quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:
Well, to this aviation enthusiast, the details, no matter how small, are important.

It becomes even more frustrating when a player has been spoiled by the aircraft models in Ace Combat (NOT a simulator)..

You don't think that is making a mountain out of a molehill?

This isn't AC...

In YOUR eyes? Obviously. In MINE? Not at all. It's all about point of view..

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:
Well, to this aviation enthusiast, the details, no matter how small, are important.

It becomes even more frustrating when a player has been spoiled by the aircraft models in Ace Combat (NOT a simulator)..

You don't think that is making a mountain out of a molehill?

This isn't AC...

In YOUR eyes? Obviously. In MINE? Not at all. It's all about point of view..

Absolutely, it is about POV. That's why I asked if you didn't see that it's making a mountain out of a molehill. As I've mentioned, it's not like the chair (or other aesthetic differences) make the game nor the plane crash more.

Some things really do matter. Other things, not so much...imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:
Well, to this aviation enthusiast, the details, no matter how small, are important.

It becomes even more frustrating when a player has been spoiled by the aircraft models in Ace Combat (NOT a simulator)..

You don't think that is making a mountain out of a molehill?

This isn't AC...

In YOUR eyes? Obviously. In MINE? Not at all. It's all about point of view..

Absolutely, it is about POV. That's why I asked if you didn't see that it's making a mountain out of a molehill. As I've mentioned, it's not like the chair (or other aesthetic differences) make the game nor the plane crash more.

Some things really do matter. Other things, not so much...imo.

Agreed. The errors made on the airframe models are purely aesthetic, but regardless, it bothers me. LOL

I can tolerate quite abit, with one exception -- and that's the cockpit. To many are wrong, on way to many levels (yes, I will avoid highlighting the issues for the sake of sanity). This has a DIRECT impact on gameplay : IE - I see it everytime I play.

Take a look at venerable Gran Turismo series. PD understands that car enthusiasts will inspect the their favorite vehicle from spoiler to headlight. They comprehended the concept that folks will catch the flaws. When they decided to offer a in seat view, they also realized the very same logic would apply to instrument placement and steering wheel design. PD has proved not only that respect the cars, they respect the customers and their expectations.

I just honestly expected better from HAWX, and felt I deserved it.

I just "don't sweat the small stuff" as the saying goes. It doesn't matter (to me) how many virtual rivets are supposed to be where nor if a chair is missing either. After all, this game *is* supposed to be set in the near future, perhaps the aesthetics were changed after 2010.

I would still hope that you could agree that there are more important things worth fixing than the pure aesthetics regardless of what another game has/had or what you had (realistically or otherwise) expected.

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
I just "don't sweat the small stuff" as the saying goes. It doesn't matter (to me) how many virtual rivets are supposed to be where nor if a chair is missing either. After all, this game *is* supposed to be set in the near future, perhaps the aesthetics were changed after 2010.

I would still hope that you could agree that there are more important things worth fixing than the pure aesthetics regardless of what another game has/had or what you had (realistically or otherwise) expected.

"Sweating the small stuff", is exactly what seperates the great development teams and their product from the rest of the pack. PD (for example) sweats the small stuff, and their games are always top flight. Yeah, perhaps I have to high of standard when it comes to my games.

Of course I agree that the game has other issue areas that need to be addressed. The aesthetics are one of many problems in my book. Thats my point though, it's just another sign of a developer taking to many shortcuts, and it not reflecting on the $60 USD price tag.

Yeah, definitely different POVs...

The amount/placement of virtual rivets (etc) says nothing about how much I enjoy a game which, to me, is what defines a great development team instead of the inconsequential details. I'm not into driving games so I can't speak to Gran Turismo or anything else they may have produced but to me it's not the aesthetic detail that matters as much as other things. Of course I wasn't into flight games until I played HAWX either, so it might be the best thing since Gran Prix.

