Philip_ed said:
At the end of the day, CoD is still an infant; you wouldn't compare a baby to a child who was 2 years old and walking, and wonder why your child couldn't walk, would you?
An odd metaphor. So you're quite happy to see a game released in 'baby' condition or an infantile state? I'm not, especially after a 6 year pregnancy.
It should be fully formed at release, or mostly (given the underlying complexity)...to labour this bad metaphor (sorry).
These allowances are plain daft.
Forceps delivery, anyone? Venteuse?
Ben
I never said I was happy, but then again, the last 3 flight-sims I have bought were like that, so I am unsurprised that CoD was the way it is.
I was surprised, though, that it was so poor, given the development time and what the dev's posted in the update threads.
But at the end of the day, it is the way it is, and hopefully it will develop.
I think one can draw reasons for why it was like that (ahem Ubisoft) and Oleg has stated on his youtube page that having such a small team means that development takes a lot longer. It does mean, though, that development of the game is more personal and, thus, more community based.
But as Syn has pointed out, the potential is staggering, and without appeearing rude, I can't think of any curreny flight-sim that has this much potential.
Whether you're angry we're reliant on compromises or statements that are pure conjecture, this is the only tangible modern WW2 flight-sim, so it is in all our interest that it expands to something great.
In the meantime, if I want BoB, BoB2 is fine for me; in the same way that the only way I will be drawn into RoF is if the up and coming campaign is a success.
