Well, it actually could happen, Dart.

Blackdog left the RoF forums, for which we are very thankful, and I hope RS_Colonel won't be staying long either, he only has moaning and snide pestering of Jason (the RoF developer) to offer in there as well.

I sincerely hope that all of those who really cannot stand these terrible amateurish sims will move on and go play with their own surely much superior flight sims.

I always love it when i'm playing and enjoying a game, only to go to it's forums to find out it's broke and unplayable. I mean there i am playing, and enjoying it, but it's broke. I would normally just figure they don't have a clue, but since the guys that tell me it's broke are always software engineers, computers builders, or otherwise have way vastly superior knowledge about computers, and game software, that I have to heed their words, and put the broken game away. One time i came home, and my brother-in-law was playing BFBC2. He was really having fun, but I had to tell him to stop, as the game was broke and unplayable, so he was just wasting his time. Thank the maker for online forums, I would have wasted my time on 100's of games. If not for them, i would have never known they were broke. Good thing, i don't want to look like a fool playing a game that the online gaming gods deem as broke and unplayable, they might laugh and call me names like fanboyx or something.

That was my point all along really...people will debate and push for inclusion of their favorite feature pre-release or ask for changes in certain aspects because there's a slight chance it might make it into the final build or one of the first patches. If we want to take it one step further, then as far as i'm concerned they not only will but they should do so because amid the usual torrent of "this sucks without proper justification" comments, we also do get some important bits of information that might have been missed, or some really cool ideas for future inclusion. Yes, even if the manner of expression leaves something to be desired.

Once things are set in stone however i agree it's no use to keep going, much better moving on to something else and letting those who can enjoy it do so than obsessing over things you can't change. That's why i haven't been posting in the RoF forums for a long time, baring a recent reply about technical stuff that came about from googling something similar (configuring a DSL router for multiplayer) and occasionally reading one of your AARs if i happen to notice an update on the website's frontpage headlines. By all means, if it's good enough for you enjoy it.

My point is that CoD still being on the pre-release phase, it's good to have the people with reservations and even negative criticism be heard because something might come out of it. Namely, if some of the things they want end up getting included then we get more potential sales.
At this point in time nobody has "invested" money in the title and most importantly, nobody has invested time (which is the main thing that concerns me in the long run, i don't like getting attached to a game that will keep falling short), so both me in the "will buy unless something extraordinarily bad happens" camp and the people in the "will reserve judgment" camp have an equal say in things. If 5 months down the line it's clear that CoD is not moving in a direction that satisfies them, they haven't spent time and money on it and they still keep trying to push for certain features, then i would classify it as trying to impose one's will on something that's clearly taken a different route and has already built up a core of satisfied fans for what it is.

At that point in time i could classify it as something negative and even then not just for disagreeing with the opinion presented, as i believe there's always positive bits to be found in clashing opinions (having to come up with arguments to support one's viewpoint tends to stimulate a more active thought process that creates more ideas, and so on), but i can't say it's negative at this point in time, not today, not on release day and certainly not before the first few patches have made evident the course the sim will take. Today's "whining" is not yet whining if it has the chance of influencing something towards a better end result (whether the result is a better product or a bigger market exposure to fund further development). It's all a matter of timing and context really

So let me get this straight... Negativity should be viewed as a positivy at the opportune moment? When might be a positive be a negative at the same time?

Sorry - just a little levity.

Dart said:



But no-one has said this. How could they? It's NOT OUT YET. They have voiced specific concerns in the run-up to release. Don't like these concerns? Tough. I dont like some of the mindless, endlessly sunny 'proponents'. They still have right to endlessly bleat on like Jehovah's Witnessess at the door. Where's the promised land, again?



See above. It aint out yet. And people aren't ragging on it as finished product. They're ragging on what has been dripped out, and whethe rit lines up with that was promised or, if that's too emotive, what was scheduled.

I dont think it's the 'worried' brigade that need to get a grip, it's the hyper-ventilating enthusiasts. They're going to suffer a collective heart-attack if it turns out to be - which it will do - a sim with its good and bad points. It's not the second-coming.

Ben

I could like C of D if it weren't for the porked view from the 190 looming on the horizon in another 5 years time.

































[Brealistic - I'm being ironic]

Freycinet said:



A voice of genuine concern. Will this give way to this...I wonder...