At least you admit that your standards might be too high which would also seem to point to what I would call unrealistic expectations. Others might say my standards are too low but then we're just back to POV again.

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
Yeah, definitely different POVs...

The amount/placement of virtual rivets (etc) says nothing about how much I enjoy a game which, to me, is what defines a great development team instead of the inconsequential details. I'm not into driving games so I can't speak to Gran Turismo or anything else they may have produced but to me it's not the aesthetic detail that matters as much as other things. Of course I wasn't into flight games until I played HAWX either, so it might be the best thing since Gran Prix.

At least you admit that your standards might be too high which would also seem to point to what I would call unrealistic expectations. Others might say my standards are too low but then we're just back to POV again.

I disagree. Now while my expectations are high, they are far from being unrealistic. Do I want the game perfect? No. That would be impossible to reach, for nothing is perfect. But with that said, do I want an accurately modeled Echo (F-15E)? Yes. It doesn't have to picture perfect down to every rivet and weld, but please, do not make an attempt at trying to pass one plane as another one. Where is the pride in ownership of what you create??

I keep drawing reference to Gran Turismo because it's hallmark is the accurate cars and physics. Their car models are often compared to reality, which indicates that the team at PD are masters of their craft. Should not have the HAWX team aspired to the same? Why not bring extra attention to your new IP with stunning aircraft models? That was a golden opportunity, and one that should have been taken considering the other title in the genre (Ace Combat) has been so readily received by critics and fans alike. The Ace Combat series claim to fame is the realistic plane models and high accessiblity. I don't know, maybe the dev team behind HAWX did not have the resources or the skill to get this done.

Yeah, I know we pretty much agree to disagree and have different POV's, but I am enjoying this converstation, LOL!!

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:
I disagree. Now while my expectations are high, they are far from being unrealistic. Do I want the game perfect? No. That would be impossible to reach, for nothing is perfect. But with that said, do I want an accurately modeled Echo (F-15E)?

Should not have the HAWX team aspired to the same?

Yeah, I know we pretty much agree to disagree and have different POV's, but I am enjoying this converstation, LOL!!

If expectations are "too high" (your words) then I would call that unrealistic.

Different companies can do things differently and be just as good as the other. While they "could have" that doesn't necessarily mean they "should have" nor does it mean they're "worse than" either. Like I said earlier, this isn't AC and it's not Gran Turismo either, they can take license on the aesthetic stuff if they want. The game is still fun and it wouldn't be any more fun (to me) if they got all of the rivets in the right places.

Yes, this has been pleasant for a change...

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
If expectations are "too high" (your words) then I would call that unrealistic.

Different companies can do things differently and be just as good as the other. While they "could have" that doesn't necessarily mean they "should have" nor does it mean they're "worse than" either. Like I said earlier, this isn't AC and it's not Gran Turismo either, they can take license on the aesthetic stuff if they want. The game is still fun and it wouldn't be any more fun (to me) if they got all of the rivets in the right places.

Yes, this has been pleasant for a change...

Agreed. Different companies can do different things. But you need to ask yourself these few questions.
1 - Is HAWX based in the Tom Clancy universe, in which is based more on realism?
2 - Does the box not state that you can choose from 50 licensed planes?
3 - Would have actually making each aircraft accurate down to the real world counterparts hurt anything?
4 - As you stated before, and I agreed with, this game has issues from top to bottom. Should that be acceptable?

Things to think about, no matter how HIGH or LOW your expectations are.

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
If expectations are "too high" (your words) then I would call that unrealistic.

Different companies can do things differently and be just as good as the other. While they "could have" that doesn't necessarily mean they "should have" nor does it mean they're "worse than" either. Like I said earlier, this isn't AC and it's not Gran Turismo either, they can take license on the aesthetic stuff if they want. The game is still fun and it wouldn't be any more fun (to me) if they got all of the rivets in the right places.

Yes, this has been pleasant for a change...

