BOB2 goes Gold

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

Expected in stores 26 Aug 05.

Looks like weve come full circle. We started off pc gaming as a single
player experience then we made the jump to online gaming in the mid
nineties. We all jumped for joy and looked scornfully at any attempted AI.
After 6-7 years of online gaming/simming many of us have come to the
conclusion that internet gaming is a world full of cheating morons that
enjoy ruining the fun for others more than playing the game as intended.
Time again to crusade for some decent AI and hopefully Bob2 fills this need.
TBD...
32 answers Last reply
More about bob2 gold
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    news:RyCKe.1641$dk5.126@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    > Expected in stores 26 Aug 05.
    >
    > Looks like weve come full circle. We started off pc gaming as a single
    > player experience then we made the jump to online gaming in the mid
    > nineties. We all jumped for joy and looked scornfully at any attempted
    > AI. After 6-7 years of online gaming/simming many of us have come to the
    > conclusion that internet gaming is a world full of cheating morons that
    > enjoy ruining the fun for others more than playing the game as intended.
    > Time again to crusade for some decent AI and hopefully Bob2 fills this
    > need. TBD...
    >
    >

    It's about time. I had mine pre-ordered back in May. Looks like the price
    jumped from $40 to $50 however.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:49:08 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at
    gmail dot com> wrote:


    >It's about time. I had mine pre-ordered back in May. Looks like the price
    >jumped from $40 to $50 however.
    >

    $50.00 for a regurgitated game? Pass!
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    news:RyCKe.1641$dk5.126@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    > Expected in stores 26 Aug 05.
    >
    > Looks like weve come full circle. We started off pc gaming as a single
    > player experience then we made the jump to online gaming in the mid
    > nineties. We all jumped for joy and looked scornfully at any attempted
    AI.
    > After 6-7 years of online gaming/simming many of us have come to the
    > conclusion that internet gaming is a world full of cheating morons that
    > enjoy ruining the fun for others more than playing the game as intended.
    > Time again to crusade for some decent AI and hopefully Bob2 fills this
    need.
    > TBD...


    Gee, maybe in your Lomac world, it's full of cheats. Irregardless of
    your still wanting to appoint yourself spokesman for flight simmers of the
    world, you're wrong about online flight simming too. Sounds like you've
    never been in a decent vfw, and instead limited yourself to air quake
    arenas.

    p.s. I notice you never answered my question about Flanker 3. Not
    surprising though.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Praxiteles Democritus wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:49:08 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at
    > gmail dot com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>It's about time. I had mine pre-ordered back in May. Looks like the price
    >>jumped from $40 to $50 however.
    >>
    >
    >
    > $50.00 for a regurgitated game? Pass!

    Actually, $39.95 + TEN DOLLARS SHIPPING. I'll wait for this one to show
    up in EBGames bargain bin by what? - say, September 15th?
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in
    news:RyCKe.1641$dk5.126@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

    > Expected in stores 26 Aug 05.
    >
    > Looks like weve come full circle. We started off pc gaming as a single
    > player experience then we made the jump to online gaming in the mid
    > nineties.


    Not all of us. Sign me up for decent, well
    written single player sims. Personally I stopped
    buying sims when they just became vehicles for
    designers to brag about whizz-bang graphics.
    And as for hardware requirements that made
    games unplayable on any machine more than six
    weeks old, the less said the better.

    Reworking the old sims - sure, bring it on.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    I'll pass becuase Im not impressed with what theyve done in the time thayve
    had. True the graphics are fantastic by all accounts but they never bothered
    me much anyway. I was far more bother about the communications, flight
    models and damage modelling etc and they havent touched any of those at all
    I believe. Also the campaign engine hasnt even seen an upgrade - even
    visually - which I think is terrible! So no I wont be buying unless a
    miraculous patch comes out from a modder at some point!

