1. #21
    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.
    Share this post

  2. #22
    No one is forcing you to buy it if it dissapoints so much.
    Share this post

  3. #23
    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.
    Share this post

  4. #24
    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
    Share this post

  5. #25
    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.
    Share this post

  6. #26
    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.
    Share this post

  7. #27
    TheGrunch's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,018
    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.
    Share this post

  8. #28
    M_Gunz's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,979
    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!
    Share this post

  9. #29
    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.
    Share this post

  10. #30
    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"
    Share this post