PDA

View Full Version : Begining to feel a bit disapointed about CoD



Poacher886a
02-28-2011, 02:42 PM
Yes, i realise i've not played it yet and all that, but there are many screen shots and much info to judge on the look and content of the game, if not the actual simualtion and AI yet, anf if im honest its all a little underwhelming!

I picked up and played IL2 apon release about 8yrs ago. It was a seriously impressive sim for the time, the graphics were amazing, the feel excellent,loads of flyable aircraft, the Sim was well a Sim not an arcade game, all told, it did blow me away except it lacked in some vital area's.....

The immersion for a campaign only player like myself was rubbish, no "proper breifings" or de-breifings, no dynamic campaigns, no feel of actually contributing to anything, no feel of being a part of a close team, with losses noticeable etc etc.

It seemed to be quite literly a collection of missions with no purpose than to put you against the enemy for a dog fight. Many will say that is all they want, but many as myself would like to feel the immersion of a "real pilot" on camapign.

Seriously, i was playing WW11 fighter sims back in the early 90's with breif / de-breifings, dynamic campaigns, with a limited number of aircraft, and a choice on what to do, i.e picking enemy targets for the mission etc. I remember a game called "operation overlord" which had it all...IL2 was vastly superiour in its actual simulation of combat, but even being a decade on from 'operation Overlord', still lagged in the immerssion side of things.


So like many on these forums, i've been patiently waiting for what, 6yrs for the coming of the much promised CoD as its now called and from what i've read and seen, im feeling a bit let down already.

Firstly the graphics...i don't understand what alot of you are seeing, im viewing on a 24" IPS monitor through a GTX570 and it looks like an update of IL2 from 8yrs ago!!!, i mean seriously the difference from Pacific fighters to IL2 is much like the difference from CoD to Pacific fighters! an improvement.

Now consider the difference from Silent hunter 1 to silent hunter 5, or the original Shogun TW to the forth coming Shogun TW, to say night and day would be an understatement, more like the difference from the forth coming Shogun TW to Pac-Man!...light years away.

Plenty will say the graphics are not important, but i say this is non-sense, in a simulator, EVERYTHING is important, because you are trying to create a convincing simualtion of a REAL situation...the better the graphics the more convincing the sim.

Next the lack of aircraft....there realy is a shortage of flyable aircraft for a game that has been in development for 6yrs, sure there will probably be more to come, but when? or will they just skip to the next instalment elsewhere?, one of the great things about the IL2 series was there was never a lack of aircraft, including the much liked (by me) naff aircraft, that you really had to work for a kill.

Even ignoring my firt two disapointments, which can be improved / modded with time, the really big disapointment for me is after all this time, it seems the main part where IL2 always lacked has had no time spent on improving it....the campaign and 'Out of Aircraft' experience.

For the life of me, how hard would it have been to have created a few locations as follows: On the airfield (getting into and out off your aircraft) before and after a sorty, a hut (where you have breifings / de-breifings), and / or sitting outside the hut waiting for the alarm (clearly prior to an action), just these three would have gven you some sense of being! especially if other members of your squadron with individual faces were present AND NOT ONCE KILLED!!

And now to the campaign or rather lack of it. Why is it so difficult not to include both a dynamic campaign and static missions, with mission builder for those who like.

I dont buy into those who say a Dynamic campign makes for boring missions....infact quite the opposite, it makes for more realistic missions if the parameters for both sides are accurate. If playing as the Germans, you will be heading out to either bomb or escort the bombers, you will thus already be doing as was done. The RAF will know your are coming and will send an intercept thus you will more than likely see action. If you successfully bomb either airfields or Radar stations, this should effect the enemy's ability to intercept you, for some time and be noticeable.

If playing as the British,you will know the enemy is coming and scramble accordingly,if you have taken serious losses, you will be short of aircraft and crew until you have time to replenish thus forcing a more cautious approach, if your airfield is damaged you might need to vacate to another until repaired, if your on a random patrol and don't encounter the enemy then great!! you live another day, you have a greater feeling of reality, and it makes that much more important the contacts and mis-chances when you do have a contact.

Boring...impossible.

And so to my final issue. With 25 days to go and no sign of a real "in my hands" game to buy from any of the popular stores in GB! Play.com UK has had this game in its pre-order charts for about 6yrs!! and its been in the top 30 most pre-ordered chart for as long as i can remember...now were on the verge of its release and there is no sign of its existance unless you download it, something i hate to do as i like a perminent real game not a cyber one.

Am i going to buy the game...of course i will (when its for sell), there is unfortunately no competitors to the IL2 series, long gone are the day's when Sim's (especially flight Sims) were the FPS games of there time.. a new'er and better one each month come the early 90's....but i still feel a bit disapointed with what we know about the game given i've never waited so long for a game to arrive in all my 26yrs of playing them.

I hope im proved wrong on many accounts when i get hold of the Sim, but i cant think of any Sim / game that has delivered more than was advertised.

Vipez-
02-28-2011, 03:07 PM
And here we go again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

My only comment is you should first see and play the final release, before you judge.

