Dakpilot Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) It was said that CLoD had more "bang for Buck" at release for $50, while this as far as features and ambition is absolutely true, It came at a huge price. to get to those features and content, development costs had snowballed to the point that the backers pushed it out the door unfinished, and needing a huge amount more dev time to even make it fully functional to play. resulting in it being abandoned by the creators. If the outstanding amount work by TF had to have been paid for, think of the real cost.....so $50 for the release product was not realistic, I am not criticising CLoD but it was too much of an ambitious project for the time/funding and thus failed in the real world of profitability despite how many people would loved it to succeed. Including me Compared to IL-2 1946 this also has to be taken into the perspective of the cost of all the modules and the strange (but very welcome) paradox of continued and brilliant Free patches provided for many years by TD, the free time and dedication put into these patches has to be applauded but it does skew the "market cost" of what they should be if paid for. Cheers Dakpilot Edited October 30, 2014 by Dakpilot
BraveSirRobin Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Goes both ways it seems, simply by not gushing endlessly and promising first born children automatically puts you in a 'hater' category. Sorry, but that is nonsense. 1
BraveSirRobin Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 No, it really isn't Yes, it really is. I have trashed the devs of this game for the decision to include unlockables. No one is calling me a hater. In fact, there is a poll where about 80% of us complain about that decision. Are they all haters? No. In fact, you have to be working pretty hard to trash this game to be labelled a "hater". So your claim about being called a hater if you're not endlessly gushing is complete nonsense.
Gambit21 Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Goes both ways it seems, simply by not gushing endlessly and promising first born children automatically puts you in a 'hater' category. Uhh...not so much. That's a silly leap.
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 S! At least in it's current state the game springs a lot of discussion
DD_bongodriver Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Yes, it really is. I have trashed the devs of this game for the decision to include unlockables. No one is calling me a hater. In fact, there is a poll where about 80% of us complain about that decision. Are they all haters? No. In fact, you have to be working pretty hard to trash this game to be labelled a "hater". So your claim about being called a hater if you're not endlessly gushing is complete nonsense. You just gave the reason why, with at least 80% complaining about the same issue then sure nobody is going to call everyone else a hater, prior to this disaster it was pretty much how I describe.
BraveSirRobin Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 You just gave the reason why, with at least 80% complaining about the same issue then sure nobody is going to call everyone else a hater, prior to this disaster it was pretty much how I describe. Regardless, it directly refutes your claim. prior to this disaster it was pretty much how I describe. Still no.
DD_bongodriver Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Regardless, it directly refutes your claim. No, it really doesn't. Still no. Still yes.
DD_bongodriver Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 There's a joke there..... Yeah, that I'm the one that has to knock it off. 1
HeavyCavalrySgt Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 It's a fantastic sim that's being held back by a forced singleplayer campaign. I might have said it is being held back by a weak single player campaign!
unreasonable Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 The question of whether BoS is a "good buy" in current release state is more a matter of your finances and time budget, to state the obvious. For most of us mature gamers, $60 is less than the price of a good meal for you and your significant other, the issue is the investment of time. To get the best out of any flight sim takes a fair investment of time to master the interface, set up controls, get the hang of how the sim treats your particular favourite aeroplane, etc. Obviously for a non RL pilot or inexperienced simmer this will take longer. So at the end of the learning process you want to have a satisfying experience to make it worthwhile. Being retired, I have the time, so I spent a fair bit of time, pre SP campaign release, on learning some of the planes. Then we get the SP campaign, which was not what the developer diaries said it was going to be in a couple of important respects, and is extremely unsatisfying despite all the many good features of the core simulation. As of now, I can hardly be bothered to continue with the SP campaign because I feel little sense of identification with the pilot. So was it worth the money? For me yes, because I can afford it easily enough, so it is not as though I have had to choose buying BoS instead of another game. Was it worth the time? Perhaps not. I would probably have got more enjoyment out of playing RoF instead. But then I would never have been so interested in all the drama....
