don't have publishers calling the shots for them they're going to have to focus on the majority. Hopefully BoP can raise enough eyebrows to become the 'Forza' of console flying games, gain a little prestige in the console industry, and be given free reign to venture deeper into the sim territory than normal.

I think the game itself, judging from the demo, is great - I'm actually more worried that not enough people know about it, or will actually pass it up thinking it's too much of a sim (due to the IL-2 moniker). Provided BoP gets some proper marketing I'm positive it'll do well enough for a sequel - a good BoP + flight stick bundle couldn't hurt either! *grin*

And before I get the whole "I know more than you.." internet-know-it-all treatment I'll just note that I'm a professional game developer, with multiple current-gen console titles under my belt. When you're making a console game you have to pick and choose your battles - no developer gets to do everything they want to. A lot of things fall outside of the publishers focus (like wheels coming off) and just have to get dropped due to time constraints.

[thundermuffin]

Originally Posted by Bael

They're not 'too stupid' - they're businessmen with enough experience to know where the real money is at. Games that are easy to pick up sell more units, period. Most gamers measure 'realism' with far less scrutiny than Sim fanatics - "Whoa, my plane stalled - this is so realistic!" vs "Arcade rubbish - why don't my wheels rip off at this airspeed?!!". They're worlds apart, and most gamers are too intimidated by sim levels of realism. Sims, and flight sims in particular (due to their high barrier-to-entry), are a niche category.. no matter how many people are on these forums and clamoring for more realism we're still just a very small portion of the huge potential install-base publishers are going after.

The only way consoles are ever going to get a full sim is by approaching it gradually like BoP - by primarily creating an arcade flyer and sneaking in as many optional sim elements as they can for the fanatics. Until a sim developer is in a position where they don't have publishers calling the shots for them they're going to have to focus on the majority. Hopefully BoP can raise enough eyebrows to become the 'Forza' of console flying games, gain a little prestige in the console industry, and be given free reign to venture deeper into the sim territory than normal.

I think the game itself, judging from the demo, is great - I'm actually more worried that not enough people know about it, or will actually pass it up thinking it's too much of a sim (due to the IL-2 moniker). Provided BoP gets some proper marketing I'm positive it'll do well enough for a sequel - a good BoP + flight stick bundle couldn't hurt either! *grin*

And before I get the whole "I know more than you.." internet-know-it-all treatment I'll just note that I'm a professional game developer, with multiple current-gen console titles under my belt. When you're making a console game you have to pick and choose your battles - no developer gets to do everything they want to. A lot of things fall outside of the publishers focus (like wheels coming off) and just have to get dropped due to time constraints.

Well said.
+1 in my book.
But actually to add to your point. I don't think that it will get the recognition it deserves because of the IL-2 moniker not registering AT ALL, let alone being tied to sims. I had NO idea what IL-2 was until I got the demo and WHAM! my dreams had come true. This is what I have always wanted out of a game but have never been able to effectively pursue it because of my love for Mac's... damn Apple...