    Nats

    "Praxiteles Democritus" <no@email.here> wrote in message
    news:o11nf19b7stq14abdkpkpu90ho6kkq938o@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:49:08 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at
    > gmail dot com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It's about time. I had mine pre-ordered back in May. Looks like the price
    >>jumped from $40 to $50 however.
    >>
    >
    > $50.00 for a regurgitated game? Pass!
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96B0C06619B51ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
    > "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in
    > news:RyCKe.1641$dk5.126@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
    >
    >> Expected in stores 26 Aug 05.
    >>
    >> Looks like weve come full circle. We started off pc gaming as a single
    >> player experience then we made the jump to online gaming in the mid
    >> nineties.
    >
    >
    > Not all of us. Sign me up for decent, well
    > written single player sims. Personally I stopped
    > buying sims when they just became vehicles for
    > designers to brag about whizz-bang graphics.
    > And as for hardware requirements that made
    > games unplayable on any machine more than six
    > weeks old, the less said the better.
    >
    > Reworking the old sims - sure, bring it on.
    >
    >
    >
    I was talking with someone at work today about movies (Star Wars & Star
    Trek), and he mentioned that to him, the three new Star Wars movies just
    didn't hook him the way the first three did. He mentioned that to him, they
    seemed to have gone all out and focused on the technical options (eye candy)
    for the movie and didn't really care about the rest of it. That got me to
    thinking about all the flight sims that I have flown over the years on
    different systems. I have never liked flying on-line, since I am a history
    nut and really enjoy doing the career modes. I have notice a trend by the
    different software companies to go for the max eye candy and as a result
    things like AI, dynamic campaigns, etc. sorta end up with whatever is left
    over, when it could really be better. What made those old sims so great was
    the way that they were able to give you a big dose of immersion. There was
    nothing that gave me more satisfaction than to get the extra 15 points added
    to my score for landing my plane at my base to end the mission (including
    some pretty hairy landings with damaged a/c) in RB1. Somehow, that
    immersion seems to be missing in a lot of the newer sims. Hopefully, the
    sim makers will realize that there are a lot of us who would rather have,
    for lack of a better word, playability (and a good replay factor after
    finishing a campaign, as in RB2). Just my $0.02 and the reasons that
    certain sims stayed on my HD long after others were relegated to the top
    shelf.
    Silvertip
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    It isnt the sims, its the perspective. Back in da day we only had a few sim
    options and we were more than happy with those attempts at simulating
    because thats all we had at the time.

    In hindsight you blame the devs but the reality is you have become
    disenchanted with the genre and youre looking for a scapegoat to satisfy
    your reasons for not liking the current crop of sims. IMO sims are better
    quality than any at time ever in PC gaming history.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    I disagree completely. In the old days we had games that featured simple
    graphics and had to rely on gameplay to get buyers. Take a look at the Xcom
    games for example. They were great games - some of the most gaemplay packed
    games Ive ever played in fact. And look at F117 Stealth Fighter. The
    graphics were terrible but teh game was really fun to play. But since then
    graphics have become so complex that I would say a huge proportion of the
    game development goes just on the graphics development alone. And its just
    because of the trendy games magazines and E3 etc that these game developers
    feel they have to design perfectly looking games. And us of course, many
    people wont buy games these days unless they look better than the previous
    incarnation.

    So its not surprising that when we actually get the games home and play them
    we get fed up in a week. Theres just no substance in most of the releases
    these days.

    Maybe Im alone in this view but I dont think so - just look at all of the
    old games being reborn with new graphics to make them replayable.

    We should all stop buying new games and spend our money on old developments.
    Maybe the developing houses will sit up and take note.

    I know that I havent bought a new game for months now. In fact other than
    Falcon 4 AF my last game purchase was probably Silent Hunter 3 in February
    and before then I cant even remember - probably Rome Total War. I used to
    buy games ever month!

    Nats

    "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    news:McpLe.811$UA1.761@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
    > It isnt the sims, its the perspective. Back in da day we only had a few
    > sim options and we were more than happy with those attempts at simulating
    > because thats all we had at the time.
    >
    > In hindsight you blame the devs but the reality is you have become
    > disenchanted with the genre and youre looking for a scapegoat to satisfy
    > your reasons for not liking the current crop of sims. IMO sims are better
    > quality than any at time ever in PC gaming history.
    >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in
    news:McpLe.811$UA1.761@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:

    > It isnt the sims, its the perspective. Back in da day we only had a few
    > sim options and we were more than happy with those attempts at
    > simulating because thats all we had at the time.


    I don't recall that. There were stinkers even
    in the DOS era, as well as some real keepers. Remember
    when you could actually return games? Remember when
    you could RENT games? What a concept.



    > In hindsight you blame the devs but the reality is you have become
    > disenchanted with the genre and youre looking for a scapegoat to satisfy
    > your reasons for not liking the current crop of sims. IMO sims are
    > better quality than any at time ever in PC gaming history.