I know I will http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Andritsos
02-28-2011, 03:19 PM
IMHO u should take it well, all share some worries, im not yet concerned about the quality now of the game as i am more concerned about all the franchise of il 2 series form now on. From experience around 1C and community tehy offered teh best humanly possible. The fact is taht maybe teh team could not afford other delays and had to release the game, in my opinion i could say that the battle itself might not have the very best, but it has all the battle of britain had. The only major thing is the limited number of airplanes(not variety but quantity in numberS) but it was a decision made for the specs of the game.Anyway the number of planes will be one of the first things that campaign and mission editors will do, im sure, and all modders and 1c make good job.
For the amount on content again, this is the BASEMENT of the game/progect and for what i see its very good, so to sustain mayeb even betetr a development cycle liek that of IL2 that even now is still supported by team daidalos!Depending on teh success teh game will grow up to a skyscraper and will be awesome( me , personally i would like a mediterranean desert scenario, but most of tehm might be made) furtehrmore there maddox is also interested going over teh 2nd world war and maybe do a korea scenario!
As far as i can tell OLEG and 1C and community want and have the opportunity to make this game( i think that game as a term cant suit this genre) one of the very best not only for experience, realism where possible and fun, but also for refernce as around it tehre are lot of people which you cna talk and LEARN something about that times, the planes and technology. I'm really happy to say that since 2001 my interest and general knowledge about facts and planes have increased around this community! However it all depends on success in market, and 1C deserves it and i will certainly support them on their project, or <<Basement>>

P.S sorry for some errors

DuckyFluff
02-28-2011, 03:34 PM
Ah the usual glass is only half full brigade,,, hasn't even seen the game yet and whining already. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


So you missed The Collectors Edition package and the normal DVD game?

You missed the VIDEOS and abviously missed the multitude of explanations from Oleg about his thinking for this production http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
02-28-2011, 03:39 PM
If you had looked just a little further into the IL2 community, you would have seen that there has been an EXCELLENT, FREE dynamic campaign generator being worked on for years now, and its still being improved.

http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php

Andritsos
02-28-2011, 03:47 PM
however, its not such a drwback not having dynamic campaign,i would prefer it as a plus.
expecially on the german campaign we will be able to do mission as accurate as possible like we were in the war, his aim tehre is to be very accurate.

Furtehrmore IL COD will be released with some content turned down and with later expansion will they be turned up, all this if im correct for keepeing spec quite more reasonable.
BTW and to showsome examples: do you know that the game will have the dynamic weather? Luthier said taht tehre wil be in the game data and might e usable in teh FMB , is only that its not optimised and will drop fPS to 1 FPS.In addition have soemone seen the little bit older but better looking trees? they tuned tehm down, but tehy have tehm and tehy might make tehm available...
when more expansions come more triggers of content will be activated that didnt made it at first release.
It all depends on success

Airmail109
02-28-2011, 04:43 PM
I'm not that impressed by the visuals either, especially the high spec systems needed to run it.

WTE_Ibis
02-28-2011, 06:22 PM
I can't wait for it.
I'll reserve my opinion until I have tested it over many hours.

I suspect that I'll give it the thumbs up in the end purely on teams previous efforts.
Cheers,



.

VW-IceFire
02-28-2011, 07:30 PM
I swear some of you are blind... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The visuals are a gigantic improvement over IL-2. But it does require you to be a visual person and to look closely. The things that are really impressive visuals wise are the real time self shadowing both internally and externally and the precision to which the lighting is being calculated. IL-2 was a rough approximation while this looks very close to being real... the simulation of diffuse lighting conditions caused by haze and so forth.

It's a much greater leap than from IL-2 Forgotten Battles to Pacific Fighters. That was an appreciated but fairly minor tweaking of what the engine was capable of on the whole. In that case we already had everything visually... but there were some great efforts to round out the visuals (more impressive splashes in the water, better pixel shaded water, slightly higher quality 3D models and default textures, etc.).

Yes the actual content in terms of number of aircraft is going to be less. It's an obvious one. Could have told you that in 2005 or 2006 whenever this was announced. When it arrives and I install it on my computer... I will be asking:

1) Is this a better simulator than IL-2 1946?
2) Is this a better game than IL-2 1946?
3) Does it lay the foundations for a brilliant new series of WWII air combat games?

The last one is an unusual one because normally whatever in the box is what you get plus maybe one expansion later. But we know from experience and from public record that Cliffs of Dover is the first in hopefully a new series of successful releases.

Until we get it... all bets are off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheGrunch
02-28-2011, 07:47 PM
I think we are all a bit used to the unrealistic camera filters of Second World War films and the exaggerated specular and bloom or HDR filters of modern games.
I will admit though that the slightly jarring colour palette of the game so far leaves me doubtful. It's so yellow it looks like an unusually bright sunset a lot of the time.

M_Gunz
02-28-2011, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you had looked just a little further into the IL2 community, you would have seen that there has been an EXCELLENT, FREE dynamic campaign generator being worked on for years now, and its still being improved.

http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php

+1

Also to mention the improvements in DF just in IL2:1946 alone have approached campaign level while if I read correctly there are more and better in CoD. Whatever can be run online can be run as a one-PC LAN.

Maddox Games has given us many tools to use and customize the game with. There's a -lot- of free improvements out, just look.

RSS-Martin
02-28-2011, 10:09 PM
So typical people just donīt read any more, just start the thousandth thread on their so great disappointment that they donīt have the game already and that now. If you are so impatient,
donīt buy it, get yourself a arcade shooter as this sim is then nothing for you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

TheGrunch
02-28-2011, 10:25 PM
I'm a bit sick of the graphics whines...we were all fine with Il-2 until the CoD screenshots started turning up, and all of a sudden we're expecting a sim to have graphics on par with an A++ FPS in an era of gaming where the sim market represents a much smaller segment of the overall gaming market compared to 2001 when Il-2 came out.

I'm going to become a Wimpy Whiner, though, by the looks of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-28-2011, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
I'm a bit sick of the graphics whines...we were all fine with Il-2 until the CoD screenshots started turning up, and all of a sudden we're expecting a sim to have graphics on par with an A++ FPS in an era of gaming where the sim market represents a much smaller segment of the overall gaming market compared to 2001 when Il-2 came out.

