homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation IL-2: Great Battles IL-2: Great Battles - Extended Discussions In search of answers...

Sorry, I think you have mistaken technology with gameplay.

The base technology is sound.
The graphics are pretty, the FMs and DMs are decent.

And. That's it.

There is no a actual gameplay, apart from repetitive groundhog day QMB.

MODs could help, but even without MODs, just the basic ability to be able to string a series of missions together to form a campaign would help.

This is the same kind of logic that gets attributed to those who criticise BoS that if you criticise you must somehow hate the game or hate Jason and think he is an "***hole" or that the whole game is awful. For some there seems to be no middle ground that you can criticise without damning the whole game or person. I speak as I find and when I went to Jason for help I was treated like a whining child and treated with contempt. His other actions like posting an expletive filled rant at Bongodriver, the payment of shills to counter criticism etc. are just examples of his behaviour that I've commented on that I have disliked but I don't think that just because of those examples he must be an evil person who drowns puppies in his spare time.

I know I'm late on this topic but I wish to testify that if I played the offline campaign early on it was to get the unlock weapons to play online, and it was feeling like work for me, not fun. I enjoyed somewhat the RoF campaign (the biography part, in fact) but the world is too sterile for real fun in RoF, even with PWCG

I actually enjoyed a few dynamic campaigns in my sim days, Falcon IV, Strike fighters (europe,vietnam,iceland,modded falklands), OFF, EAW.

About static campaigns, I enjoyed playing various Lomac, and so many IL2 I can't count them.

Now Jason thanks for "making things possible" and let the flight sim production go on, but if you ever work with russians again, please ensure that you're the boss, that they produce a decent offline content with a career, and an easy to use FMB that can be used to create careers, and finally that the game can handle significant AI numbers so the world is less sterile, both in air, on ground and on the radio. It's really pitiful that 2010+ sims are vastly inferior to their 1999 counterparts on the "being there" part, bar FM fidelity and nicer graphics.

Thanks for reading.

It certainly fails to hold my interest I'm afraid.

The slightly deceptive(?) EA of BOS may have had contributed to some of its success. BOM not so much I'd imagine

What we want out of these sims as enthusiasts is much different than what the average player does. I trust in time and with enough community involvement it will happen. If a developer tailored the basic product too much towards the enthusiast they'd lose the larger casual player base. Specifically the larger more complex campaigns which appeal to is it sounds as if they just aren't approachable for the average player.

I think this is where the Steam charts are relevant. The "enthusiasts" would likely be the ones that signed on for the early access before there was any release on Steam and were pretty much made up of hardcore fans of the series. The numbers on Steam reflect more of the "average" player�and those numbers are seriously low. Since 1C/777 have Steam keys for EA folks to link to their Steam account�those numbers are still very weak.

It begs to question why they keep marketing to the "average" player when it's pretty obvious the average player isn't interested.

Because there are most certainly a lot more average players out there than enthusiasts. Certainly the EA buyers were enthusiasts. In the long run its vital to sell the game to more of a market than just the hardcore base.

And in the meantime they end up with the message that the opinions of their existing fanbase (the ones that shelled out the most money during early access) don't really matter, and that this game wasn't really built for them after all.

And then we have the weird situation where the so-called causal players arent exactly flocking and, judging by some of the criticsms on the steam forums, the ones that have bought it aren't exactly raving about it either.

The only activity that goes on in any open forum is people complaining about everything. Look at the discussions on Steam for any other game and it will be the same thing. Flight sims are no better or worse. Ok probably worse. In that regard than anything else. No conclusion can be reached from these discussions.

Haha, you've not been gaming for long have you? Is it only flight-sims you play?

The ONLY activity on ANY open forum is complaining.

Wow. That's pretty a bleak outlook you have.

Thankfully that's not my experience.

Pick any game on the Steam forum and read what's there. It's mostly people complaining. So you can't make any judgement about BoS by the fact that people complain about it on Steam.


Red ᕕ( ՞ ᗜ ՞ )ᕗ has Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare 18 hours ago
YOU CAN FINALLY GET REFUNDS FOR THIS ♥♥♥♥♥♥ GAME THAT DOESNT WORK
YAY THE TITLE SAYS IT ALL ♥♥♥♥ YOU ACTIVISION IM GETTING MY 60 BUCKS BACK U MONEY WHORING ♥♥♥♥♥♥S
http://steamcommunity.com/app/209650/discussions/0/615086038661171822/

That's a desperate tack if that's how you now choose to defend BOS' reputation.

I can pick plenty of games on Steam and show you satisfied communities. But I wouldn't be so lame as to cherry-pick specific posts or forums just to prove a point. That's an amateur's tactic to try and prove a point.

If you can't find generally happy gaming communities anywhere on Steam, if you believe ALL games suffer similarly, then I'm afraid that's on you.

And if the developers feel that all the criticsm they get is "just because that's what people do" then that's their problem too.

What about Steam user reviews?

Oh c'mon now! You can't believe those things. There are secret documents that show otherwise.

Go figure the highest score there is for a game that's extinct. Then next is another out of date sim.
Rise of Flight which is the best of all of em gets the lowest score. BoS is higher than RoF.
Yeah that all sounds relevant. (Not)

Oh and it's a good thing of the like 260,000 people who own RoF 334 bothered to review it on Steam. That's a good sample size...? So user reviews are pretty much not relevant.

Critics score? 74. That's fair. RoF 77? That's too low IMO.

So what you're saying is 259 thousand odd people that bought ROF couldn't be bothered to post either a good or a bad review. Wow!

And that's supposed to reflect poorly on the competition how exactly?

Apathy is something I suppose.

I think I'd rather have vehement hatred, at least that would demonstrate people actually cared enough to post a review.

Apparently not. You can see the number yourself. I've owned RoF since 2010 and have bought $$$ everything for it and I've never written a review on Steam or anywhere. Most people don't.

And yet you've been shown examples of other flight sims where people have posted reviews, plenty of reviews ... So what exactly? You're simply talking round in circles as usual.

Plenty of reviews? On Steam? FSX there has like 2,400. I'll bet millions of people own FSX. None of those review sizes are very good. And of course when you look at Steam you're only looking at Steam buyers. Either because they frequent that site or because only buyers can review there. I don't know if that's the case. The critics review are fair. But the user ones don't sample enough people to mean anything.

You a politician? A spin doctor?

No wait I bet you're a statistician!

You sure know how to make any data you want fit your viewpoint. Or the viewpoint of someone else or whatever.