    That depends on what is "quality". Graphics in
    games are like special effects in movies - it may
    catch your eye for a moment, but it won't be what
    brings you back for more.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    You're not alone. I am with you man! I have a decent personal expendable
    income for entertainment and used to spend hundreds, if not thousands a year
    on games and gaming accessories. This year, however, I have only bought
    maybe 5 or 6, including those you mentioned, and that includes games for
    XBOX too! (I think I only bought Forza and Halo 2 for that this year).

    Graphics are good, but ingenuity in gameplay has gone bye-bye. Hell, I still
    love Civilization, and look at those bone-dry graphics. I realize some of
    the games that I go back to religiously it is all about gameplay.

    Among flight sims:

    Falcon 4 (now Allied Force of course)
    IL-2/Pacific Fighters
    Longbow 2
    F/A-18
    F-15
    EECH

    For other games:

    C&C: Generals & Zero Hour - best RTS ever IMHO
    Silent Hunter III
    Rome Total War
    Starcraft

    On occasion:

    Splinter Cell (any of the three)
    Half-Life 2, CS, and variants
    SWAT 4

    There aren't many that I'm looking forward too unfortunately. The Star Wars
    RTS catches my interest, and of course BOB II in the topic, but other than
    that, there isn't much else.

    Too bad my money is going to go elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I've just
    invested in a projector for Falcon 4 and other sims so guess I'll just
    finally start building my home cockpit.


    "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ddloa6$iua$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >I disagree completely. In the old days we had games that featured simple
    >graphics and had to rely on gameplay to get buyers. Take a look at the Xcom
    >games for example. They were great games - some of the most gaemplay packed
    >games Ive ever played in fact. And look at F117 Stealth Fighter. The
    >graphics were terrible but teh game was really fun to play. But since then
    >graphics have become so complex that I would say a huge proportion of the
    >game development goes just on the graphics development alone. And its just
    >because of the trendy games magazines and E3 etc that these game developers
    >feel they have to design perfectly looking games. And us of course, many
    >people wont buy games these days unless they look better than the previous
    >incarnation.
    >
    > So its not surprising that when we actually get the games home and play
    > them we get fed up in a week. Theres just no substance in most of the
    > releases these days.
    >
    > Maybe Im alone in this view but I dont think so - just look at all of the
    > old games being reborn with new graphics to make them replayable.
    >
    > We should all stop buying new games and spend our money on old
    > developments. Maybe the developing houses will sit up and take note.
    >
    > I know that I havent bought a new game for months now. In fact other than
    > Falcon 4 AF my last game purchase was probably Silent Hunter 3 in February
    > and before then I cant even remember - probably Rome Total War. I used to
    > buy games ever month!
    >
    > Nats
    >
    > "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    > news:McpLe.811$UA1.761@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
    >> It isnt the sims, its the perspective. Back in da day we only had a few
    >> sim options and we were more than happy with those attempts at simulating
    >> because thats all we had at the time.
    >>
    >> In hindsight you blame the devs but the reality is you have become
    >> disenchanted with the genre and youre looking for a scapegoat to satisfy
    >> your reasons for not liking the current crop of sims. IMO sims are
    >> better quality than any at time ever in PC gaming history.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Having never played the original yet reading about the latest release,
    I'm getting it. I'm dying to unleash my TiR 3PRO w/ full 6DOF support.
    Really looking forward to the game's robust dynamic campaign and
    flying against formations of 30+ planes without bringing my system to a
    crawl.

    40 or even 50 bucks for a PC game that will yield hundreds of hours of
    play - no brainer. I pay that routinely for gamecube/xbox games that
    only average about 30 hours of play. funny when I hear PC gamers bitch
    about the price of game - they got it made compared to consolers.

    bottom line - the market for wwii prop sims is very thing so pretty
    much anything that comes out with a good word of mouth following, i'm
    getting it.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in
    news:yc2dnbiUCpLQl53eRVn-sw@comcast.com:

    > You're not alone. I am with you man! I have a decent personal expendable
    > income for entertainment and used to spend hundreds, if not thousands a
    > year on games and gaming accessories. This year, however, I have only
    > bought maybe 5 or 6, including those you mentioned, and that includes
    > games for XBOX too! (I think I only bought Forza and Halo 2 for that
    > this year).
    >
    > Graphics are good, but ingenuity in gameplay has gone bye-bye. Hell, I
    > still love Civilization, and look at those bone-dry graphics. I realize
    > some of the games that I go back to religiously it is all about
    > gameplay.
    >
    > Among flight sims:
    >
    > Falcon 4 (now Allied Force of course)
    > IL-2/Pacific Fighters
    > Longbow 2
    > F/A-18
    > F-15
    > EECH
    >
    > For other games:
    >
    > C&C: Generals & Zero Hour - best RTS ever IMHO
    > Silent Hunter III

    When the make the Pacific Theater version
    of this I will buy it. Just can't get into
    playing on the side of the Nazis anymore....