Elbows Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 I'd currently give it between 6-7/10. It's a great game hampered by some silly design decisions and an extremely boring campaign mode. GOOD +Excellent game engine, despite limitation on its ability to run large numbers of aircraft. +Graphics +Very reasonable flight models +Beautiful environment (all snow is dreadfully boring though, so eager for new maps) +Just enough sim to be sim-worthy +Lovely shooting effects and bomb effects +Reasonable damage model (not as good as RoF but very reasonable) +Very reasonable assortment of aircraft to start you off. Lots of diversity as far as flight mechanics, capabilities, difficulties etc. +Large maps (not as big as some proper flight sims, but much larger than your average "game") BAD -Very weak disjointed campaign mode (repetitive missions, no immersion) -Unlock system which was an arbitrary decision and provides zero benefit to customers/players -No career option available for those who do enjoy single player -No custom graphical settings (this is honestly a huge surprise) -No custom difficulty settings for campaign/QMB (also...a huge surprise) -No mission builder yet --- while they've promised one in the future, the severe lack of customization in other parts of the game has me a little concerned for the final builder. So, in my opinion you have what could have been a great game...neutered to simply be a good game. If I'm honest its the arbitrary, odd decisions made by the producers/developers which concerns me the most. This is 2014, I can't recall the last time I purchased a game which didn't let you adjust the game to your settings. And while it's been billed as combat-sim "game", the lack of open content and open settings really puts a dent in the "Sim" nature of the game. This is a shame because the flight models are very reasonable. I enjoy the game but I've cancelled a promotional thread on another site for the game because I have questionable confidence in the future of the title and decisions by the developers going forward. I'll continue to play the game, and I very much enjoy what is available, but I can't promise genuine support in the future. My experience so far has not been such that I'm eager to pre-order new content or throw money at DLC content. 1
J2_Trupobaw Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Not only is it an unsubstantiated rumor, it's completely ridiculous. I've been asked in all seriousness if I was being paid by 1C/777 to talk up the game, even as I was criticizing the **** out of the campaign mode. Well I was accused outright of being on the payroll.. on more than one forum... I post like I always have and I post as I do because i am passionate about this hobby of mine.. nothing more. Some folks see conspiracies everywhere. So was I ... Some people fail to understand there are even simpler motives than money . 1
Bearcat Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 It was said that CLoD had more "bang for Buck" at release for $50, while this as far as features and ambition is absolutely true, It came at a huge price. to get to those features and content, development costs had snowballed to the point that the backers pushed it out the door unfinished, and needing a huge amount more dev time to even make it fully functional to play. resulting in it being abandoned by the creators. If the outstanding amount work by TF had to have been paid for, think of the real cost.....so $50 for the release product was not realistic, I am not criticising CLoD but it was too much of an ambitious project for the time/funding and thus failed in the real world of profitability despite how many people would loved it to succeed. Including me Compared to IL-2 1946 this also has to be taken into the perspective of the cost of all the modules and the strange (but very welcome) paradox of continued and brilliant Free patches provided for many years by TD, the free time and dedication put into these patches has to be applauded but it does skew the "market cost" of what they should be if paid for. Cheers Dakpilot The main problem with CoD on release is that it diod not run well at all on far too many of it's pourchasers' PCs.. some who had even upgraded for it. BoS will run on a rig that is 2 years old... like mine.. That is what i mean when I say as I have in other places that the overall release of BoS was a good one.. but we are not talking about CoD so i will drop it.
Mac_Messer Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 If the outstanding amount work by TF had to have been paid for, think of the real cost.....so $50 for the release product was not realistic, I am not criticising CLoD but it was too much of an ambitious project for the time/funding and thus failed in the real world of profitability despite how many people would loved it to succeed. Including me I can`t say much cuz it`s a touchy subject, but imo it was a case of bad leadership. If you ask me, BoS with its core game functioning well is the right approach. It is currently limited but adequate to what was reachable in this timeframe. It reminds me of what the original IL2 was back in 2002.
Mac_Messer Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 So, in my opinion you have what could have been a great game...neutered to simply be a good game. If I'm honest its the arbitrary, odd decisions made by the producers/developers which concerns me the most. This is 2014, I can't recall the last time I purchased a game which didn't let you adjust the game to your settings. And while it's been billed as combat-sim "game", the lack of open content and open settings really puts a dent in the "Sim" nature of the game. This is a shame because the flight models are very reasonable. Very nice, fair and elaborate review, go ahead and post it youknowwhere. As for the gfx options, it may seem strange but people really have big trouble doing this. It may even seem like the more options there is, the harder it is for the average Joe to play this game. Ofcourse I`m all for more options and I don`t like the low/mid/high/ v high settings type but I can understand that an average person can have a bad time because of it because one option can deteriorate the experience (for example : setting the AA to high levels).
Yakdriver Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I can`t say much cuz it`s a touchy subject, but imo it was a case of bad leadership. If you ask me, BoS with its core game functioning well is the right approach. It is currently limited but adequate to what was reachable in this timeframe. It reminds me of what the original IL2 was back in 2002. thank you. flying functions well adequate, if limited by time of development similar starting point and overall experience than FB similar PoV here.
Gambit21 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 I concur as well. If anything this sim is in much better shape than the original IL2 was upon release.
