RocketDog |
04-04-2011 11:01 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by klem
(Post 251615)
We know there are improvements to be made which will help us all but I detect that some people are expecting too much of their current PCs.
|
I think the killer problem that's winding people up (me included) is that other games seem able to produce the same sort of graphics quality as CloD on mid-range hardware, but at very much higher frame rates. For example, I have RoF on my i7 920 @ 3.8 HGz, 6GB RAM, GTX285 PC and it runs very smoothly. To get CloD to run at all I have to turn down so many graphics options that it looks very, very poor by comparison. It's OK over the sea, but the terrain is particularly disappointing with a massive performance hit even to get it looking like FS9. Basically, RoF knocks the spots off it.
Now it may be that there is something special going on in CloD that drags FPS down. However, I don't believe this to be the case. Some posters have claimed it's the advanced FM etc that drags down performance. But it can't be, because the CPU load from CloD is actually very light with most of the grunt of a quad-core CPU going unused. I think it's actually just very poor software design, and Luthier's post saying that they anticipate getting much better FPS out of future patches suggests that 1C themselves know that there are serious problems with it in its released state. But the name change from BoB to CloD suggests that 1C know they have little hope of delivering large aerial battles over land. Hardly an encouraging sign.
If it is just badly coded, and they can make the CPU lift some of the load off the GPU, then maybe it's recoverable as a worthwhile product. However, if people find that they need a top-end rig to even make it playable at all (rather than just to enable all the bells and whistles) then it's doomed. Negative reviews and word of mouth will kill it stone dead.
There's also a serious concern that even if it can be made to reach playable frame rates with decent graphics quality, the thing is still buggy as heck and will need a lot of work to become a decent product. There are already a number of idiotic design decisions made in the game that really need to be fixed. The acid green landscapes are deeply unattractive and look nothing like I see when I fly over England. How could they get that so wrong? The aircraft engine sounds are terrible - where is the growl of a Merlin? The QMB-type thingy it counterintuitive and seems designed to produced Bf 110s with RAF roundels etc. I have no idea why they went with what they have now rather than re-use the IL-2 QMB, or copy RoF's neat alternative. Why did they spend all that time modelling tanks we will never see in great detail when the landscape looks so poor? I could go on, but it's just dispiriting.
Overall, I have found CloD to be a serious disappointment. Perhaps because I had expected so much. It certainly does make me wonder exactly what they were up to all those years since what we have finally received is manifestly such a rushed job. RoF survived a rocky launch because they hadn't built up player expectations and because it was actually pretty playable from day 1 but just lacked content. CloD doesn't have that advantage. Unfortunately, the closest parallel to CloD so far is the ill-fated Silent Hunter 5. I really, really hope that ubi don't walk away from it after two patches as they did with SH5 and that it all comes right in the end. But so far it's not clear which way it will go. I have my fingers crossed.
Ho Hum.
|