    > Rome Total War
    > Starcraft
    >
    > On occasion:
    >
    > Splinter Cell (any of the three)
    > Half-Life 2, CS, and variants
    > SWAT 4
    >
    > There aren't many that I'm looking forward too unfortunately. The Star
    > Wars RTS catches my interest, and of course BOB II in the topic, but
    > other than that, there isn't much else.


    Speaking Star Wars: Have they made anything
    to match (or even upgrade) Tie Fighter? Boy, that
    was a good game.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> writes:
    >>
    >> I wouldn't mind seeing more of the old ones redone but I've discovered
    >> mp FB in the last few weeks and have been having an absolute blast with
    >> it. I dont know if its because there have been so few new sims in the
    >> past couple of years but FB has gotten a hell of a lot of my time since
    >> it came out More than any other sim released easy.
    >>
    >>
    > "FB"?

    IL-2 Forgotten Battles by UbiSoft. FB for short :) Also see Pacific
    Fighters (PF) and Aces Expansion Pack (AEP). You can also install them
    over/into eachother, so you get FB+AEP, FB+PF and FB+AEP+PF (but not
    PF+AEP I believe).

    Øystein
    --
    Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
    on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
    dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
    like tears in rain. Time to die.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96B354BCEC333ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
    > "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in
    > news:yc2dnbiUCpLQl53eRVn-sw@comcast.com:
    >
    >> You're not alone. I am with you man! I have a decent personal expendable
    >> income for entertainment and used to spend hundreds, if not thousands a
    >> year on games and gaming accessories. This year, however, I have only
    >> bought maybe 5 or 6, including those you mentioned, and that includes
    >> games for XBOX too! (I think I only bought Forza and Halo 2 for that
    >> this year).
    >>
    >> Graphics are good, but ingenuity in gameplay has gone bye-bye. Hell, I
    >> still love Civilization, and look at those bone-dry graphics. I realize
    >> some of the games that I go back to religiously it is all about
    >> gameplay.
    >>
    >> Among flight sims:
    >>
    >> Falcon 4 (now Allied Force of course)
    >> IL-2/Pacific Fighters
    >> Longbow 2
    >> F/A-18
    >> F-15
    >> EECH
    >>
    >> For other games:
    >>
    >> C&C: Generals & Zero Hour - best RTS ever IMHO
    >> Silent Hunter III
    >
    > When the make the Pacific Theater version
    > of this I will buy it. Just can't get into
    > playing on the side of the Nazis anymore....
    >
    >
    >> Rome Total War
    >> Starcraft
    >>
    >> On occasion:
    >>
    >> Splinter Cell (any of the three)
    >> Half-Life 2, CS, and variants
    >> SWAT 4
    >>
    >> There aren't many that I'm looking forward too unfortunately. The Star
    >> Wars RTS catches my interest, and of course BOB II in the topic, but
    >> other than that, there isn't much else.
    >
    >
    > Speaking Star Wars: Have they made anything
    > to match (or even upgrade) Tie Fighter? Boy, that
    > was a good game.
    >
    >
    >

    No, unfortunately. I agree, another space game/sim like that would be
    awesome! Updated to today's graphics would be spectacular. Here again, they
    would have to learn to stick with what worked and build on it. Sacrifice
    some graphical splendor for enhanced AI or other gameplay.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
    news:Xns96B0C06619B51ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...

