PDA

View Full Version : The realities of game developing and publishing



ParaB
04-28-2004, 07:22 PM
I've just obtained a top-secret transcript from UBI-headquarters showing the often difficult relationship between developers and the publisher.

GameDeveloper:"Don't you think we should add a dynamic campaing?"

Publisher:"A what? Shouldn't you be working on the bump-mapping effects of the seagulls? And have you thought about my idea about health-packs and a rocket launcher? Our polls tell us that's what the kids really want."

GameDeveloper:"Errr....still thinking about that one. But you know, the simmers really want a dynamic campaign. And since AOD already did it 10 years ago there really isn't any reason no to."

Publisher:"Ah, screw them! Once they see the bump-mapped seagulls and BIG explosions they will completely forget about those stoopid campaigns. And you WILL include the Peal Harbour attack, won't you? We could boost our sales in the US drastically with such a feature."

GameDeveloper:"A Pearl Harbour attack in a sim featuring GERMAN U-Boats? But what about historical accuracy and the simulation aspect?"

GameDeveloper:"Yeah, what about them? Does Half-Life 2 have a dynamic campaign? Does Doom3 have a dynamic campaign? It's GFX what they want! Those gits spend hundreds of $$ to have the latest, greatest machines, they want them to make pretty pictures! And if they can feel like a hero for half an hour then so be it! Historical accuracy...Pfffft!
And I have a idea how to implement the Pearl Harbour Mission."

GameDev:"But Sir, I really don't think..."

Publisher:"Listen: There's this NAZI U-boat commander, but he isn't really a NAZI U-boat commander, in fact he is a brave US special agent, who decides to rescue his love, a nurse who, not knowing that he's still alive fell in love with the special agent's best friend who is now commanding a destroyer in Pearl Harbour and just as the Japanese...Hey, are you listening to me?"

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is just a humorous attempt to give the devs and UBI a tiny little hint what we simmers really want. I'm very optimistic that the devs will indeed create a great Sim and UBI will do their best to support them.

PS: No, I do NOT have any contacts to either UBI or the dev team.

PPS: No, I don't know if seagulls are included, bump-mapped or not.

ParaB
04-28-2004, 07:22 PM
I've just obtained a top-secret transcript from UBI-headquarters showing the often difficult relationship between developers and the publisher.

GameDeveloper:"Don't you think we should add a dynamic campaing?"

Publisher:"A what? Shouldn't you be working on the bump-mapping effects of the seagulls? And have you thought about my idea about health-packs and a rocket launcher? Our polls tell us that's what the kids really want."

GameDeveloper:"Errr....still thinking about that one. But you know, the simmers really want a dynamic campaign. And since AOD already did it 10 years ago there really isn't any reason no to."

Publisher:"Ah, screw them! Once they see the bump-mapped seagulls and BIG explosions they will completely forget about those stoopid campaigns. And you WILL include the Peal Harbour attack, won't you? We could boost our sales in the US drastically with such a feature."

GameDeveloper:"A Pearl Harbour attack in a sim featuring GERMAN U-Boats? But what about historical accuracy and the simulation aspect?"

GameDeveloper:"Yeah, what about them? Does Half-Life 2 have a dynamic campaign? Does Doom3 have a dynamic campaign? It's GFX what they want! Those gits spend hundreds of $$ to have the latest, greatest machines, they want them to make pretty pictures! And if they can feel like a hero for half an hour then so be it! Historical accuracy...Pfffft!
And I have a idea how to implement the Pearl Harbour Mission."

GameDev:"But Sir, I really don't think..."

Publisher:"Listen: There's this NAZI U-boat commander, but he isn't really a NAZI U-boat commander, in fact he is a brave US special agent, who decides to rescue his love, a nurse who, not knowing that he's still alive fell in love with the special agent's best friend who is now commanding a destroyer in Pearl Harbour and just as the Japanese...Hey, are you listening to me?"

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is just a humorous attempt to give the devs and UBI a tiny little hint what we simmers really want. I'm very optimistic that the devs will indeed create a great Sim and UBI will do their best to support them.