I'm going to become a Wimpy Whiner, though, by the looks of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I'd like to see those FPS games do realistic scenery by the thousands of square kilometers and make it look good from 0 to 30,000 feet. Plus they don't really care about realism... they go for dramatic appeal. Which is ok... that's the whole idea there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheGrunch
02-28-2011, 10:30 PM
Exactly...that's what people don't seem able to grasp.

jafa1967
03-01-2011, 12:55 AM
Poacher886a im with you on this one , considering what we were expecting and what we are now getting , its just not up to the mark , to much capitulation by fanboys and not enough NO its not acceptable would have been a better idea.

TheGrunch
03-01-2011, 01:32 AM
Pah, I'd rather have a new game with an interesting scenario, most importantly a better FM/DM and slightly crappy graphics than a game that never comes out with fancy looking screenshots released every few months. If you guys can't see the value of actual functional improvements like the huge view range and improved engine simulation because you're nitpicking about shaders and other such sparkly spangly bits then more fool you, I'll be playing CoD while you play Crysis 2.

jafa1967
03-01-2011, 02:21 AM
Exactly my point , you'd be happy if you were offered a burnt sausage.

TheGrunch
03-01-2011, 03:02 AM
I see, so a game is *ruined* if it doesn't have graphics competitive with a dumbed-down mass-market game? I'd rather whine about things that actually affect the gameplay than whether I can make screenshot calendars. I think you need to tone down your expectations. Wings of Prey, for example, was only able to be as graphically impressive as it is because the view distance is extremely short and it's immediately apparent that the rest of the game was neglected in favour of graphical glitz. Wouldn't you rather play the game than just make videos?

JG4_Helofly
03-01-2011, 03:14 AM
What?? Disappointed with graphics??? I really don't know what screenshots you are looking at, but the details are great and many shots look almost photo realistic. Even the interior (the structure) of the plane is modeled. Someone posted a comparaison screenshot in the official 1c forum. It showed the difference between the stuka in IL2 and COD. It was like day and night.

I suspect that many people who complain about the graphics, are fans of the wings of prey graphics. Looks certainly "old" and immersive with all these filters, but absolutely not realistic.

And please, try first and comment later!

jafa1967
03-01-2011, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
I see, so a game is *ruined* if it doesn't have graphics competitive with a dumbed-down mass-market game? I'd rather whine about things that actually affect the gameplay than whether I can make screenshot calendars. I think you need to tone down your expectations. Wings of Prey, for example, was only able to be as graphically impressive as it is because the view distance is extremely short and it's immediately apparent that the rest of the game was neglected in favour of graphical glitz. Wouldn't you rather play the game than just make videos?

Thats what I do , I make movies from the game othewise I dont play it at all and I never play it online , so yes my expectations are high and I AM looking for high graphical content, the loss of DX11 and many other things from the inital release is a dissapointment to me and many others , and lastly no one is saying the game is ruined , just that it aint the one we were led to beleive we were getting.

RSS-Martin
03-01-2011, 04:20 AM
No one is forcing you to buy it if it dissapoints so much.

Vipez-
03-01-2011, 06:08 AM
Some people seem to compare graphics of CoD to games of different genres. Granted, latest FPS games, for example Battlefield 3, might look prettier (not saying they look more realistic).

The truth is simulations always have to take compromise between decent fps rate and graphics quality, as the modelled universe in the game is thousand times bigger than some of the FPS games (like Crysis 2, therefore requiring higher computer specs to run the game at full graphic settings than most of todays fps shooters).

In my opinion, CoD looks very pretty in the screenshots, so no, I am not disappointed.

JG52Russkly
03-01-2011, 06:11 AM
Interesting thread, if perhaps a little premature.

I too have played all the WWII & WWI flight sims since time began, and I'm looking forward to CoD for no other reasons than it is a continuation of this genre and a product from a developer I respect.

How good it turns out to be, I'll wait to decide until I have the game, have tweaked the settings for my PC, etc. and flown a few sorties.

As for the graphics, I don't tend to fly around much admiring the scenery and noticing many of the details that others in this forum clearly notice - for me it's all about combat representation. How well represented is the difficulty of spotting a/c or ground targets, identifying them, and finally engaging them? Do unmissable black blobs appear at 2Km, or are there subtleties that force the kind of awareness and keeness of eye that categorise aircrew, especially fighter pilots? Tough to do with pixels, I know, but some games are better than others.

This is really the only aspect of the graphics that interests me - the rest is 'nice-to-haves' that I rarely notice.

I'll agree with Poacher about the off-line campaign, however. It's my one real up-front concern.

This was an area, in which Il2 was always weak. It wasn't so much the campaign itself (and Loewengrin's sterling efforts certainly helped here) in terms of the mission types, variety, etc, but the lack of 'immersion'.

What I mean is this: if you're going to play CoD as the RAF, for example, I imagine one of the key components of the campaign would be to re-create the enormous stresses and strains of repeated sorties (some boring and fruitless, some fatal), and the resultant impact of unit casualties, tired aircraft, relocations to other airfields, etc. Furthermore, the element of uncertainty on sorties would be crucial for realism: getting bounced when tired of looking around; constantly looking into the sun, because that's usually where they come from; having sorties where you don't see the enemy, or where you or the enemy chooses to disengage for tactical reasons. All this would be needed to generate a campaign with this 'immersion' factor.

For me one of the only combat flight sims to achieve this 'immersion' to a captivating degree was Red Baron 3D, with its briefing notice boards, pilot roster blackboard, AI pilot progression/death, etc. I really felt that I was part of a team, and also felt the loss of wounded, killed or captured squadron mates and felt pleased at their successes (even if only because they then became better wingmen!). This was all felt especially keenly on becoming a flight or squadron leader, where assigning pilots to flights/sections, giving them their aircraft, choosing patrols based on orders from wing/group, etc. became of real importance. Morevoer during the missions/patrols, the enemy often came at unexpected times from unexpected places, whereas in Il2 the enemy pretty much appears at similar altitude to the player and where the briefing says he'll be.