Agreed. Different companies can do different things. But you need to ask yourself these few questions.
1 - Is HAWX based in the Tom Clancy universe, in which is based more on realism?
2 - Does the box not state that you can choose from 50 licensed planes?
3 - Would have actually making each aircraft accurate down to the real world counterparts hurt anything?
4 - As you stated before, and I agreed with, this game has issues from top to bottom. Should that be acceptable?

Things to think about, no matter how HIGH or LOW your expectations are.

1) Of course it's based on the T.C. universe but it's also set in the future so realism is a guess and artistic license can be taken. Like I said before, maybe they changed the planes after 2010.

2) The planes are licensed but that doesn't mean they have to be "exact" it just means that they have permission (and most likely approval as released) by the manufacturers. I bet the manufactures care less about the aesthetics in HAWX than some players do.

3) It very well could have taken a lot more time so yes. This isn't a sim, they don't have to be exact.

4) Yes, some bugs are acceptable, no game is perfect. That doesn't mean that companies shouldn't try to patch them (ubisoft has released patches and I believe there will be one or two more) it just means that bugs are normal. Also, there's a BIG difference in an unintentional bug and and intentional design deviation that some people try to call a bug. If they intentionally left out some rivets or put them in a wrong place, that's not a bug, imo.

Hope that helps but I'm guessing that we have different POVs here as well.

A response (to M_C's post but intended for anyone else):

1.) Then an F-15E wouldn't be an F-15E, i.e. it should not be labeled as such in game. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about jets knows that it would not change so significantly so soon, especially on an aircraft roughly on its way out (in favor of the F-35 and F-22).

2.) License has everything to do with adherence to certain representations. While there are performance liberties allowed, both for jet manufacturers as well as auto manufacturers, the visual representation is more than just aesthetics. There are many documented situations with Gran Turismo, for example, that do and don't allow certain visual representations for x or y reason. They do not want misrepresentation. Otherwise, they don't agree on the licensing in the first place. If anything, manufacturers care MORE about their representation than we, the players, do. It's their product, after all.

3.) It only takes as much time as it takes to program the graphics in the first place. If you have to arrange the vector coordinates as x or y, then it's the same thing. It's not like they had to ADD code to present us with a visual. The code is the code. Besides, plenty of other companies do show more exact representations, and they're lauded for their efforts. If you're a fan of this genre, it's likely that you're someone who likes jets in the first place. These things matter to us, as has been mentioned countless times on this forum. If you're not, then fine, but remember that this IS a niche title for which the core audience is us jet aficionados. "Know your audience."

4.) A bug is coding that does not function as intended. It's a malfunction. I have mentioned that there have been 2 patches for the PS3 version. The first, on day 2, fixed a bug where pretty much no online games were visible, thus, not join-able. The second patch removed our pre-order jets (made available through DLC for a charge) and fixed the bug where the T.O.P. pack on about 2 aircraft was not unlockable in TDM. That's it. The first was a necessary fix, and I'm glad they did it. The second was so far down anyone's priority list, though. None of the major issues on the PS3 version were addressed after day 2, despite the numerous reporting of serious bugs. Did we get patches? Yes. Were they substantive enough? Not at all. I judge "substantive" based on experiences with other games, so the term is relative to those, not simply my own expectation. Considering the lack of the major bugs being addressed via patches, it follows that (barring any further substantive patching) they are acceptable to Ubisoft. What WE are saying is that it is not.

I could have been won over by HAWX. I could have been a repeat customer. My combined experience with the game as well as the patching/customer rapport means I will not return. I'm only one person, but I know that many others are following suit for the same and/or similar reasons. Any successful company would logically want to keep as many customers as possible, not turn them off.

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:

1) Of course it's based on the T.C. universe but it's also set in the future so realism is a guess and artistic license can be taken. Like I said before, maybe they changed the planes after 2010.

2) The planes are licensed but that doesn't mean they have to be "exact" it just means that they have permission (and most likely approval as released) by the manufacturers. I bet the manufactures care less about the aesthetics in HAWX than some players do.