    > Not all of us. Sign me up for decent, well
    > written single player sims. Personally I stopped
    > buying sims when they just became vehicles for
    > designers to brag about whizz-bang graphics.
    > And as for hardware requirements that made
    > games unplayable on any machine more than six
    > weeks old, the less said the better.
    >
    > Reworking the old sims - sure, bring it on.
    >
    >
    >

    I wouldn't mind seeing more of the old ones redone but I've discovered mp FB
    in the last few weeks and have been having an absolute blast with it. I
    dont know if its because there have been so few new sims in the past couple
    of years but FB has gotten a hell of a lot of my time since it came out
    More than any other sim released easy.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "rob" <roball@xtra.co.nz> wrote in
    news:ZB_Le.3083$iM2.271948@news.xtra.co.nz:

    >
    > "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
    > news:Xns96B0C06619B51ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
    >
    >> Not all of us. Sign me up for decent, well
    >> written single player sims. Personally I stopped
    >> buying sims when they just became vehicles for
    >> designers to brag about whizz-bang graphics.
    >> And as for hardware requirements that made
    >> games unplayable on any machine more than six
    >> weeks old, the less said the better.
    >>
    >> Reworking the old sims - sure, bring it on.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > I wouldn't mind seeing more of the old ones redone but I've discovered
    > mp FB in the last few weeks and have been having an absolute blast with
    > it. I dont know if its because there have been so few new sims in the
    > past couple of years but FB has gotten a hell of a lot of my time since
    > it came out More than any other sim released easy.
    >
    >
    "FB"?
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    You guys have this idea of mutual exclusivity between graphics or a good
    game. Both are interchangeable, which again favors my argument of
    perspective vs reality.


    "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> > awesome! Updated to today's
    graphics would be spectacular. Here again, they
    > would have to learn to stick with what worked and build on it. Sacrifice
    > some graphical splendor for enhanced AI or other gameplay.
    >
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    news:xvsMe.1985$r54.1901@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    > You guys have this idea of mutual exclusivity between graphics or a good
    > game. Both are interchangeable, which again favors my argument of
    > perspective vs reality.


    They are interchangeable but it just doesnt happen that gameplay ever gets a
    bigger concern than graphics in todays commercial world - developers have a
    set budget to play with for any game and can only dedicate so much resourses
    to graphics and gameplay along with other things like UI and testing. So the
    proportion of graphics and gameplay is directly related. These days graphics
    are so complex that they require a massive programming effort which means
    that games are now being restricted to what is commercially a good risk ie
    first person shooters, football games and real time strategy games. There
    are almost no other games around at the moment. Compare this to a few years
    ago where space, flight, tank, and sub simulations were very abundant.

    You cant say that the new games that are coming out are particularly bad its
    just that the gameplay just isnt getting the attention it used to. Which is
    why more and more old games are being revamped.

    Developers also need to realise that the market has changed dramatically
    over the last few years. It now isnt enough to produce a closed game. With a
    massive increase in modders around who are unwilling to accept the limited
    gameplay in games developers must realise that they have to make their games
    as moddable and flexible as possible in order for their games to continue to
    be sold and not dead in the water after a month.

    All of the best long lasting games are either old games that are being
    revamped of new games that are extremely moddable.

    Youre imving in cloud cuckoo land if you think that we will ever get back to
    the computer heyday of the late 80s and early 90s where developers produce
    games have great gameplay. I cant list a single game that has come out over
    the last century that has had enough gameplay out of the box to keep them
    interesting for more than two months for most people.

    Nats
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ddurni$2pc$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    > news:xvsMe.1985$r54.1901@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    > > You guys have this idea of mutual exclusivity between graphics or a good
    > > game. Both are interchangeable, which again favors my argument of
    > > perspective vs reality.
    >
    >
    >
    > They are interchangeable but it just doesnt happen that gameplay ever gets
    a
    > bigger concern than graphics in todays commercial world - developers have
    a
    > set budget to play with for any game and can only dedicate so much
    resourses
    > to graphics and gameplay along with other things like UI and testing. So
    the
    > proportion of graphics and gameplay is directly related. These days
    graphics
    > are so complex that they require a massive programming effort which means
    > that games are now being restricted to what is commercially a good risk ie
    > first person shooters, football games and real time strategy games. There
    > are almost no other games around at the moment. Compare this to a few
    years
    > ago where space, flight, tank, and sub simulations were very abundant.
    >
    > You cant say that the new games that are coming out are particularly bad
    its
    > just that the gameplay just isnt getting the attention it used to. Which
    is
    > why more and more old games are being revamped.
    >
    > Developers also need to realise that the market has changed dramatically
    > over the last few years. It now isnt enough to produce a closed game. With
    a
    > massive increase in modders around who are unwilling to accept the limited
    > gameplay in games developers must realise that they have to make their
    games
    > as moddable and flexible as possible in order for their games to continue
    to
    > be sold and not dead in the water after a month.
    >
    > All of the best long lasting games are either old games that are being
    > revamped of new games that are extremely moddable.
    >
    > Youre imving in cloud cuckoo land if you think that we will ever get back
    to
    > the computer heyday of the late 80s and early 90s where developers produce
    > games have great gameplay. I cant list a single game that has come out
    over
    > the last century that has had enough gameplay out of the box to keep them
    > interesting for more than two months for most people.
    >
    > Nats


