Friday 2010-07-16 Dev. update and Discussions about the update ONLY!

[nearmiss]

That looks like a marshmallow farm growing its product in time-lapsed views.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1

[zauii]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

+1 & quoted for truth.

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1 from me!

[philip.ed]

I disagree slightly, if a product is future-proofed and has an excellent market like the Il-2 market the company should make the best looking product available. It may not be highly playable on full-settings this year, but give a year or two it will grow into something astounding.

[Splitter]

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

[David603]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

I'm going to assume you have played the console game Il2 Birds of Prey but not any of the PC Il2 Sturmovik games. None of the problems you have mentioned such as time limits on missions, changing between aircraft every other mission etc have ever been in the the PC games, they were all introduced by the development team that produced Birds of Prey.

As far as the quality of missions, the team at Maddox games have always produced good missions and campaigns, and there are literally thousands of player created missions and campaigns out there for Sturmovik.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter

The BOB SOW is a different genre of game. It is an advanced air combat simulation more than a game. If you have a propensity for detail and have the patience to take weeks or months to learn to fly one aircraft it might be for you. You'll also have to have a very competent computer, joystick, and some other hardware that will cost you a great deal more than the game.

Technologically advanced products are often cheap so most people can afford them, but are never going to make the required effort to get the most from it. Most people never think about how much they are willing to learn, cell phones, tv sets, etc. to properly enjoy the value of advanced technology.

You can buy a copy of the IL2 1946 very cheap right now. I would suggest you buy a copy and then see if you are into it. Regardless, the BOB SOW won't be that expensive. You can always Ebay it, and get most of your money back if it's too much for you.

[Splitter]

I see why you would say that, but I have not played the Birds of Prey console game although I am aware of the complaints from end users. I have played other games in the past that had time limits on missions so I can sympathize. The same goes for switching planes every mission (Janes ATF, grrrr...).

The fact that the design team has produced good missions and campaigns in the past is promising. I hope and trust that they will stick to that strategy. My "want" in a similar area is for a good career mode.

So thanks and good to know!

Splitter

[Chill31]

the first picture with the blenheim on fire looks fake due to the amount of damage it has sustained. it looks see through...a little over done in my opinion