PS: No, I do NOT have any contacts to either UBI or the dev team.

PPS: No, I don't know if seagulls are included, bump-mapped or not.

CB..
04-28-2004, 07:33 PM
there is nothing worse than a badly bump mapped seagull except perhaps no seagull at all...ahh the tactical uses of knowing when yu are near the shore ..the slow appearance of airbone scavangers squaking melancholic calls across the morning sky...lovely...allso an effect many years old..not requiring the latest nasa gfx technology nor indeed a great deal of thought..dynamic campaign yes please but this is allready done a dusted i believe....lets just see what the mixed scripted and dynamic engine is like...with the mission editor and moddability the dynamic elements may well be flexible enough to be expanded to an extent in excess of AOD..yu never know...the thing doesnt have to be that dynamic..regular shipping routes and so limit the range of the need for a full on dynamic campaign a little..but in the end AOD in SH3 would be a massive hit (at least long term) still im sure it will be interesting what ever it is..

save the seagull thats what i say!!
it aint blowing stuff up but it's sure atmospheric.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SailorSteve
04-28-2004, 07:38 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif Don't give them any ideas!

I gotta go now, gonna play some Tomb Raider.

______________________________
Always keep you clothes and your weapons where you can find them in the dark.

Redwine
05-01-2004, 03:56 PM
Hi.........

I think so, that "imaginary" publisher needs to start up to search a new job.........

Customers are so tired of to be defrauded by publishers (not Dev. Teams)in many games, so tired.......

Many ofus are incomming from another great sub sims, ww2 and nukes, and use them from many many years ago.........

We are tired to loss features in subsims, flight sims..........

We are looking for an improve in our hobby, not for a step back.......

Will be a big error for publishers to consider this game will be buyed by arcade or funny gamers, will be used by simmers with years on subsims........ who are looking for a good mission editor, historical accuracy, hardcore use, manual shooting and new features...... with the run of time and years....we want the sims better not baddest.......

It is incredible to have new releases, wich doesnt works fine, do not work in multiplayer, do not have mission editor, have a unfinished list of bugs....... and need so many patches to finally after one or two years works ....bad.

SH2 was released with no Mission Editor, no manual shooting posible without a big patch because the sim takes a nautical mile as 2000m !!

Sub Command works in 2D instead in 3D as released from the box........ yes, without patch it wokrs as an arcade game, in 2D, you launch a torp, it pass 400 meters over a deep sub and destroy it, working in 2D......

Flanker 2.0 has lot of bugs in multiplayer, in single too, ships do not move....are static !

I remember falcon 4.0, after 8 patches it do not works fine..........

Customers are a little bit tired of that.........

I remember lot of "today considered" crazy features....... from very old DOS games.....

SH1 has Mission Editor, AVI videos for ship arriving and sinking.......

Fast Attack, it doesnt work any more in my system, I remember has AVI videos for torpedo reloads and other situations........

In JF, you was able to walk inside the carrier, select you weapons.

In Jet Fighter Full Burn yo was able to walk into your airbase, go to the hanger, select yor loadaout with maintenance personal, go to the bar, and your room, the mission briefing was done with AVI videos with real actors, you watch a pilot team into a room, your comander come in, very inmersive.......

Red Baron has may be the best campaing ever done....... real time war success, in your briefing yo have AVI videos with the news of the war, who was shot down, who was condecored, and videos with your destiny, if you go to the hospital, or to jail to shot dawn a friend, if you was condecored or sepulted........incredible historical accuracy.......

Why this was posible in very old and cheep (20-30 dollars)games in DOS, and is not posible today in a new milleniun in more expensive games ?

Well.......

I have feith in this game......... in few time we can see........

______________________________
.
http://personales.ciudad.com.ar/pietraroja/imagenes/firmas/EscudoU552b.jpg
.
The Ancient History of the Submarine
"Subgenesis" (http://www.iespana.es/Subgenesis/subgenesis/sg00.htm)

Manual TDC
"HTDC Tutorial" (http://www.iespana.es/rotteufel/htdc_tutorial/a_start.htm)
.

