![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
AoA, they say they will finish with it. It's not a finished game by an offliners standards like mine and Kendo's certainly.
There's a big difference. Before you and Force started arguing, my last post corroborated what Kendo just wrote to show that the situation between Il-2 and CloD is quite different. Here's the original GameSpot review: http://uk.gamespot.com/il-2-sturmovi...eview-2829773/ Now look at CloD's: http://uk.gamespot.com/il-2-sturmovi...eview-6308918/ The score has more than halved. So a sim that scores so low is worthy to proceed with? It's improved since then, but only so that it can run better and look better. The content that's been added is extremely minimal. This, really, is our point. Unless this sim morphs into the perfect BoB sim with the next patch, the team's position with BoM won't be as tangible as it could have been. I really want BoM to do well. I think the SDK can solve a lot of issues, but you're fooling yourself if you believe that this sim is the finished product. AoA, this discussion isn't about understanding Luthier's perception on the sequels. Everyone understands that. It's interpreting the situation and seeing how it really compares to the example Luthier uses, of Il-2, to show that actually the similarities are only clear at first glance, but fall apart under careful analysis.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up! Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9 |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But my answer to you delt specifcally with the 'aproach' that 1C took with IL-2 with regards to sequals.. And how Luither said they plan on using the same 'aproach' with CoD Where each sequal includes the previouse version of the game.. As in all the planes, maps, features, etc. And the sequal adds to it (planes, maps, features, etc) Hope that helps!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This thread has been derailed, but I was under the impression we were discussing the future as a whole.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up! Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9 |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In that new 'things' were added that did not exist in the original IL-2.. So even that analogy of yours does not apply But keep digging I am sure you will find something! But in doing so you will miss the whole point! That being Luither said 1C's method of providing new features is to re-package the game into a new version (sequel) that includes the previous version of the game while adding new content (planes, maps, features, mission making tools, graphics card support, etc) As in that is how they did it with IL-2 and that is how they plan on doing it with CoD Where as other flight sims do it in different ways.. Some like warbirds charge monthly fees, and flight sims like RoF charge you for individual addons (planes, maps, scarf, etc) At least that was the 'plan' at the time Luiter said it! Should a large asteroid hit the earth next week I am sure the plan will have to change.. At which point you can rest assured that there will be a hand full of whiners floating in space complaining that the 1C plan for CoD never transpired as originally intended!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 06-05-2012 at 10:34 PM. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
You miss the point
![]() Forgotten Battles added to the Russian Front and gave it so much more substance. It improved a game that had already received glowing feedback. This isn't happening with CloD. Moscow is not Britain or France. The point I am making is that for the forseeable future, the Battle of Britain has been abandoned by the dev team. If they were expanding the game to include the BoF and the later Rhubarbs and Circus's, I would agree with everything you are posting in an attempt to prove my posts wrong. The point I am making is that on relative terms, the future of CloD is only following the same lines as Il-2, but it's not being done identically. If it was identical the next expansion would be in the same theatre of operations, and the team would ensure that theatre actually had some meat. So keep weasling your way around. You might actually post something that can weigh up to my facts.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up! Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9 |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hardly.. see following where I prove it
Quote:
So let me get this straight.. Your saying no sequal to CoD has been produced yet? DUH! But when 1C does produce a sequal, in this case the Russian Front, it will surly add more substance (planes, maps, features, updates, etc) That is the point your missing, that you thought I missed But keep digging! I am here with a rope ready to pull you back into reality!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am talking about substance to the Battle of Britain! What part don't you understand? Of course BoM is the sequel and will add more substance to the series. But it will add nothing to the Battle of Britain. Do I have to repeat myself again? Stop making yourself look stupid. Cliffs of Dover is the Battle of Britain, Battle of Moscow is the Russian Front. The point I, and others, have been making is that the BoB aspect is being abandoned. No more campaigns, improved voice-packs or anything to improve it.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up! Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW: Nice pic Ace! If you need help learning how to post it properly without the mini thumbnail....let me know. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Typical Ace....when he's stumped by a question or faced with facts he can't answer he goes to his trademark "chop". At least everybody can recognize the shear stupidity of his responses.
|
![]() |
|
|