Unfortunately this off-line element seems to be a part of the combat flight simulator genre that is increasingly overlooked, perhaps because it's hard or because it's already difficult enough to do all the graphics, flight modelling, etc. without putting masses of time into the off-line experience; perhaps because so many people love on-line nowadays (not sure what the stats are on this).

For example I've been playing Rise of Flight: Iron Cross Edition for the last few months. It's a fantastically well-devised game with great graphics (apart from slightly 'blobby' contacts that are all too easy to spot), but I actually stopped playing, because the off-line campaign was weak with no real squadron/unit feel, no interest in the other pilots, and no surprises on missions. Interestingly the developers (777 Studios) have realised this too based on feedback from their customers, and are in the process of devising a much-improved off-line campaign experience. Fair play to them.

I hope the off-line experience is better than my expectations, although the lack of comments about it make me worry that it will be at best no better than the original Il2 off-line mode (which they did, to be fair, improve later with fairly OK pilot rosters, progression, promotion, etc.).

I have tried on-line with Il2 (old Hyperlobby) and RoF, but the team thing seems to be so popular now, that, if you're just interested in some fairly serious flying for an hour or so (and by "serious" I mean trying to work towards team objectives, look after buddies, etc. rather than just fly around at 20,000ft looking for scores), it's difficult not to get toasted. I did join a virutal squadron 4 years ago, but I couldn't commit to certain hours every week, and my wife thought I was a complete idiot for shouting "break right, break right" to my PC!

So, I have my fingers crossed, because, without a strong off-line experience, I might end up having to wave a tearful farewell to combat flight sims...

R

Poacher886a
03-01-2011, 01:53 PM
I'll agree with Poacher about the off-line campaign, however. It's my one real up-front concern.

This was an area, in which Il2 was always weak. It wasn't so much the campaign itself (and Loewengrin's sterling efforts certainly helped here) in terms of the mission types, variety, etc, but the lack of 'immersion'.

What I mean is this: if you're going to play CoD as the RAF, for example, I imagine one of the key components of the campaign would be to re-create the enormous stresses and strains of repeated sorties (some boring and fruitless, some fatal), and the resultant impact of unit casualties, tired aircraft, relocations to other airfields, etc. Furthermore, the element of uncertainty on sorties would be crucial for realism: getting bounced when tired of looking around; constantly looking into the sun, because that's usually where they come from; having sorties where you don't see the enemy, or where you or the enemy chooses to disengage for tactical reasons. All this would be needed to generate a campaign with this 'immersion' factor.

For me one of the only combat flight sims to achieve this 'immersion' to a captivating degree was Red Baron 3D, with its briefing notice boards, pilot roster blackboard, AI pilot progression/death, etc. I really felt that I was part of a team, and also felt the loss of wounded, killed or captured squadron mates and felt pleased at their successes (even if only because they then became better wingmen!). This was all felt especially keenly on becoming a flight or squadron leader, where assigning pilots to flights/sections, giving them their aircraft, choosing patrols based on orders from wing/group, etc. became of real importance. Morevoer during the missions/patrols, the enemy often came at unexpected times from unexpected places, whereas in Il2 the enemy pretty much appears at similar altitude to the player and where the briefing says he'll be.

Unfortunately this off-line element seems to be a part of the combat flight simulator genre that is increasingly overlookedR

Thank you Sir, you have clearly read my post and understand where im coming from...words from my own mind!!


Some of you guy's post's are totaly predictable, if you catch a sniff of someone calmly giving his thoughts to date, you jump on a single small issue (normally the graphics) and whip up the usual quick and easy's like "dont buy it then"....or the whole thread goes off on a tangent based apon the single small issue you decided to emphasise on (normally the graphics).

Firstly, i started my post stating i was basing my thoughts apon what content and screen shots are present. Having being playing games/Sims since the 80's i've very rarely been supprised with the released game after viewing the info and screen shots previously, its always just as i expected, with perhaps a few extra smiles and frowns once played.
Never did i suggest it would be rubbish, nor do i expect it to be....but as stated, a little underwhelming given IL2's heritage and promises and bearing in mind the development time.

Can we please, stop focusing on the graphics department only. Again, i've dismissed this an observation rather than a game killer. I DO NOT PLAY FPS GAMES OR ANY ARCADE GAMES, if i did i would own a console and not a PC. I am not comparing CoD with the latest FPS games, i do however make note of the leaps other simulators like the Silent hunter series have made over their games in the similar time period versus what i see in both the VIDEOS and screenshots. Of course the graphics look better than the near decade old IL2, but just not the leap i was expecting. Please take a look at the new Sim DCS-Warthog, now take another look....and just one more time. End off.

My main and only real issue and let down is as JG52 Russkly puts so well...the off-line campign and non-immersion factor that are a big factor of the IL2 series in general and it seems again with CoD. He rightly states it seems to be a lacking factor in all Sims these days, which is strange, because it was an absolute formality with the Sims of yesterday however badly done...with moden PC's i would be expecting it so good that the military would be interested in the outcome!

Thanks for the heads up concerning the community's effort for a dynamic campaign "I have never managed to find any of the modding for IL2, so well hidden it is"!!!! ( i thought it was not allowed )and for those that suggest i should spend all my time scanning the internet and a thousand threads on the off chance i might find a lead into someone who is creating something that i never new existed that might interest me, im sorry, but as a member of the forums since 2005 (actually before but i lost my login) its news to me. A simple heads-up is sufficent without the verbal!

As for the mentioned forth coming content for the game, this really does / could make the difference, but not if by the time the dynamic campaign, extra flight models and the missing immersion factor arrives...it arrives for IL2 Stormovik 2! while the Battle of Britian is left for the dogs as a "Base" game long forgoten.

Please dont mis-understand me. I am truly exited about this Sim, i have a real interest in the content and have a long time respect for the makers of what is now a very small part of the console driven gaming world...as beggers we unfortunately cannot be chosers.

