PDA

View Full Version : Are we demanding to much?



jugent
08-07-2005, 03:30 AM
Some of us who play this game writes to this forum and write things about weapons, engines and aircraft. Many of us have read things about aircrafts in thrilling memoirs, and want the virtual aircrafts in this game to fulfill our dreams.
I dont play Quake and other similar games but want to compare them any why.

Is it the same for Quake? Do player write and complain about "the oregon chainsaw should cut of the head much faster"

" The rpg should be able to penetrate the concrete wall"

"The G3 with armour-piercing ammo should be able to hit at 800 m"

If so the situation is similar, if not why the difference?

jugent
08-07-2005, 03:30 AM
Some of us who play this game writes to this forum and write things about weapons, engines and aircraft. Many of us have read things about aircrafts in thrilling memoirs, and want the virtual aircrafts in this game to fulfill our dreams.
I dont play Quake and other similar games but want to compare them any why.

Is it the same for Quake? Do player write and complain about "the oregon chainsaw should cut of the head much faster"

" The rpg should be able to penetrate the concrete wall"

"The G3 with armour-piercing ammo should be able to hit at 800 m"

If so the situation is similar, if not why the difference?

CapBackassward
08-07-2005, 04:40 AM
Nature of the beast. Consumerism brainwashes people to want, want, want. I gotta run now. Gotta go buy something...

Rick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Deedsundone
08-07-2005, 06:40 AM
I would say it is pretty much the same.

knightflyte
08-07-2005, 07:10 AM
When you factor in the price of this game I find it QUITE funny to see as many complaints as there are.

Valid points I can understand, but even some of the most egregious mistakes don't warrant the level of whining we see here.

Again, I'm tempering the above with the consideration of the $40.00 for the game.
(I know it's a total of about $120.00 if you've bought all the games)

I do hope Oleg takes more time in releasing new add ons for BoB. I'd rather have a 'smaller' game where control can be easier to maintain than a huge plethera of aerocraft.

In hind sight I think if we had LESS planes in IL2/FP/PF there would be less biotching. (Maybe I hope for too much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Even with the errors and omissions in this series I think it's really a great game/sim/diversion. I got my money's worth out of it. I think I owe a few quid I've got that much out of it.

VFA-25_Peckens
08-07-2005, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent
" The rpg should be able to penetrate the concrete wall"
"The G3 with armour-piercing ammo should be able to hit at 800 m"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if used perfectly lol

FlatSpinMan
08-07-2005, 07:48 AM
People definitely demand too much. The demands are just ridiculous and moreover, are impossible to satisfy as they are from all sides at once. In a way,I'm looking forward to when development of the series stops and everyone knows that there WILL definitely be no more hope of getting stuff changed by whining to Oleg. Then, people might actually look at what is right about the sim instead of focusing on irrelevant minutiae.

Low_Flyer_MkII
08-07-2005, 08:17 AM
If you have the original Il2 box to hand, read the featured plane list - I'll save you the bother - "31 Russian, German and American planes are playable and another 40 are featured in the game." I remember my delight when a patch came out and I could fly the I-16. And I was amazed to find that the game's developer was talking to the community in a way not seen before, accepting suggestions, explaining why in his qualified opinion plane X did this or plane Y didn't do that.Or that of course he'd like raindrops on winscreens - but think of the processing power needed to do this (no, really!) There seemed to be a good humour and a respect for the other guy's opinion in those days (not too long ago, if you think about it). Now it seems that many people here want to force their biased opinions upon others or believe that if they whine loud and long enough they'll force Ic Maddox to concede to their demands.

We now have planes in this game that I'm never going to get around to trying, and don't get me started on third party add-ons. Am I the only one who thinks that a Clive Caldwell skin on my Spitfire is going to improve my deflection shooting?

We have a lot to be thankful for.
There is a big difference in suggesting and demanding, bear this in mind if you ever post in Oleg's Ready room, appreciate what we've got and how far this game has come in four years, and how little competition there is out there.

Rant over, carry on chaps.

no not again
08-07-2005, 01:02 PM
ARe we demanding too much?? YUP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
08-07-2005, 01:03 PM
I think we are not demanding enough.

We ought to keep that old fart Oleg on his heels seeing as he has no competition.

blazer-glory
08-07-2005, 01:05 PM
Depends. They are two different things. Quake is a game and this a sim. As a sim it should recreate what its simulating perfectly. Some people have a right to question it if they know better.

fordfan25
08-07-2005, 01:15 PM
well imo if the game were open to being modded "im not sayn it should or should not be" but it it were then people whould not be as demanding. but seeing as 1c is the only source to turn to for correcting mistakes ect then well. also compairing this game to a FPS is just apples an orenges imo. people have a much larger investment in this sim. not just harwear but also flight sticks ect ect. and it being based off of something that was once real events and fighters ect the magrien for "aceptble" error or "artistic" interpatation is much more nerrow. in a flight game say wingcommander every thing is fantasy and whos to say a hornet isnt faster than a dalithie light fighter ect. but with ww2 fighters there is so much facts and offical documents that are proof of some things not being right.

i think people are looking at it wrong. the resone were so demanding is not because we just want to complain or pick on 1c but the fact that we love this game and care about it being all it can be. if people didnt care thay wouldnt complain.