    While that may be true for flight sims this century, it's certainly not
    for other games.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    news:xvsMe.1985$r54.1901@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    > You guys have this idea of mutual exclusivity between graphics or a good
    > game. Both are interchangeable, which again favors my argument of
    > perspective vs reality.
    >
    >
    > "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> > awesome! Updated to
    > today's graphics would be spectacular. Here again, they
    >> would have to learn to stick with what worked and build on it. Sacrifice
    >> some graphical splendor for enhanced AI or other gameplay.
    >>
    >
    >

    Huh?

    Graphics don't make a game. But well implemented graphics can add to the
    immersiveness. I love Lo-Mac's graphics, but prefer Falcon 4 more because of
    gameplay. Would I like both the depth of Falcon 4 and graphics of Lo-Mac,
    yes, but will compromise the improved graphics for gameplay. If I had to
    make a choice between these two sims? I'll take Falcon 4 (Allied Force
    preferred) any day.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    > Graphics don't make a game. But well implemented graphics can add to the
    > immersiveness. I love Lo-Mac's graphics, but prefer Falcon 4 more because
    > of gameplay. Would I like both the depth of Falcon 4 and graphics of
    > Lo-Mac, yes, but will compromise the improved graphics for gameplay. If I
    > had to make a choice between these two sims? I'll take Falcon 4 (Allied
    > Force preferred) any day.
    This hits the nail on the head. Graphics aren't everything. In fact I blv
    I had more fun with Falcon 3 than 4 (rose tinted specs possibly).
    But you mentioned that magic word GAMEPLAY. The fact of the matter is that
    F4 is a game and LOMAC is more of a simulation hence that feeling something
    lacking. Remember F14 Fleet defender? In that sim you could go up on a
    mission and do the posted patrols and nothing would happen, no enemies,
    nothing to shoot at etc - just take-off, patrol then land. In the Falcon
    series we are virtually guaranteed combat whether you go after it or it
    comes after you. Lomac not so much from my experience. This is much more
    true to life imho but it obviously lacks the gameplay element. Ask any
    combat pilot and they will tell you the latter is more common than the
    former. Likewise in the IL2 series, there is a fair chance that you can go
    out do the mission and meet only limited defensive resistence. But then
    this the trade off between scripted missions and allowing the PC AI.
    I have been watching for some time the various elements arguing over which
    is better and slagging the opposition, why cannot people just accept that
    others have differing likes and dislikes without getting abusive. All the
    programs are brilliant in their own way with a few exceptions. Just bear in
    mind that the future of flight sims as we know them is in jeopardy and that
    constant moaning at s/w companies will ultimately drive them away to more
    lucrative endeavours. Yes we want good product but nit picking can be
    counter productive.
    On the subject of BoB2 I will await the reviews as I never got BoB1 to run
    successfully on my PC, the graphics were weak and it could never cope with
    my joystick. I always found that strange considering Mig Alley was by the
    same folks and pretty similar menu-wise at least and it ran fine. Wouldn't
    mind seeing a Mig Alley 2.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:18:04 GMT, "Arthur Dent"
    <arthurdent@magrathea.com> wrote:


    >On the subject of BoB2 I will await the reviews as I never got BoB1 to run
    >successfully on my PC, the graphics were weak and it could never cope with
    >my joystick. I always found that strange considering Mig Alley was by the
    >same folks and pretty similar menu-wise at least and it ran fine. Wouldn't
    >mind seeing a Mig Alley 2.

    Have you tried BoB1 with the BDG patches? It runs fine on my PC under
    XP or Win98 so long as I use the BDG patch.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    > Have you tried BoB1 with the BDG patches? It runs fine on my PC under
    > XP or Win98 so long as I use the BDG patch.

    Yes I did but found it very unstable and ultimately got fed up trying to get
    the thing to run. Never managed to get it to recoognise my j/s and when IL2
    came out I abandoned all hope. Occasionally I stuck it in the cd, fired it
    up loaded all the alleged fixes ...... CRASH!! .... unistall ..... back to
    the shelf. Never had all that will Mig Alley.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Arthur Dent" <arthurdent@magrathea.com> wrote in message
    news:gSUMe.235599$s54.155809@pd7tw2no...