But its because of this very fact, that if it does'nt deliver the immersice experience i've always looked for, then there is no alternative and a very very long wait for the next chance.

Ba5tard5word
03-01-2011, 02:09 PM
Wow, at least try and wait until the game is out before deciding you're disappointed.

Graphics are not at the top of my list of things I want. I want the game to just feel really good and feel realistically intense when you're buzzing around battling the enemy.

TheGrunch
03-01-2011, 02:35 PM
If you're most concerned about the campaign, isn't it a bit early to say? Admittedly it is a static campaign, but often these are the most enjoyable.
Oleg has stated that dynamic campaigns will likely be left to third parties, which I agree is disappointing, but is perhaps just Oleg and team admitting that they aren't best placed to do that. Give it time and we'll see what third parties come up with.
The reason that everyone has latched onto the graphics point is because there has been *so* much whining about it. You can see that the reason for this is that there are a lot of people that don't actually want a sim, they either want Wings of Prey (but actually fun and with some replay value) or in the film-makers' case they want a lot of professional modelling, rendering and audio software and a lot of professional quality models and sounds that they couldn't afford to pay for in reality dressed up as a WWII sim so they can make CGI films.
Either that or they just have unrealistic expectations about what it is possible to simultaneously achieve on a limited budget for a niche product.
As for your point about aircraft, really that is just nonsense, it has more than the original Il-2 did at the beginning, and plenty of room for expansion. Try and think of another modern sim that had 12 flyables on release. There isn't one.

M_Gunz
03-01-2011, 02:54 PM
If it's not up to expectations then it's burnt sausage. After all, between the hairdoo and dress alone not to mention the perfect looks a girl only deserves the best imaginable!

What I've seen in reviews made from older beta copies on low end PCs beats IL2:1946 for looks alone. But hey, the improvements are bone deep. Yeah the boxed game won't have dynamic campaigns. Want to bet that 3rd party DCG won't work and won't be better than what we have now? Want to bet that online won't be better than it is now?

To be complaining about the quality of something you haven't really seen when what's been shown actually is on another level better than what we have now is a real b!tch act worthy of spoiled adolescents. I can imagine what you guys are like at Christmas or with your lives in general. You must be so very special and important that I bet it hurts when you have to deal with ordinary people. Why, your goodness might rub off! How dare anyone get your expectations up and not meet them!

Poacher886a
03-01-2011, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
If you're most concerned about the campaign, isn't it a bit early to say? Admittedly it is a static campaign, but often these are the most enjoyable.
Oleg has stated that dynamic campaigns will likely be left to third parties, which I agree is disappointing, but is perhaps just Oleg and team admitting that they aren't best placed to do that. Give it time and we'll see what third parties come up with.
The reason that everyone has latched onto the graphics point is because there has been *so* much whining about it. You can see that the reason for this is that there are a lot of people that don't actually want a sim, they either want Wings of Prey (but actually fun and with some replay value) or in the film-makers' case they want a lot of professional modelling, rendering and audio software and a lot of professional quality models and sounds that they couldn't afford to pay for in reality dressed up as a WWII sim so they can make CGI films.
Either that or they just have unrealistic expectations about what it is possible to simultaneously achieve on a limited budget for a niche product.
As for your point about aircraft, really that is just nonsense, it has more than the original Il-2 did at the beginning, and plenty of room for expansion. Try and think of another modern sim that had 12 flyables on release. There isn't one.

Thats perhaps a fair post, though i still have to disagree about a static campign...playing through a campaign with hindsight spoils it for me. Its the doubt in what you will meet and when, if at all, that gives just an ounce of tension the real boy's must have experienced.

I always find it strange in threads such as these, that there are so many people who say, "I'd rather have better AI than quality graphics etc etc.

Its not like when a game is anounced we are given an altermatum like:

"Hi, Oleg here", we are going to create a new Sim for the follow on of IL2 series" "heres the deal"

"you can have excellent graphics, but no immersion campign"...."Or you can have great AI, but a few flight models"....."Or you can have Rubbish graphics, rubbish AI, but a wonderfull campign and Breifings"

Surely you would want excellent graphics, excellent immersive campaign, excellent combat sim = Excellent game = More sales!

Perhaps as you suggested, they were tight on budget, thus the campaign had to once again take the back seat.

Either way, this part is what disapoints me and why i've always found it hard to really get into a IL2 campaign.

Poacher886a
03-01-2011, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If it's not up to expectations then it's burnt sausage. After all, between the hairdoo and dress alone not to mention the perfect looks a girl only deserves the best imaginable!

What I've seen in reviews made from older beta copies on low end PCs beats IL2:1946 for looks alone. But hey, the improvements are bone deep. Yeah the boxed game won't have dynamic campaigns. Want to bet that 3rd party DCG won't work and won't be better than what we have now? Want to bet that online won't be better than it is now?

To be complaining about the quality of something you haven't really seen when what's been shown actually is on another level better than what we have now is a real b!tch act worthy of spoiled adolescents. I can imagine what you guys are like at Christmas or with your lives in general. You must be so very special and important that I bet it hurts when you have to deal with ordinary people. Why, your goodness might rub off! How dare anyone get your expectations up and not meet them!