Yes, it will. What a presiding angel you are. Always on the side of balanced reason and fruitful humanity.



About as infantile as it gets. But at least it's your view, not genuine concern dressed up as something else.

And on that logic, we end with the thought we can only drive a car we have designed and manufactured ourselves.

This really is one of the most stupid comments I have read since...well...time immemorial. It's that good.

I mean bad.

Ben

Good man Slingn. I also dedicate a tremendous amount of time to finding people who are enjoying something that I don't necessarily enjoy and then making sure they stop.

In fact, recently I've begun stopping people from enjoying things that I actually do like, because it's quite possible that at some point in the future these things will be superceded by something better and naturally, I want to be prepared.

I mean, I had this really pretty girlfriend one time. Real funny too. But she was bound to get old and less attractive, so I had to tell her that she was a boot and to get out of my life. I cried all day, but it was the right thing to do.

Au contraire.

The forums are full of pronouncements that historical accuracy isn't a priority for 1C: Maddox, the campaign will be pure fantasy (as opposed to what, I wonder?), the wrong planes are modelled (the horrors of a painted on crowbar!), the sim is being released too soon (or too late), the engine is outdated, the graphics are all wrong, the terrain in incorrect, the color pallet rediculous and the flight model and AI are all suspect as being simply examples of gross negligence due to one screenshot (without context) that shows a flap partially deployed.

Hi, my name is DRM and I feel excluded

I've prepared an abridged summary of Dart's review of Cliffs of Dover, so we can link to it later. I've edited for clarity

Please note:

Thus the logical positivists drew a new distinction, and, inheriting the terms from Kant, named it the "analytic/synthetic distinction." They provided many different definitions, such as the following:

analytic proposition: a proposition whose truth depends solely on the meaning of its terms
analytic proposition: a proposition that is true (or false) by definition
analytic proposition: a proposition that is made true (or false) solely by the conventions of language

(While the logical positivists believed that the only necessarily true propositions were analytic, they did not define "analytic proposition" as "necessarily true proposition" or "proposition that is true in all possible worlds.")

sic

Isn't it one of the signs of the Apocalypse where the Tellytubbies appear in a flightsim forum alongside Kant?

Naw, only three of the four Telletubbies is a breeder.

The true Four Telletubbies of The Apocalypse are all straight.

Exaggerate things enough, and anything can be pastiche, eh?

Sadly, there are elements of truth to some of these things. The trick is not to run screaming, or resort to mockery. Maybe just take them at face-value?

It's ok to take issue with some aspects. Healthy, even, and sometimes necessary.

Sod the teletubbies (hey kids, now it's time for a comic diversion!)

Sorry!

Ben

No one has said the game will suck! I think it will be awesome.
Pointing out inaccuracies doesn't mean that we think the game will be rubbish. In most cases we're just trying to make the game even better. We could probably rip Il-2 apart compared to SoW, but Il-2 is still (for me) nearing my combat-flight-sim ideas of perfection.
So yes, I can't wait for release, I can't wait until I get a new PC, and I think SoW will be awesome
Per ardua ad astra.

I don't know man, and I wont say that every critical posts is saying the game sucks, but I've gotten the clear impression of Game=Fail in numerous posts. Even many of those just "Pointing out inaccuracies" are the... "if it doesn't have this one specific aspect, which I was promised 6 yrs ago, and am now entitled to, then it's obviously worthless and I'm not wasting my good hard earned money on it", type posts.

To me, that black or white attitude of it's got to be either fail or brilliant, is a bit close minded, don't you think? Especially those demanding that their personal concept of perfection be on release. It' funny to watch them stand up and scream how they're not gonna buy it lol, but they always do.

Simple fact, the game is IL3, and that is a very, very good thing. We're ALL waiting to buy it at the first chance our grubby little fingers can get hold of it, or press the purchase button. It's why we're here. It's fun to pass the time discussing, (or arguing about) it while we wait, but some of you all take it way too seriously. In the end, it's just cheap entertainment. You're not buying a new car, a new house, or even a new big screen tv, (irregardless of if you bought it special for this game), lol. It costs the same as a nice lunch. Big deal. If you can't afford to risk that, believe me, you don't want PC gaming as a hobby.

Entertainment



vs

Simulation

There is something to be said about bass fishing...