[This message was edited by Redwine on Sat May 01 2004 at 03:11 PM.]

HeibgesU999
05-01-2004, 09:47 PM
publisher: maybe the uboat crew could go ashore and play a football game against the Dallas Cowboys?

developer: errrr....

Egan2.0
05-02-2004, 05:07 AM
Some days I have faith in it. Some days I don't.

EG: did any one else find it a little bit, erm, odd that they recently had a poll asking what features we would like to see when the game is supposed to have been in development for a good while and is actually supposed to be out this year?

That did not fill me with too much hope.

Other things did though. The crew management side of things sounds cool. the Graphics are obviously nice.

But none of these things matter in the slightest if stuff like the AI and the physics model don't work. And until i see these things for myself, no amount of pretty screen shots of the Bismark are going to convinve me.

vonBimmell
05-02-2004, 02:35 PM
I feel the same way you do Egan. Some things sound very good, and other things are very dodgy. The polls did seem to come a bit late in the development process. Most of what they intended to include would have already been in progress. I think the polls were a **** shoot by UBI to see how close they would be to the general consenses of what people wanted, but with no real intention to change anything. Some people really got carried away with what they wanted though. The number one item consistantly asked for was a completely dynamic campaign mode, and I see that we are not getting that. This mixed scripted/dynamic career mode, unless it is something very new and revolutionary has been around for quite some time in various forms in Flight Sims. The bottom line is that it is still scripted with some randon elements. This just does not cut the mustard with me, or a lot of other sub simmers. I also wonder what we are going to see out of the scope when we look at a shoreline, or sneek into a port. Nothing has been said about this, and there have been no screenshots. I really hope the world is not going to be empty like in SHII. This would really kill the imersion. If Microsoft can model the whole world in MSFS2004, hopefully UBI can at least model the ports and coastlines. Will I be able to sneek up a Fjord with 30 meters under my keel reading on my depth soundings and not run aground like in SHII? To UBI's credit, they have pretty well stated that the physics models were going to be realistic, so that will be a plus. The graphics are going to be good, and that is also a plus. Crew management is included, but In my opinion, it is not really needed. The Captain never usally got involved with most of those matters. The Captain just said make it happen, and that was what Petty Officers, and Divisional officers were for. But a lot of people wanted this, so if they want to micromanage, then that is up to them. I hope it can be automated. I hope that UBI will listen to the majority and change the career mode to a fully dynamic mode, otherwise the shelf life of this sim may be very limited, or it may not even be purchased by some.

CB..
05-02-2004, 05:57 PM
yes it could well be easily said that SH2 has a scripted campiagn with dynamic elements..(if by dynamic they mean random in this case) as using the mutex facility huge randomisation can be incorporated into the missions...mind yu they didnt really make much use of it....so if they simply mean scripted with random elements then we can safely say SH3 has exactly the same campaign engine as SH2 ....but lets not go there just now..there's allways hope that they have something interesting up their sleeves,,and boy are they determined to keep it up their sleeves ...but i still reckon that if well balanced via the realism options this wont be the downer it threatens to be,,(a disapointment tho) if sh2 had shipped without the targeting red triangle and the over egged map functions then just finding a convoy would have been a huge challenge in itself and even the basic randomisation available in the SH2 campaign engine would have been more than enough to make every mission an unique challenge.... i think in a lot of ways the real killer for the sh2 campaign engine was the fact that finding the shipping was made just too easy...hit time excell and wait for a contact report ...slog on over to the area and wait for the red triangle to appear..yu dont even get the genuine satisfaction of scanning the horizon biting your lip waiting for some slight hint of smoke..they must have been mad to deprive the player of one of the most immersive gameplay elements in the entire game....meaning minimum effort required, minimum satisfaction gained, minimum immersion achieved...maximum focus is placed on the short-comings of the engine..game over..i dont know why they didnt go the whole dang hog and just remove the player form the game altogether and let him just watch a movie instead...theyr's virtually no point in the player being on board the boat at all lol!!!
i reckon the crew management if it's done sensitively and with an eye for making the player feel like he's in a confined space with 70 or so other crew members will be a major enhancment no matter what the state of the campiagn engine..as i reckon for me at least that this is the main reason for having the crew managment features....to allow the player to build a sense of involvment and investment in the idea that he is in a metal tube some where in the atlantic rather than sat at a desk pressing buttons and clicking dails..i can't imagine for second that the entire crew of a u-boat was reduced to the level of robotic automatons by the incessant ego batterings of some demonic commander..which is basically whats simulated right now ..man talk about playing god..it's far too dismissively handled as un realistic to not have to deal with the presense of a large number of individually skilled and idiosyncratic crew members..yu don't get to be a captain of anything unless yu can do this..which is probably why i aint the captain of anything lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif perhaps i need reasuring that as player i'm allowed to explore other aspects of the sim ..after all i have a couple of hours to kill cant spend all of it pretending to be uber heroic, it gets monotonous!! micromanagment is okay but i reckon that is only a by-product of the crew managment NOT it's main gameplay function..i dare say it can be turned of or handled automatically..but it's still important that it is there..in this case the total effect of management is greater than the sum of it's parts
and has an effect (perhaps) that subtely but positively changes the way the player tackles the game... just as in AOTD the dynamic campiagn actually imbues the player with the belief in the campaigns integrity and changes the way he approaches the game...its possible to achieve other positive changes in the way a player reacts to the game by really quite subtle and seemingly unrelated elements..for example inclucding elements that carry over from one mission to another in a scripted campaign would succesfully balance out some of the less desirable drawbacks of scripted gameplay..

