A new article in SimHQ about Cod

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

How does the why it got released the way it does effect anything now? Either they have the money/desire to continue working on it, or they don't. Publicizing an opinion on why it's that way won't change a thing, as all the warring and whining on here has shown. The good outcome is entirely dependent on the motivation of the developer to continue fixing, not looking to the past, but the future.

Yes, but common sense and being happy about the fact that it's much improved from its initial release state doesn't give people the ability to rub it in and chant their "i told you so"s, so we end up delving in the past, day in and day out
In other words:

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

As for the article, well, it's pretty funny considering all the soft massaging that RoF got over on SimHQ during its early days but i guess the reason is already mentioned in the article: people expect more from someone who's already released a flight sim series than they expect from an up-start company, aka double standards.

The comparison with DCS in terms of business model is only partially valid as well. Doing it like DCS:A-10 and releasing CoD as a beta for people who pre-ordered would indeed be better and deflect the negative criticism. Just make a PC gamer feel he's somehow privileged and the ego swell will take care of the rest even if you provide them with the same build of the game: "wow, i'm part of the beta and get to play before everyone else woooohooo!" as opposed to "man, this game is buggy"
On the other hand, the people who work on DCS have some pretty lucrative contracts with the military in various countries and that's how they subsidize their flight-sim department: make a 100% sim for a military client to train their pilots on, get money, replace the top secret bits and military-specific interface with a gamer packaging and feel in terms of menus/mission editors/etc and sell to the wider public.

Maddox games has nothing of the sort to subsidize their efforts, unless there are air forces who still fly Spitfires and we don't know about it.

Other than that, i think the article is accurate (if a bit aggressively worded at a couple of points). It's just not relevant to the present.

Funny how people can't move on to better things while the game that gave them so much grief is doing exactly that. I mean, i knew each one of us flight sim fans is a bit of a masochist deep down inside, but some do make the extra effort in that department to keep feeling bad as long as possible

[Bryan21cag]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Yes, but common sense and being happy about the fact that it's much improved from its initial release state doesn't give people the ability to rub it in and chant their "i told you so"s, so we end up delving in the past, day in and day out
In other words:

I would be with you on this point Blackdog but I think the reason people are still taking time out of there lives to "beat the dead horse" (funny caption by the way) is because to a great many of us (about 50% according to the last pole on the subject ) still do not find the game in a condition that makes it enjoyable over other options.

Even though it has been improved to a point where you can play it, all of the stuffing so to speak really is not that interesting to play for a big chunk of the fans yet. At least not for more than a few minutes at a time. This is the category that i fall into at the moment

Now the writer of the article may have had ulterior motives but after reading it word for word I think if he really had intent to destroy the game no matter how improved it is, it could have been done much more viciously. In my opinion the article sounded very accurate and even reminds the reader that this company has a long standing history of constant and free improvements of their products LONG after their release. For me as I read it I got more of a frustration, and disappointment feeling, not a malicious I hate this game no matter how good it gets, feeling.

I am am an electrician by trade so even though I still choose to play IL246 over CLOD for what i find to be its better aspects I.E. Offline campaigns, sounds, Stability, e.t.c. If I were a video game reviewer and had an interest in flight sims, because I do not find the game in a state that keeps me busy playing it instead of thinking up reasons why it didn't have the success of its predecessor then I might find myself writing a similar article

Again I do not know this person and have no idea of his motives but their are two sides to every coin and it its possible that the reason that anyone including this reviewer are still beating this so called dead horse as some of you put it is because the game still really is not fun enough to keep them quiet I have a feeling that when it does reach this level for most of its target audience there will be an abrupt and lasting silence with very few exceptions until then the repetitive and often very accurate reviewing done by professionals and amateurs alike will likely continue. In the end I guess its all subjective.

one last thing on the constant repeating of peoples opinions good or bad. They are really both very necessary, weather you want to hear them or not. Any time you have a product out on the market and your intent is continue to grow and sell more of them, every day you want as large a group as possible to be telling you what they like and don't like about your product. I feel that this also goes for your business practices, customer service e.t.c. The more repetitive the feed back in either direction the more it drives a company to improve on its existing product or to move on to the next step in its evolution. So some see the beating of a dead horse, others see a constant and continuous improvement opportunity.

Cheers

[Buchon]

Meh ... nothing new under the sun SimHQ, we all know that UbiSoft screwed it launching the game when is not ready.

And UbiSoft screwing a PC game launch is usual, I´ll say more, that it is a non write rule but that´s another history ...

Ubisoft screwed the development team pushing a release when the game is not complete and that drives the team to compile a incomplete build of the game engine and rush a player interface, delaying in this way the engine development.

Also that the game is already out screwed even more the engine development route, pushing the team to release small patches to fix things instead concentrates in push the engine build.

Looking the last patch objectives you can realize that the team just drop this bad path, drive there for a early release, and returns to where they are before UbiSoft screwed all, the engine development.

Because the game engine is not complete, it still in development right now.

Drops small patches to push the engine development cost time and the patches will be bigger, but its the correct way.

The new sound build and a engine core more streamed looks promising, looking for the best in this new build

[robtek]

This article has one big fault, imo.
It was published before the first real, opposed to the "shot from the hip" patches we had, patch was released.
So it repeats only the stuff we all already have read somewhere, nothing new.
Nobody would have shown any interest in those "yesterday news" when the patch delivers what is promised.