3) It very well could have taken a lot more time so yes. This isn't a sim, they don't have to be exact.

4) Yes, some bugs are acceptable, no game is perfect. That doesn't mean that companies shouldn't try to patch them (ubisoft has released patches and I believe there will be one or two more) it just means that bugs are normal. Also, there's a BIG difference in an unintentional bug and and intentional design deviation that some people try to call a bug. If they intentionally left out some rivets or put them in a wrong place, that's not a bug, imo.

Hope that helps but I'm guessing that we have different POVs here as well.

1 - Well considering that the Echo is not due to officially retire for decades to come, that reason will not work when one uses common sense. Based on publically available information, an Eagle's basic planform will remain unchanged (with the exception of the Silent Eagle upgrade for example) over it's lifetime.

2 - Now while I agree with you that the signed contract between Boeing and Ubisoft in all likelihood did not require 100% accurate models, it all comes down to ethics, and being proud of what you do. I said it once, and I'll repeat myself once again, they took an F-15C and labeled as an F-15E. A lie? Lazy? Both? A shame really. I suggest you download the IL-2 demo off the PSN or Live to see what actually caring about the aircraft looks like. The airplane models are fantastic, and set the benchmark for console gaming. If you have a PC, take a look the game, you will be surprised at the level it is at when compared to HAWX. I won't even talk about the physics in IL-2. Amazing stuff indeed..

3 - Yes you answer? I do not understand how you came to the conclusion that taking longer would have caused an issue. Do you think Namco will be in hurry to bring it's first flight game to the PS3? All the while offering airplanes that are not accurate and/or mislabeled? We know the answer to that. Yes MC, I realise that this is not a SIM my man. LOL

4 - That's the failed reasoning that brought games to where they are at now. To many people don't mind a game that is incomplete because a patch will eventually show up. Maybe. Maybe not. I am not sure if you played Blazing Angels or not, but this game is on that same path. IE - All quiet on the boards, with the exception of police action by the staff. I don't place the modeling discrepancies in the bugs and glitches department, for it belongs in "what is going on?" section due to some questionable business decisions or lack of proper research. Ah yes, proper research, it's almost something that makes me want to laugh at, if I didn't see it as so pathetic. I would have loved to do all the required research on the airplanes, missile systems, etc., free of charge. Airplanes are one of my passions in life, and I honestly believe that "passion" is what is missing from this game.

I know we won't agree here, but I honestly believe you are a minority here.

quote:

Originally posted by Adnihilis:

I could have been won over by HAWX. I could have been a repeat customer. My combined experience with the game as well as the patching/customer rapport means I will not return. I'm only one person, but I know that many others are following suit for the same and/or similar reasons. Any successful company would logically want to keep as many customers as possible, not turn them off.

I didn't quote the rest of your post because I agree with it..

Even though HAWX disappointed me on many levels, I still enjoyed the title enough to buy it again. I will pretty much buy any flight game on the PS3 even though there has been a few exceptions (namely BA2 and Warhawk).

Good news is IL-2 impressed me. With all the arcade/sim options in place, they look to have done exactly what you stated in -

- "Any successful company would logically want to keep as many customers as possible, not turn them off."

I honestly believe that IL-2's model of arcade/sim choice represents the future of the genre.

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:

1) Of course it's based on the T.C. universe but it's also set in the future so realism is a guess and artistic license can be taken. Like I said before, maybe they changed the planes after 2010.

2) The planes are licensed but that doesn't mean they have to be "exact" it just means that they have permission (and most likely approval as released) by the manufacturers. I bet the manufactures care less about the aesthetics in HAWX than some players do.

3) It very well could have taken a lot more time so yes. This isn't a sim, they don't have to be exact.