    > On the subject of BoB2 I will await the reviews as I never got BoB1 to run
    > successfully on my PC, the graphics were weak and it could never cope with
    > my joystick. >
    BoB1 BDG 0.9 looks great on my new PC, the joysticks I've tried (CH) have
    all worked on various PC's - Win98 and XP. I'd love to post a screenshot at
    1280x1024 32bit 16x AA max detail - V Nice.
    Mark Lee
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ddurni$2pc$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    > news:xvsMe.1985$r54.1901@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    >> You guys have this idea of mutual exclusivity between graphics or a good
    >> game. Both are interchangeable, which again favors my argument of
    >> perspective vs reality.
    >
    >
    >
    > They are interchangeable

    Interchangeable means you can have one *or* the other.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "sadsda" <ADFASFDFDF> wrote in message
    news:43066125$0$7869$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > "Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:ddurni$2pc$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> "Saltheart_Foamfollower" <slaty@salty.net> wrote in message
    >> news:xvsMe.1985$r54.1901@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    >>> You guys have this idea of mutual exclusivity between graphics or a good
    >>> game. Both are interchangeable, which again favors my argument of
    >>> perspective vs reality.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> They are interchangeable
    >
    > Interchangeable means you can have one *or* the other.
    They are NOT mutually exclusive.
    They can co-exist.
    --
    Mark Lee
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96B0C06619B51ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
    >
    > Reworking the old sims - sure, bring it on.

    I'd love to see EF2000 reworked.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    On 2005-08-21, L'acrobat <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote:
    >
    > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96B0C06619B51ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
    >>
    >> Reworking the old sims - sure, bring it on.
    >
    > I'd love to see EF2000 reworked.

    Oh, yes, seconded. Wonder if DID follow newsgroups.

    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "L'acrobat" <husky.65@delete_me.bigpond.com> wrote in news:V5%Ne.6413
    $FA3.3261@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

    >
    > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96B0C06619B51ta2eene2@216.196.97.131...
    >>
    >> Reworking the old sims - sure, bring it on.
    >
    > I'd love to see EF2000 reworked.


    And F117, and Red Baron, and SWOTL, and Wolfpack......
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Arthur Dent" <arthurdent@magrathea.com> wrote in message
    news:gSUMe.235599$s54.155809@pd7tw2no...
    >> Graphics don't make a game. But well implemented graphics can add to the
    >> immersiveness. I love Lo-Mac's graphics, but prefer Falcon 4 more because
    >> of gameplay. Would I like both the depth of Falcon 4 and graphics of
    >> Lo-Mac, yes, but will compromise the improved graphics for gameplay. If I
    >> had to make a choice between these two sims? I'll take Falcon 4 (Allied
    >> Force preferred) any day.
    > This hits the nail on the head. Graphics aren't everything. In fact I
    > blv I had more fun with Falcon 3 than 4 (rose tinted specs possibly).
    > But you mentioned that magic word GAMEPLAY. The fact of the matter is
    > that F4 is a game and LOMAC is more of a simulation hence that feeling
    > something lacking. Remember F14 Fleet defender?

    F4 is definitely a simulation of F-16 by any standard. The environment may
    be more game-like in that there is lots of action going on, but not always
    either. Additionally, LOMAC is less of a simulation when it comes to flight
    model and in-cockpit control. The avionics are greatly simplified in LOMAC.
    While I have had a ton of fun with LOMAC, after finishing the missions there
    was no real point to going back and playing. Whereas Falcon, I keep coming
    back for more abuse :)

    > In that sim you could go up on a mission and do the posted patrols and
    > nothing would happen, no enemies, nothing to shoot at etc - just take-off,
    > patrol then land. In the Falcon series we are virtually guaranteed combat
    > whether you go after it or it comes after you. Lomac not so much from my
    > experience. This is much more true to life imho but it obviously lacks
    > the gameplay element. Ask any combat pilot and they will tell you the
    > latter is more common than the former.

    Yes, but just because there isn't much going on, doesn't mean it is real to
    life. In Falcon 4 AF the enemies have character. Just because a flight of
    Su-25's are in your vicinity, they don't necessarily attack, unless they are
    on a CAP of some sort and need to obliterate anything out of the sky.
    Otherwise they won't fire unless fired upon.