[This message was edited by CB.. on Sun May 02 2004 at 05:31 PM.]

Egan2.0
05-02-2004, 07:05 PM
I was just reading a couple of threads on another forum from Mark K who was one of the developers of SH2.

The subject was about using Hydrophones on the surface and, aside from the fact he was pretty convinced they would work, some of what he had to say was very interesting.

Basically, the descision to allow the player to use the Hydrophones on the syrface came down to the idea that we would all find playing the game in a realistic way to be very boring. Apparently having Surface sonar that, ( in my experience of SH2) could hear shipping up to 70 miles away was just dandy and that none of us would have wanted to play it other wise.

My thoughts on this are simple. Either They want to build a fanbase who will buy each SH game they produce or they want to capture the twitch crowd who will dump the genre at the first sign on a brand new shiny shooter.

Personally i think that there IS a decent crowd of people that would buy it without any handicapped features. They don't have to dumb it down. IL2 Proved that.

If they want a long term, viable investment they have to give us a SIM. if they want short term increased sales, we will get a neutered arcade monstrosity.

Look at what Sonalysts are doing with 'Dangerous Waters.' They are on record as saying that they will first and foremost cater for serious simmers with everything as realistic as they can make it. Now, people here may not care for a Nuclear sub sim but I know even before I buy their new game it will be as good as they can make it and will not cater for those who are not willing to learn how it works outside of a couple of Autocrew features.

I want it done right, other wise i'm going hunting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CB..
05-02-2004, 07:22 PM
i agree but yu have to admit they have kina got us over a barrel on this !! i find SH2 hugely irritating because of all the faults we all agree on...but dang me if i aint still playing the stupid thing..yu know ive been bashing away at mission writting for SH2 for ages now and after a while yu start to realise just what it is that is irritating yu (me) so much about the game...and most of it is actually not down to the scripted missions..it's actually down to the way you are forced to play the game by the saved game glitch ..ie yu cant play or write a large scale mission because yu cant save a return and carry on...which would in effect give yu elements that carryied on from at least one save to the next...the red traingle which just makes a laughing stock of both the visuals and the gameplay and just leaves yu feeling cheated some how..stuff like this really kills the game and if the SH3 guys say we aint getting an AOTD style campaign then i dare say it's not going to happen...it annoys me too..and makes my purchase of the game a lot less certain than it might be if it was using an AOTD campaign..the rest is just perculiar forum dynamics..people argueing for or against one game or another is not the real issue..it's just gassing at the end of the day..summat to do

im the same, i'm sick to the back teeth of being offered a three course meal and ending up with a TV dinner..

