A new article in SimHQ about Cod

[icarus]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

Thank you for confirming my observation: he is a guy who plays video games and writes about them. My point exactly.

Who cares? Just because he is not a programmer does not prove his article is wrong or that he does not know what he is talking about. Fallacious argument big time.

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by icarus

Who cares? Just because he is not a programmer does not prove his article is wrong or that he does not know what he is talking about. Fallacious argument big time.

I never said it proves the "article" is wrong. All I am saying is what he wrote is blather.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

I never said it proves the "article" is wrong. All I am saying is what he wrote is blather.

It was like any other negative post on this forum, well, he used spell check, but other than that it was same crap different place...

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

It was like any other negative post on this forum, well, he used spell check, but other than that it was same crap different place...

I get it now... Anyone that writes anything negative about CoD has no credibility. I get it now. Hooofaa... Makes zero sense.

Who says you can't be critical of a game? Completely flawed thinking.


It's pretty dang simple when you break it down. The game is far from being complete period.

I think you should have a nice day though.

[winny]

Personally I think that it's about time someone with a bit of weight echoed what seems to be the general concensus, ie. CoD is buggy.

The original SimHQ 'review' was actually pretty gentle, it cut the developers a bit of slack, referenced the RoF release which had problems and left off with an optimistic 'hopefully this bugs will be ironed out soon' feel. They could easily have absolutley slated it, and nobody could have really complained.

But,that was months ago. I'm glad that SimHQ decided to have a go at 1c/Ubi. I think the article has made some valid points, it seems that there's a genuine anger behind it. I don't agree with all of it, but at least it's not just some dude on a forum moaning, it's SimHQ moaning, it carries a bit more weight.

The problem with the 'whiners' is they were getting very little feedback from the devs so they just kept on repeating the same gripes. The problem then is that the whiners opinion becomes devalued because everyone just thinks they are moaning for the sake of it. So they get ignored.
I'm not making excuses for some of the real whiners, but there are a lot of people here who don't whine but would like to know what's going on.


Hopefully this whole debate will reach someone at UBI/1C/Maddox.
All that is needed is some good PR, even if it is just a weekly update of a couple of lines to let people know where they are up to.

I'm sure that if we got a "we're working on xyz this week, we've tested abc and that's ready to go, we're looking at releasing something in the next 2 weeks" message once a week then people would relax a little.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

I never said it proves the "article" is wrong. All I am saying is what he wrote is blather.

Ok I get ya, accurate blather. Glad you cleared that up.

[JG27CaptStubing]

+1

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, we're going around in circles here while things are dead simple:

a) 1C had a set amount of money to spent and a finite amount of people to work on a new project.

b) They could either do the same solid stuff that they had done in the past or try and add something new in it, but there was not enough money over time and people to do both at the same time.

c) They decided to do the difficult part first and lay down the foundation for the new stuff, then add the rest they already knew how to do from their past work as time goes by, simply because it's easier to do it in that order rather than the other way around.

If you build the game engine so that it works like IL2:1946 and missions can use up to 1000 objects,it's difficult to modify the engine at a later date to include CEM and load 15000 objects in a single mission.

If you do it the other way around and build an engine that is modular and can support a lot of objects, you can release it with some placeholder modules and then start adding to it as time goes by without having to once again code the basic engine in the future.

It's exactly what's happening as we speak: new graphics and new sounds are coming, sometime later we'll get new water and dynamic weather, etc. You can't just cram a new module into a game engine if it's not built from scratch to support certain features. If it was possible they would have just modified the old IL2 engine and not spend time and money to create a new one, since they didn't i guess it's not possible.

It was a choice between "let's build something that we can add to over the years at the cost of some technical troubles early on" vs "let's build the same thing we did in the past with better graphics and have it working right out of the box".

They went with the first choice and i'm absolutely thankful for that, i can't spend another 10 years flying in a sim where people can abuse their airframes and engines as they see fit for no penalty and all aircraft perform to the top of their capabilities without any reflection as to how hard it was in reality to make them perform that way. And in return for a departure from those habits during the lifespan of the series, i'm willing to take a few months of initial teething troubles.

It's that simple, new and untested vs repeating tried and tested stuff, some people prefer one method and some prefer the other.

By the way, i'm not pulling random numbers out of my head here. The map running on the ATAG server has 15000-20000 objects and 5000 of them are flak guns (ask Bliss about it if you don't believe me).
Good luck even getting a mission to load with so many AI units in another simulator, much less play through it.

[albx]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Guys, we're going around in circles here while things are dead simple:

a) 1C had a set amount of money to spent and a finite amount of people to work on a new project.

b) They could either do the same solid stuff that they had done in the past or try and add something new in it, but there was not enough money over time and people to do both at the same time.

c) They decided to do the difficult part first and lay down the foundation for the new stuff, then add the rest they already knew how to do from their past work as time goes by, simply because it's easier to do it in that order rather than the other way around.

If you build the game engine so that it works like IL2:1946 and missions can use up to 1000 objects,it's difficult to modify the engine at a later date to include CEM and load 15000 objects in a single mission.

If you do it the other way around and build an engine that is modular and can support a lot of objects, you can release it with some placeholder modules and then start adding to it as time goes by without having to once again code the basic engine in the future.

It's exactly what's happening as we speak: new graphics and new sounds are coming, sometime later we'll get new water and dynamic weather, etc. You can't just cram a new module into a game engine if it's not built from scratch to support certain features. If it was possible they would have just modified the old IL2 engine and not spend time and money to create a new one, since they didn't i guess it's not possible.

It was a choice between "let's build something that we can add to over the years at the cost of some technical troubles early on" vs "let's build the same thing we did in the past with better graphics and have it working right out of the box".

They went with the first choice and i'm absolutely thankful for that, i can't spend another 10 years flying in a sim where people can abuse their airframes and engines as they see fit for no penalty and all aircraft perform to the top of their capabilities without any reflection as to how hard it was in reality to make them perform that way. And in return for a departure from those habits during the lifespan of the series, i'm willing to take a few months of initial teething troubles.

It's that simple, new and untested vs repeating tried and tested stuff, some people prefer one method and some prefer the other.

By the way, i'm not pulling random numbers out of my head here. The map running on the ATAG server has 15000-20000 objects and 5000 of them are flak guns (ask Bliss about it if you don't believe me).
Good luck even getting a mission to load with so many AI units in another simulator, much less play through it.

I think the main problem here is the lack of communication from devs, not only an unfinished product. If they said : "ok guys, we need your help to finish it... please be patient... we admit the product is unfinished, we will work on it and keep you informed on every progress" then probably the things were different... people would not be so aggressive and impatient.. but if you give half of what a customer paid, and then don't answer the phone and hide yourself, I think the customers have all the rights to be upset.

[Tiger27]

Originally Posted by albx

I think the main problem here is the lack of communication from devs, not only an unfinished product. If they said : "ok guys, we need your help to finish it... please be patient... we admit the product is unfinished, we will work on it and keep you informed on every progress" then probably the things were different... people would not be so aggressive and impatient.. but if you give half of what a customer paid, and then don't answer the phone and hide yourself, I think the customers have all the rights to be upset.

The publishers may also play a part in this, in a normal business the public would only here from the publisher not the Devs, so it may be that they are only allowed to say certain things, I must say it is difficult to understand why they have taken this path of silence otherwise, it sure isn't helping game sales.