"Never in the field of posts, has so little constructive input been given to so many, by so few"

I think the Germans have a good proverb for this:

"If you have nothing better to say than silence..stay silent"

TheGrunch
03-01-2011, 03:46 PM
Well, yeah. By the time they started remaking the whole thing from scratch with a new engine I think Ubi were getting a bit ****ed.
I'd be happy if Lowengrin's DCG were the default campaign engine as long as I can play campaigns online with my friends. That was the most fun I've had in Il-2. It was such a shame that there was never any thought of replacing DGen for the original series, which is so out of date and frankly not that fun.
It'd be awesome *if* they went RB3D style, but honestly we've never seen any indication that MG are interested or have the expertise to do that. Playing with other people goes a good way toward adding those elements in itself.
In any project like this there are always trade-offs. It's a case of how many of each type of game development professional you can employ. Remember: there are only 20 guys on the current team. Il-2 was always known for its damage models and flight model difficulty. I don't think it's all that surprising that MG have chosen to focus on that and improving ground detail and visibility distance, which was one of the greatest deficiencies that players noted in Il-2.
That's more of a geometry/optimisation problem than one of shoving a load of shaders and various different texture maps on everything (which is the modern mainstream approach). Admittedly in the case of normal or even parallax mapping this does help to achieve a better appearance with less performance cost, but we've seen that CoD uses these features already.
My only criticism of the graphics of CoD at the moment is that the colour palette is a touch too bright even for a hot English summer. Maybe that's just because I've forgotten what a hot summer is like here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
I think the reason some people are getting the wrong idea is:
a) Oleg/luthier have crappy computers, and they are the guys who take the screenshots.
b) Oleg has some kind of ideological objection to using AA in screenshots which looks kind of bad
All the rest can just be tied down to expectations.

M_Gunz
03-01-2011, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Poacher886a:
"Never in the field of posts, has so little constructive input been given to so many, by so few"

I think the Germans have a good proverb for this:

"If you have nothing better to say than silence..stay silent"

As opposed to the speculation you put out, which is of such great value. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Spare me.

M_Gunz
03-01-2011, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
I don't think it's all that surprising that MG have chosen to focus on that and improving ground detail and visibility distance, which was one of the greatest deficiencies that players noted in Il-2.

Myself hoping that the view system and LODs have been overhauled. Rowan's MiG Alley had better. EAW had better. Perhaps to say CFS as well. The planes disappearing at 400-500m as I watched has been a minor peeve since end of 2001.

This is for the panic boys:
Oh shock and horror! I haven't seen total verification that it's been improved! Oh no! THE SKY IS FALLING! EVERYBODY RUUUUN!

Hope yins get the point but somehow I doubt it.

ElAurens
03-01-2011, 08:46 PM
People comparing CoD to various FPS and console games simply have no clue. None.

One of the the better PC ground combat titles that is often cited is ArmA II, a game that BTW I and my friends play every Saturday. ArmA II is held up as a paragon of graphic goodness, and in some ways it is, until you go up in an aircraft. Then graphically it falls on it's face. The largest map in ArmA II OA is 164 square kilometers. A postage stamp compared even the current maps in IL2. That mean the current largest map in OA is about 11 miles on a side.

Dwell on that for a bit.

In ArmA, if you crank the visibility distance way up, you might be able to go out to oh, 3 kilometers... In IL2 we have the ability, and the necessity to go out to 75 Kilometers.

Now look at the beta screens we have seen so far. How you can be disappointed is beyond me.

Just what the h311 are you expecting?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ElAurens
03-01-2011, 08:47 PM
People comparing CoD to various FPS and console games simply have no clue. None.

One of the the better PC ground combat titles that is often cited is ArmA II, a game that BTW I and my friends play every Saturday. ArmA II is held up as a paragon of graphic goodness, and in some ways it is, until you go up in an aircraft. Then graphically it falls on it's face. The largest map in ArmA II OA is 164 square kilometers. A postage stamp compared even the current maps in IL2. That means the current largest map in OA is about 11 miles on a side.

Dwell on that for a bit.

In ArmA, if you crank the visibility distance way up, you might be able to go out to oh, 3 kilometers... In IL2 we have the ability, and the necessity to go out to 75 Kilometers.

Now look at the beta screens we have seen so far. How you can be disappointed is beyond me.

Just what the h311 are you expecting?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SNACKY-353rd
03-01-2011, 09:15 PM
Yes, i realise i've not played it yet and all that

This says it all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The only thing that worries me about COD is how long I will have to wait to see an American aircraft and will it stink up the place.

TheGrunch
03-01-2011, 10:19 PM
A Martlet maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FlatSpinMan
03-02-2011, 05:16 AM
Got to say that I can really see where the original poster is coming from. I thought he made his points very reasonably, certainly far more moderate than seen in other places these days.
like him, I will get it and I am sure greatly enjoy it once it is out, but it does seem strange to think what has been missed out given the huge development time. I understand they are a small, underresourced team but the game as it arms to be now sure is a long way short of what I think most of us expected.
However, as RoF has taught us, there's plenty of time.

trumper
03-02-2011, 11:07 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI think the saying "expect the worst and hope for the best " springs to mind.
I hope Oleg and team will concentrate on patches in the future ,little and often and good quality.
Only a few days to go now so i doubt too much more can be done.
Still would like to see some video though.

stalkervision
03-02-2011, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
I'm not that impressed by the visuals either, especially the high spec systems needed to run it.

This worries me a bit also. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stalkervision
03-02-2011, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
Got to say that I can really see where the original poster is coming from. I thought he made his points very reasonably, certainly far more moderate than seen in other places these days.
like him, I will get it and I am sure greatly enjoy it once it is out, but it does seem strange to think what has been missed out given the huge development time. I understand they are a small, underresourced team but the game as it arms to be now sure is a long way short of what I think most of us expected.
However, as RoF has taught us, there's plenty of time.

I agree.

Poacher886a
03-02-2011, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by SNACKY-353rd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, i realise i've not played it yet and all that

This says it all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it does'nt.

You won't find me commenting on that which we know nothing about like the flight models / combat, AI etc. Infact i have no concerns in this (the core of the Sim) what-so-ever, as the IL2 series has proved superiour in this department and i have no reason to doubt it will again. I comment only what we have (at this very late stage) been told and can see for ourselfs.