Egan2.0
05-03-2004, 10:35 AM
You are right when you say they have us over a barrel - The buggers know that all too well.

What I don't like doing is making asumptions about the features in the FAQ for the simple reason that it strikes me that, for example, some of it is worded quite ambigiously, especially with what they said about the campaign.

It kinda strikes me that they are covering their asses so that if a feature gets cut out for lack of time or whatever reason they can just point to the ambigious comments and say " But we TOLD you all this!"

The game is apparently due out in September. It's about time they gave us firm information instead of pretty pictures.

CB..
05-03-2004, 12:01 PM
amen to that!!!

we know what they could make...if they give us less than that; then it is a deliberate commercial decision...in reality games marketing has become allmost like dealing in drugs!!!....get em hooked then yu can sell em any old tosh and they keep coming back for more.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
it's about time they stopped trying to make us believe they were performing miracles and started performing miracles..the days of struggling coders in atics is long gone as far as the major games companies are concerned..

Egan2.0
05-03-2004, 12:36 PM
Here's the thing: There are games out there just now that cater specifically for the 'hardcore' end of the market. A great example of this are the Combat Mission games from Battlefront.

These games are without doubt the best and, from what I understand, the most accurate of WW2 tactical games. They sell well, the regularly gain critical aclaim - despite having what is really a quite outdated graphic engine - and they are fun to play.

One thing they do not do is cater to transient gamers looking for a quick thrill.

From what I can gather it's exactly the opposite sort of thinking that f*cked SH2 up. I KNOW for a fact that there were hardcore subsimmers who took one look at it and said "No way am I buying that. It's rubbish."

I get a little concerned when I read so many threads dribbling over how lovely it all looks. There was one guy over at Subsim that creamed himself and proclaimed it the bloody 'game of his dreams' based on screenshots and a not very informative FAQ.

I understand that UBI would like to sell this game to as many people as possible. I also understand that the market for a U-Boat sim is rather limited. To me,and this is just my mad oppinion, they would be better off giving the community the game it wants rather than a game they think people with no interest in the genre MIGHT want to play.

But then, I'm just naive.

You know what we need to do? Petition Sonalysts to buy the AOD liscence. Either that or hope that one of the Indy games in development actually see the light of day.

Every time i think of a sub sim that puts dubious 'gameplay' descisions before the sim side of things I think of Tom Clancey's SSN abomination....I feel unclean just thinking about it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You know CB, They bloody well could preform miracles with this game. They could make it a bench mark in sims. The desire is there from a lot of people to buy it, it's up to them now....How I wish it was up to us! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

CB..
05-03-2004, 05:22 PM
he he!! yep yur right..they could perform miracles and yet the daftest thing of all is that they dont have too..evry single possible good gameplay device has already been developed tested used and appreciated in "ancient" sims games...from redbaron and AOTD to half life (good AI and 3d bot interaction) theres no shortage of excellent graphical depictions of the sea in all its glory in many a game thats not even trying to a naval simulation...let alone the virtual skipper games..all old hat...if yu ask me the big games corps have cut deals with the graphic card manufacturers to utilise game engines that require the purchase of their graphics cards and thus ensure the continuing prosperity of that arm of the industry...
all well and good..they're not running a charity or community service it's buisness....if we get the games we want...we shrug our shoulders, pretend it's not important and buy the games, but if the games inexplicably (which can only be interpreted as deliberate decision) dont utilise the best available campaign engines and well established gameplay hooks etc (yet they seem keen to use the best available graphics engines tho strange that one) then sooner or later, if it goes unchecked, they will eventually kill the industry stone dead...were over the novelty of computer games now, they are not doing anything now that couldnt have been seen in spades in a variety of those older games..

daft really...but trust is gradually eroded untill the golden goose dies of ,well in a sense, a broken heart !!