4) Yes, some bugs are acceptable, no game is perfect. That doesn't mean that companies shouldn't try to patch them (ubisoft has released patches and I believe there will be one or two more) it just means that bugs are normal. Also, there's a BIG difference in an unintentional bug and and intentional design deviation that some people try to call a bug. If they intentionally left out some rivets or put them in a wrong place, that's not a bug, imo.

Hope that helps but I'm guessing that we have different POVs here as well.

1 - Well considering that the Echo is not due to officially retire for decades to come, that reason will not work when one uses common sense. Based on publically available information, an Eagle's basic planform will remain unchanged (with the exception of the Silent Eagle upgrade for example) over it's lifetime.

2 - Now while I agree with you that the signed contract between Boeing and Ubisoft in all likelihood did not require 100% accurate models, it all comes down to ethics, and being proud of what you do. I said it once, and I'll repeat myself once again, they took an F-15C and labeled as an F-15E. A lie? Lazy? Both? A shame really. I suggest you download the IL-2 demo off the PSN or Live to see what actually caring about the aircraft looks like. The airplane models are fantastic, and set the benchmark for console gaming. If you have a PC, take a look the game, you will be surprised at the level it is at when compared to HAWX. I won't even talk about the physics in IL-2. Amazing stuff indeed..

3 - Yes you answer? I do not understand how you came to the conclusion that taking longer would have caused an issue. Do you think Namco will be in hurry to bring it's first flight game to the PS3? All the while offering airplanes that are not accurate and/or mislabeled? We know the answer to that. Yes MC, I realise that this is not a SIM my man. LOL

4 - That's the failed reasoning that brought games to where they are at now. To many people don't mind a game that is incomplete because a patch will eventually show up. Maybe. Maybe not. I am not sure if you played Blazing Angels or not, but this game is on that same path. IE - All quiet on the boards, with the exception of police action by the staff. I don't place the modeling discrepancies in the bugs and glitches department, for it belongs in "what is going on?" section due to some questionable business decisions or lack of proper research. Ah yes, proper research, it's almost something that makes me want to laugh at, if I didn't see it as so pathetic. I would have loved to do all the required research on the airplanes, missile systems, etc., free of charge. Airplanes are one of my passions in life, and I honestly believe that "passion" is what is missing from this game.

I know we won't agree here, but I honestly believe you are a minority here.

1) When one uses common sense they just understand that it's a game and not as important a some try to make it seem.

2) It did not require it because it's just not that important. I'll say it again too, it's just a game.

3) Yes, it could hurt budgets and possible violate contracts if it takes "too long" so, (again) yes, it could have been bad. I'm not saying that I would mind if the planes were more accurate; I'm saying delays can be problematic, especially delays for less-important issues. Why do you keep bringing up other companies after you admitted that ubisoft can do things differently? It doesn't matter what Gran Turismo did, it doesn't matter what Gran Prix did, it doesn't matter what AC did and it won't matter what Il-2 nor Namco does. HAWX doesn't have to be like other games and it's not bad if ubisoft did things their way.

4) No, that's reality. Complicated games will have bugs and will need patches. Even simple games have had bugs and needed patches. It's not incomplete just because it doesn't meet unrealistic standards.

I may be the minority, on the forum, regarding these aesthetic issues or maybe I'm the only one willing to point out that they don't matter as much as some think they do. They did sell over a million copies and I know I'm not the only one that doesn't care about unimportant things. *shrug*

I do hope those that *claim* they'll never buy another ubisoft game will keep their word, it will be nicer around here if they do.

YMMV...

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
I may be the minority, on the forum, regarding these aesthetic issues or maybe I'm the only one willing to point out that they don't matter as much as some think they do.

i dont think they're super-important either. i mean, i rarely even get a long look at my cockpit from 3rd person(when you'd notice)...im too busy zippin around popping everything in sight. hehe. its the gameplay that gets me into HAWX.

but i do like the 'real' aircraft, and although it'd be nice to have incredible attention to detail - its not necessary, for me, in order to have fun with the game.