A few have suggested that i first play the game before makeing some of the judgements that i have but....

...I don't expect after completeing my third patrol, to "Un-lock" the Dynamic campaign / mission breifing hut, more flyable aircraft in the British campaign, "real engine / gun sounds all rounded off with your surviving squadrons sun-down in the mess hall drinking whisky and joining in with "my old mans a dustman" being played on the piano by your wingman.


Perhaps Oleg and crew have kept a few supprises in hand....experience tells me otherwise.

M_Gunz
03-02-2011, 01:30 PM
Unless CoD specifically disables the IL2 features that allow Lowengrin's DCG to work (and AFAICT it actually explanded on those) there is no reason to think that we won't be able to run dynamic campaigns. From what I've seen there may be enough to implement such through DF and some 3rd party software. The real kicker is that these things can improve without burdening Maddox Games progress on patches and fundamental improvements.

TheGrunch
03-02-2011, 02:05 PM
My concern is how much modification DCG would have to go through to be ported to CoD. Lowengrin has stated himself that if he has to rewrite the program from scratch, we can pretty much forget it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JG52Russkly
03-03-2011, 06:33 AM
Yup, my concern is that we'll have a beautiful game with fantastic graphics, amazing flight/damage models, and a wonderful on-line experience with hundreds of virtual squadrons...

...but a slightly dull static campaign (as RoF's is currently) with no sense of being involved in anything but a series of albeit historically-accurate missions with a bunch of nameless, faceless squadron mates.

Yes, it's all premature, but the coverage of the campaign does give us a lot (or rather a little) to work with.

Anyway, I'll buy it, and I'll love the combat, and, who knows, maybe I'll be forced into doing more on-line...

R

ploughman
03-03-2011, 10:00 AM
but a slightly dull static campaign (as RoF's is currently) with no sense of being involved in anything but a series of albeit historically-accurate missions

What's dull about that? Each to there own I suppose, I suppose this (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php) guy'll sort you out in good time though.

JG52Russkly
03-03-2011, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but a slightly dull static campaign (as RoF's is currently) with no sense of being involved in anything but a series of albeit historically-accurate missions

What's dull about that? Each to there own I suppose, I suppose this (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php) guy'll sort you out in good time though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think a few people are concerned that Loewengrin's DCG will not be developed for CoD.

We shall see (and hope), but it's not even as simple as the missions generated; it's also about the immersion created by feeling some link to your squadron, the other pilots (and their development/demise), your personal aircraft (and its performance over time), etc.

Even the Big L cannot create that.

Still, as I say, I will buy the game and no doubt enjoy it.

R

ploughman
03-03-2011, 10:19 AM
I did feel really enlivened by the maintainance aspects of the A2A WoP 3 Spit for FSX, having something like that in a campaign would be very immersive, and create the continuity that motivates you to survive each mission.

Poacher886a
03-03-2011, 01:26 PM
I've never dabbled with the Mission creater in the IL2 series because from my view, if you have created your own missions, even if you have strung them together to make a campaign, your still going out on patrol with knowledge and hindsight which blows the whole "supprise" factor.

A sortie in a dynamic campaign where i encounter no enemy is as exiting to me as a contact, because of the chance i could have, and the anticlimax that follows provided a small dose of the real thing (read: small dose).
Just as, for example, going out in your small squadron of Beaufighter's for a long range mission and suddenly finding yourself stumbling apon 15 109's on patrol!!

Scripted missions will never provide this uncertainty and if you choose to create one yourself, you replace the uncertainty with certainty and loose the Wow factor.

I was discussing a similar topic in the DCS-Warthog forum, they too have decided to create a static campaign. They basically said, they would like to and might make a dynamic campaign for a later update, but if they did "They want to do it properly".

However, they have included a very powerfull mission editer, which allows for random design and enemy ecounters / movement, added to this the ability to string them together, and they suggest you can create a simulated dynamic campaign if not the real thing!

Even this would have been a start in CoD....perhaps they have!

But though a dynamic campaign would have been a big step forward for me, they have still missed the polish of the "out of aircraft" immersion factor that they could have so easily added given the 6yrs development, just a few area's to see your squadron and have mission breifings would have survice for now.

There was always something wrong about finishing a great mission in IL2 just to have a drum beat sound and a picture of a map in front of you, then the next drum beat sound as you click the next map before take off again that reminded you its "just a sim" rather than a convincing environment that sucks you in.....

M_Gunz
03-03-2011, 01:55 PM
Have a look inside a .mis file. It's text.

carguy_
03-03-2011, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Poacher886a:
I picked up and played IL2 apon release about 8yrs ago. It was a seriously impressive sim for the time, the graphics were amazing, the feel excellent,loads of flyable aircraft, the Sim was well a Sim not an arcade game, all told, it did blow me away except it lacked in some vital area's.....

Well yeah, I`d back you up with that. IL2 back in the 2003 blew me away with its graphics. Needless to say I`d put on the max settings about 2 years later, though I knew I had that possibility back when I first played it. Now looking at the screens of the new game, I can`t really say the same thing. IL2 : CoD seems to have average graphics. I`m just saying.




It seemed to be quite literly a collection of missions with no purpose than to put you against the enemy for a dog fight. Many will say that is all they want, but many as myself would like to feel the immersion of a "real pilot" on camapign.

You had a different experience, believe me. IL2 was the 1st serious WWII sim I`ve ever played and I must say I found available campaigns quite good. There were nice turning points like sudden air support for the enemy coming into the battle for example. Some missions, thanks to the static nature of the campaign, were massive battles that left me breathless.
To be honest though the moment the virtual online wars came in, I forgot offline gaming altoghether. And now all I care for in this department is will those wars be available in the future.



So like many on these forums, i've been patiently waiting for what, 6yrs for the coming of the much promised CoD as its now called and from what i've read and seen, im feeling a bit let down already.