ok we know that Santa Claus doesn't exist,
but there's no need for the big game corps to rub our noses in it..it's quite obviuos that games could substantaily replace both movies and telly-vision as peoples chief form of home entertainment simply because it's possible to include the neccessary elements from films and telly into games, where as it's much harder to incorporate game elements into films ..but if they water the beer down in order to stretch the market and increase sales all that will happen is that they will get bigger bank balances but shorter long term prospects as a major company..after all a watered down beer is an imitation and imitations are dependant on the real thing for their success..games and big buisness it's like military intelligence a contradiction in terms..

still we live in interesting times !!

heck yu could research for a PHD whilst playing a game if they include accurate educational information into the gameplay...there's really no limit to what could be done with games

vonBimmell
05-03-2004, 06:22 PM
This is just the LOMAC Syndrome all over again. Everything is playing out in the exact same fashion. I followed the Lomac forums before the sim came out, and went to UBI's Lomac site, and the same things happened with that sim as is happening with SHIII. They eluded to a Dynamic Campaign, and then never followed through. They asked what everyone wanted in that sim as well. Every week they provided more screen shots. Sound familiar? There are a lot of unhappy people in Lomac world now. They got a buggy sim with no Dynamic campaign. Granted there are a lot of fans, but they probably would buy anything. I never did buy Lomac based on what I read on the forums before and after the sim was released.

CB..
05-03-2004, 08:15 PM
yes the same thing happened with microsofts combat flight simulator 3 most of the old hands were dissapointed with the game not allways for the same reason mind but dissapointed enough to dump it and go back to combat simulator 2...i had combat sim 2 and enjoyed it for what it was enjoyed making models for it made endless world war one planes for it (none of them very good but enjoyed making them none the less!) and that was my principle reason for having the game on my PC..the gameplay was allways none too interesting..lousy campaign engine, diabolicaly lousy in fact!! at least CFS3 made the attempt at some sort of dynamic campiagn which to my ears sounded rather good...but it wasnt popular with the usually instinctively loyal CFS guys..but in the end the reason i didnt buy the later game was simply that it absolutely demanded the latest in both computer and graphical hardware..meaning the game would have actually cost me a huge lump sum of money to buy and run..and yet strangely from examining the screen shots from the game taken by folks who could run it didnt look at all impressive in fact it lacked some of the most apealing aspects graphically that CFS2 had...very odd......so i gave up basically and went back to Red Baron 3D ...which perversely has been shown to be up-gradable to a graphical level that is the equal of yur average recent flight sim ...all made available by RED Baron enthusiasts, im happy with the stock grpahics so i havent bothered (and im a skin flint!!)
but it shows that most of the ranting on about fancy graphical enhancements is just that...ranting on...as with console games an awfull lot more can be done with the older graphical engines than was attempted at the time...meaning we can have vastly improved graphics without the need to buy new pc's or graphics cards...if a modder can do it, then a paid professional with full access to the code and should find it a walk in the park..

i can run most older games on my 800 mGhz P3 with the voodoo 5500 and i still have the same lowly 64mb's of RAM the machine came out of the box with!!

if i can run combat flight simulator 2 with dozens of highly detailed aircraft models whizzing about the screen
all making AI calculations far in excess of those required by a subsim and at a far greater speed (a DD at 15 knots poking around for a sub with sonar is nothing compared to twenty enemy fighters screaming round the sky peforming barrel rolls and calculating deflection shots at 100 rounds per second! one would have thought anyway!) nope some ones having a laugh some where, and although my bank balance can cope with the spending the money to up-grade , my head/heart just finds it all a bit
dubious...if the games got the heart then ok i'll take the outlay and grin and bare it...but i'll still feel like a mug...by now game production could allmost be automated using of the shelf components ...dynamic campaign engine? heres one we prepared earlier..animated ocean here yu go...model files for ships etc here yu go heres a bunch and so on evrything else about computers is done in this fashion these days utilities for this utilities for that utilities for game production are widely available for amateur game devs, im sure that theer must be top flight game development utilites available to the professionals if they want them (or if not why not?) yep bang together a naval sim with open source facilities, dynamic campiagn engine, convient model file format (say hello to gmax or similar) so we all can create our own model files for the game....and bingo instant fan base with ever expanding mod after market and expansion...evrything form 18th century galleons to gulf war carriers would be avialable to download within months..been that way for years with flight sims..beats the heck out of me why it's not accepted policy to model games this way...and all playable on any computer bought this century!!

drives you mad it does http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Egan2.0
05-04-2004, 03:55 PM
Dynamix rocked, man. Aces of the Deep, Red Baron (which i'm itching to really get into once HMV actually get round to confirming they ordered it for me,) and, i think, European Air War.