LStarosta
08-07-2005, 01:18 PM
This is in no way a sim.

It is a game.

I have not flown any plane in real life whose engine I could start with the press of a single button. I have not flown any high performance aircraft whose throttle I could just gun from closed to full open without consequence. I have not flown any airplane that did not suffer from systems failures, ever.

This game is too simplified to be considered a real sim. It's too generic. Whether that is Oleg's fault or just limitations of his game engine is not relevant. The effect is the same. Do I think Oleg did a good job with what he had? Sure. Is this a fun game to play? Yes. Is it realistic? Sure, in some respects, but fails miserably in others.

blazer-glory
08-07-2005, 01:21 PM
lol Fair point LS. Guess that answer my other posting as well! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
08-07-2005, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Valid points I can understand, but even some of the most egregious mistakes don't warrant the level of whining we see here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 10000% at least. But then again, this _is_ the UbiZoo...

blazer-glory
08-07-2005, 01:24 PM
But I guess you just reinforced my point. Quake is a game and this is a sim, and maybe there and people out there who have written to Oleg asking for those very things to be part of this game/sim.

msalama
08-07-2005, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This game is too simplified to be considered a real sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely. But Oleg & Co. have nevertheless succeeded in re-creating the _essence_ of WWII-era aerial combat, haven't they?

x__CRASH__x
08-07-2005, 02:06 PM
I came from mechwarrior before IL-2. Mechwarrior was obviously set in fantasy. So there were no arguments with how the Mechs would perform. There were some weapons arguemtns when the weapons didn't perform as per the issued chart. But 99% of the complaints were bugs in the game itself. Shooting through hills, etc etc.

IL-2 is based of real life data. The problem is, where was this data collected and published? Who verified it? For instance, russian aircraft. Are we supposed to believe Soviet data when we knew they lied about everything under the sun to make themselves look better?

Thus: The arguments.

Stigler_9_JG52
08-07-2005, 02:23 PM
Comparing this to DOOM or QUAKE is prima facie STUPID. Doom or Quake have no basis in reality. It's fiction, so no matter how "plasma guns" behave in the game, it's "right". However the designers write it or design it, it's "correct" for their vision of their alternate reality.

However, a SIM has history to live up to. Numbers to hit. Situations (anecdotal and otherwise) to support.

So, to answer the question: no, we aren't demanding too much to demand that it somewhat faithfully reflect reality. Within a certain tolerance, there are numbers to hit. IL-2 hits some, and misses others. As long as this is the case, I don't feel asking them to hit MORE numbers is asking too much.

ImpStarDuece
08-07-2005, 07:27 PM
Sim nuts are sim nuts, they are the same everywhere, for every type of game. You get all the same type of complaints in First Person Shooters (Red Orchestra, Operation Flashpoint, CounterStrike, Battlefield whatever), other flight sims, Racing Sims (Grand Prix Legends) and pretty much anywhere people want to simulate part of real life.

What they (we) want is a game that can realistically simulate situations that we could never find ourselves in, or would probably not want to find ourselves in. It's part of a longing to be there, without having to face all the life threatening danger and heartache of war/combat/racing ect.

So, to create this situation by proxy, we want everything to be a realistic as it possibly can be, in order to better generate the illusion of being there and doing it. If something interrupts that illusion then people feel the need to complain abput it.

The problem here is that 'reality', particularly the reality of something occuring 60-65 years ago, is highly subjective. So most of our desires are points of interpretation. We all agree on some basic facts but its when the points of performance/interpretation/subjective "realism" interrupt that you get all the heated discussion, whether it's petty or well informed.

I think that we do demand too much. I also think that it is part of our make up as players seeking 'simulations of reality'. WE want it to be more like it was. And until we can be plugged, Matrix style, into a complete body immersion of the period, we will always want more.

msalama
08-07-2005, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thus: The arguments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and the secretiveness of 1C doesn't help at all either! Now of course no-one in their right mind would demand 1C's trade secrets like code algorithms, functions etc. to be revealed, but access to their AC source data would definitely clear the air around here tremendously... Well, what my sig says actually http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jugent
08-09-2005, 07:04 AM
I dont concider this game as a sim.
A simulator has to be more like real life.
It is supposed to simulate.
I have read some pages of what u should check and and trim before take off in a Mustang, and only one thin is included in the game, press start button.