Yakdriver Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) okay?!Can you tell me why that?I mean... the original had a FMB and you could host your own battles n stuff, and the developper seemed engaged to expand it and improve upon its base elements and content...seemed pretty good! The graphics were kinda low poly, low texture-ish... but the cockpits were all 3D, unlike CFS2 and kinda basic 3D inCFS3... ?tell me, i am curious. Edited October 31, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon
ShamrockOneFive Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 If we're talking value I think $60 is more than reasonable. If you buy Call of Duty or Civilization: Beyond Earth... its the same price. For that $60 you get 8 planes, a couple of maps to fly over, all of the objects and doodads that go along, a single player campaign, multiplayer, some quick mission and regular mission stuff and hopefully a future to be added mission builder. I think the upgrade to the Premium version was interesting but I don't think an extra $40 for two planes is worth it except as maybe a kind of donation to the devs to keep the project going - something akin to Star Citizen where people are buying access to spacecraft now (although all of those can be unlocked in-game without the fee). So for the product itself... $60 is a reasonable price. For the extra content I don't see the value. Not yet anyways. I'm kind of hoping for $60 instalments with another 8 aircraft and new map and objects/vehicles to go along. I'd be ok with that.
Gambit21 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 okay?! Can you tell me why that? I mean... the original had a FMB and you could host your own battles n stuff, and the developper seemed engaged to expand it and improve upon its base elements and content... seemed pretty good! The graphics were kinda low poly, low texture-ish... but the cockpits were all 3D, unlike CFS2 and kinda basic 3D inCFS3... ? tell me, i am curious. Flight model, graphics, flyables,damage model, ballistics, campaign (even with the unlocks) - all in better shape. FMB will come, that's not even a factor right now
Yakdriver Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 These are what i expected for 100$ - its like saying 2014 is more advanced than 1999."of course".and i have to disagree... the FMB was always a major factor.even now it bugs me that some people have one and i do not, as i expect a mission building tool and a way to host my own game, stuff like that.EVERYONE gets a FMB... even FSX has one. DCS is Built around a FMB. CFS3 had one, even if that was just an XML editor with a map attached.and skins. and making campaigns?all of these are not here, but were in the original.so NO... BoS is not set as well as the original was - truth be told... 1
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 S! Regarding the "problems" average joe has with graphics settings. Has the intellectual level and reading comprehension gone down lately? If there is a tool tip in GUI or otherwise easily accessible information on the settings in a MANUAL, for example, how on earth can it be hard for them? I frankly can not understand this, that everything has to be dumbed down because the average joe is not capable of reading a few lines of text?! I've seen this mentality grow over time, that people simply do not want to put in ANY level of effort to learn a thing or two before doing something. It all must be so easy and effortless or their heads will hurt of all the massive 2 lines of reading. Cheebus! I get some coffee before the stupidity levels make me go nuts, I concur with Einstein here
Yakdriver Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 Lol, there is no manual for BoS... i looked and looked....then i found a post saying they are still working on dat.i see your point, but for this one it's a bit funny.and yes... everybody does the "tl;dr" thing these days.
Finkeren Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 The forced presets really do make no sense, I gotta agree there. Why is it imposible to have presets as an option for the inexperienced gamer while still allowing full customization for the rest if us? Hundreds of other games have optional presets with 'advanced' settings as an alternative. It really can't be hard to implement.
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 S! Becasue in Soviet Russia the game plays you Just had to. That is the mentality I sense. What you described Finkeren works in every other game title I own, and there is a plenty, so why not in BoS as well?
Gambit21 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 so NO... BoS is not set as well as the original was - truth be told... No - that's your opinion being told, and that's fine.
ST_ami7b5 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 No - that's your opinion being told, and that's fine. Mine too. Nowadays I play IL-2 1946/HSFX 7 again. It LIVES there. Immersion. Sky full of planes. Pretty graphics are not all. BoS is shelved ATM.
Gambit21 Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 We're talking about the state of the sim at time of release, and of course pretty graphics are not everything.
lennycutler Posted October 31, 2014 Posted October 31, 2014 As an Early Access purchaser, I feel I got my money's worth and more so far....with the hope of more improvements. Big plus so far for flight model, the realisitc feeling of flight...and yes I have actually flown a prop plane (well once anyway). The graphics, using Ultra for me are fine....except for the current and ongoing issue of anti-aliasing when planes are viewed in heavy clouds from various views...and the staccato movement of clouds when you fly close to them. I do hate being forced to get unlocks via the Campaign but....it is forcing me to learn as I go....but to me, especially as a "Founder"....I should not have to go thru the exercise. The Graphic presets are annoying...since I like to tinker with my settings....and I do hope that along with presets, they will provide an option for advanced settings. I am not into muti-player...so for me...I wish for two significant things. 1. Allow the user to create a Quick Mission and then be able to save it as a mission file. 2. Provide the Full Mission Builder or at least a simplified version of it so that we can create our own Quick Style Missions, even without a lot of "bells and whistles".
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now