Where are they when you need them the most! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tetrapack
05-04-2004, 04:42 PM
I always wondered what Dennis Kilgore is doing today.. he did the historical research for AoD and also had influence on the game design.

Tetrapack
05-04-2004, 04:57 PM
Dynamix was developing 1999 a very promising flightsim: "Desert Fighters"
But the Publisher Sierra cancelled the project together with Pro Pilot Paradise because it "did not meet Sierra's success criteria".
It's true that a flight sim can not be as successful as Halflife.. but it would have been a success nevertheless like all other sims from Dynamix.

EAW was published the same year by Microprose and after that the serious flight simmers had to wait until Il-2 was published.

Kron-161
05-04-2004, 05:01 PM
They have been posting at the website most of the features of the game.... Dont' you think that if the game had something so desired by the community as a dynamic campaign they would have already remarked it somewhere?? Or do you think they would keep it for themselves in order to give us a nice surprise when the game is released??

Yeah! right! lol!

Willey
05-05-2004, 09:56 AM
They didn't post any exact information on the campaign. They just say it contains dynamic elements as well as scripted elements. I'd say they just work on that part and don't want to promise too much. If they said "You'll get a fully dynamic" and they didn't get it working, we would really be pi$$ed off, because they just didn't make what they told us they would make. As it's now, it can be a mission generator, scripted missions with some random elements or a dynamic campaign. It's still open. I'd say the try making a dynamic one. AFAIK, Ultimation also tried to do so but failed (probably because of the crappy Janus Code http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif). I really hope that this team will not fail http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. And it's better to have a nice surprise than to have a disappointment.

HeibgesU999
05-05-2004, 01:34 PM
If the Bases in SH2 could have been made to work with units besides aircraft, they could have easily made a dynamic campaign.

The bases sort of work with single warship and merchant units but you have to "pretend" there is poor visibility because they appear so close.

This one simple omission seems to have really screwed them up.

CB..
05-05-2004, 04:01 PM
yes i agree...but mainly the wto things that would have saved the SH2 campaign engine form the slating it has had would have been a fully reliable and functioning save game...meaning yu dont have to play each mission no matter how long in one session...and the ability to play without the red arcade targeting triangle...these two things are dynamite.. not being able to save the game and reload at a convient time (retaining full game functionality) forces the average player to play each mission beyond the point at which he ceases to be able to maintain enthusiasm for the game (if he wishes to maintain the integrity of his campaign progress) i enjoy the game but find my self rushing to finish a campaign mission simply because afer four hours real time i just have quite frankly had enough for one day!!! folks can be as "macho" about this as they like but at the end of the day it's just too damaging to the enjoyment of the game..once yur "pissed" at the game all it's other faults become even more annoying..basic pschycology ..and that red triangle just doesnt make any sense to me at all in a simulation... i mean not only does the little torpedo icon on the main task bar do exactly the same job ...and the AI crew alert yu to every visual sighting...it's not even as if the enemy shipping is dodging about at ninety knots trying not to be found...yu get the crew alert telling yu a shipp has been spotted and then the game denies yu even the basic pleasure of going to the bridge and spotting it to confirm the sighting...what do yu get a completely surreal red triangle..and just in case yur thinking that that might be difficult to see they make the stupid thing FLASH as well...i mean talk about multiple redunancy...over kill and bizarely acarde..were they really that convinced that given all the alerts ..sonar contacts....crew anouncing ship spotted, the map icons, the litttle red torpedo icon on the task bar...that going to the bridge the most casual of player wouldnt be able to find the ship in the uzo ? it's pathetically over done..

even the most arcade of combat flight sims dont provide so many helpers for locating enemy targets..