    > Likewise in the IL2 series, there is a fair chance that you can go out do
    > the mission and meet only limited defensive resistence. But then this the
    > trade off between scripted missions and allowing the PC AI.

    Yes, I agree. I like it when there are some stagnant missions, but I find
    this in F4AF as well.

    > I have been watching for some time the various elements arguing over which
    > is better and slagging the opposition, why cannot people just accept that
    > others have differing likes and dislikes without getting abusive. All the
    > programs are brilliant in their own way with a few exceptions. Just bear
    > in mind that the future of flight sims as we know them is in jeopardy and
    > that constant moaning at s/w companies will ultimately drive them away to
    > more lucrative endeavours. Yes we want good product but nit picking can
    > be counter productive.

    I agree 100%. I fly each of these "sims" or "games" whatever you want to
    call them. And each do have their own positive merits. All are well done,
    and at this point are virtually bug free (at least nothing significant). I
    guess I just look at longevity. Who would have thunk that F4 would have over
    7 year old legs as strong as they are. And just keeps on ticking. That is
    the sign of a well designed game. One that is scalable and fun enough to
    keep coming back for more.

    > On the subject of BoB2 I will await the reviews as I never got BoB1 to run
    > successfully on my PC, the graphics were weak and it could never cope with
    > my joystick. I always found that strange considering Mig Alley was by the
    > same folks and pretty similar menu-wise at least and it ran fine.
    > Wouldn't mind seeing a Mig Alley 2.

    I liked the original BoB. It was great fun, and when I bought it I thought
    it was just a sim, but was quite happy seeing as you could play most of the
    game as somewhat of a real-time strategy game too. I have BoB 2 on order and
    hope it builds on the original, as it sounds like it is.

    I would *LOVE* to have a MiG Alley 2 as well. Great game, great fun.

    Now if I can just win the lottery tomorrow, I can play ALL of these without
    pesky things like work getting in the way ;)
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim (More info?)

    "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in message
    news:Rb-dnfhqmvseNY7eRVn-ug@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Arthur Dent" <arthurdent@magrathea.com> wrote in message
    > news:gSUMe.235599$s54.155809@pd7tw2no...
    > >> Graphics don't make a game. But well implemented graphics can add to
    the
    > >> immersiveness. I love Lo-Mac's graphics, but prefer Falcon 4 more
    because
    > >> of gameplay. Would I like both the depth of Falcon 4 and graphics of
    > >> Lo-Mac, yes, but will compromise the improved graphics for gameplay. If
    I
    > >> had to make a choice between these two sims? I'll take Falcon 4 (Allied
    > >> Force preferred) any day.
    > > This hits the nail on the head. Graphics aren't everything. In fact I
    > > blv I had more fun with Falcon 3 than 4 (rose tinted specs possibly).
    > > But you mentioned that magic word GAMEPLAY. The fact of the matter is
    > > that F4 is a game and LOMAC is more of a simulation hence that feeling
    > > something lacking. Remember F14 Fleet defender?
    >
    > F4 is definitely a simulation of F-16 by any standard. The environment may
    > be more game-like in that there is lots of action going on, but not always
    > either. Additionally, LOMAC is less of a simulation when it comes to
    flight
    > model and in-cockpit control. The avionics are greatly simplified in
    LOMAC.
    > While I have had a ton of fun with LOMAC, after finishing the missions
    there
    > was no real point to going back and playing. Whereas Falcon, I keep coming
    > back for more abuse :)
    >
    > > In that sim you could go up on a mission and do the posted patrols and
    > > nothing would happen, no enemies, nothing to shoot at etc - just
    take-off,
    > > patrol then land. In the Falcon series we are virtually guaranteed
    combat
    > > whether you go after it or it comes after you. Lomac not so much from my
    > > experience. This is much more true to life imho but it obviously lacks
    > > the gameplay element. Ask any combat pilot and they will tell you the
    > > latter is more common than the former.
    >
    > Yes, but just because there isn't much going on, doesn't mean it is real
    to
    > life. In Falcon 4 AF the enemies have character. Just because a flight of
    > Su-25's are in your vicinity, they don't necessarily attack, unless they
    are
    > on a CAP of some sort and need to obliterate anything out of the sky.
    > Otherwise they won't fire unless fired upon.

    <snip>


    A flight of Su-25's doing cap ? Now, that would be
    interesting......record set for the world's shortest cap <g>
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Gaming Games Video Games Product