It would be too simple I think. Maddox Games is not a massive GTA team, though Cliffs of Dover is already a massive game to be followed by more massive expansions. Taking those points into account, I can`t say that the time that went on starting from 2006 (that is the year Storm of War was mentioned first I think) had made me raising the bar year by year. The main thing I require from Oleg now is making a solid game, with a solid online code. The additional theatres, patches, updates and 3rd party enhancements will come. I know that. Hell, I`m so confident with the game that I`ll buy it regardless if it`s going to be broken at first. The will to support Oleg and the genre is too strong with this one.



Firstly the graphics...i don't understand what alot of you are seeing, im viewing on a 24" IPS monitor through a GTX570 and it looks like an update of IL2 from 8yrs ago!!!, i mean seriously the difference from Pacific fighters to IL2 is much like the difference from CoD to Pacific fighters! an improvement.

To be honest, I don`t really care if it`s just an upgrade. Graphics really don`t mean the most in this game. The only thing I`ll be testing extensively is the distance of visibility and how planes are visible against the terrain.



Now consider the difference from Silent hunter 1 to silent hunter 5, or the original Shogun TW to the forth coming Shogun TW, to say night and day would be an understatement, more like the difference from the forth coming Shogun TW to Pac-Man!...light years away.

Sorry bro, not really relevant to the case of IL2 games.



Plenty will say the graphics are not important, but i say this is non-sense, in a simulator, EVERYTHING is important, because you are trying to create a convincing simualtion of a REAL situation...the better the graphics the more convincing the sim.

Visibility of planes at a certain distance - that was an issue with IL2. A BIG issue. I do want it gone. That`s about it when it comes to my requirements for the graphics.

Now the real stuff I`m hoping for - more complicated damage model, more complicated ballistics, more complicated engine management, better modelling of ground battles (ever heard of a T34-75 killing a King Tiger?) and plane functionality. Oleg promised to meet those demands and has been talking mainly about this for the whole time this game is in the works.



Next the lack of aircraft....there realy is a shortage of flyable aircraft for a game that has been in development for 6yrs, sure there will probably be more to come, but when? or will they just skip to the next instalment elsewhere?, one of the great things about the IL2 series was there was never a lack of aircraft, including the much liked (by me) naff aircraft, that you really had to work for a kill.

Sounds as if you entered the game after the Forgotten Battles was released. Back in the early days there weren`t that many planes either. Although I didn`t complain because the time it took to make the skills SIMILAR to pre-mastering a certain one type of aircraft in this game, in my case was so long, that by the time I began dominating online, the Ace Expansion Pack was already in the sales. Actually, I did complain, but not about lack of planes, but about postponing some of the nicest 109 types of all. Oleg Maddox has made so much credit in my book, that I`m sure in a few years we`ll have something similar to the current 1946 game. As a customer, I have yet to see a more ambitious set of guys making a video game than the MG guys. A support worth every penny.



Even ignoring my firt two disapointments, which can be improved / modded with time, the really big disapointment for me is after all this time, it seems the main part where IL2 always lacked has had no time spent on improving it....the campaign and 'Out of Aircraft' experience.

You got me here. I just recalled that I`ve been bashing the Yanks ever since the first word of releasing the P51 Mustang popped out in the open. For not letting the Eastern Front being completed. Months of complaining, right here on the forums. About two years later we came back to the theatre, and to my knowledge it is the most complete in the game.




I dont buy into those who say a Dynamic campign makes for boring missions....infact quite the opposite, it makes for more realistic missions if the parameters for both sides are accurate. If playing as the Germans, you will be heading out to either bomb or escort the bombers, you will thus already be doing as was done. The RAF will know your are coming and will send an intercept thus you will more than likely see action. If you successfully bomb either airfields or Radar stations, this should effect the enemy's ability to intercept you, for some time and be noticeable.

Boring...impossible.

AFAIK you have the complete history on how the community has chosen the type of campaign for SoW in the Oleg`s Room. Every point for and against. You say nothing that hasn`t been said there before.



And so to my final issue. With 25 days to go and no sign of a real "in my hands" game to buy from any of the popular stores in GB! Play.com UK has had this game in its pre-order charts for about 6yrs!! and its been in the top 30 most pre-ordered chart for as long as i can remember...now were on the verge of its release and there is no sign of its existance unless you download it, something i hate to do as i like a perminent real game not a cyber one.

It is perfectly available where I live (Poland).Along with the Collectors` Edition too.





Am i going to buy the game...of course i will (when its for sell), there is unfortunately no competitors to the IL2 series, long gone are the day's when Sim's (especially flight Sims) were the FPS games of there time.. a new'er and better one each month come the early 90's....but i still feel a bit disapointed with what we know about the game given i've never waited so long for a game to arrive in all my 26yrs of playing them.

Funny. I feel nothing like you. I followed the development right from 2006 to late 2008 when I was thrown out by the mod community out of the 1946 game altoghether. I didn`t have time to follow it later on, though the info I was able to gather back then is telling me that IL2 : CoD will be huge.
Hell, even if it doesn`t stand up to the requirements, I will keep on waiting until it does. After all, it is not only the game. I`ve been in a virtual squad once. We`ve had some virtual Hyperlobby nights when we actually never flew, though we`d have a nice men talk. Drinking beer and telling jokes through the radio in TS. With guys from most of the Europe and United States. Needless to say I hope I can meet my long gone squad buddies once again to strike some tea drinkin butt this time. "The guys" thing is actually close to 50% of this game`s satisfaction IMO.

Sturm_Williger
03-04-2011, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:

... Now looking at the screens of the new game, I can`t really say the same thing. IL2 : CoD seems to have average graphics. I`m just saying.

...


Check out the new HD video posted by Oleg today and say that again ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif