Il2 Battle of Stalingrad on Steam

[sandman2575]

It's understandable, certainly, but as the saying goes, "if you can't handle the heat..."

The intolerance of criticism is really just amazing. I've seen 3 threads disappear in the "General Discussion" forum in the last hour.

[Grim.Reaper]

Wow...so glad I stood strong and did not purchase.  Seems like developers nowadays are reacting over the top to any critique their games receive....big turn off for me even if a decent game.  The way they react bring a bigger spotlight than the negative feedback in the first place.

[Bletchley_Geek]

I have been keeping an eye on this over the past few days (I asked here some questions about the game, and I got a lot of info). One of the reasons I came here was because it was obvious that the game is being trolled and the user reviews out there make little to no sense. I wouldn't say "very badly" because the numbers of reviews on either Metacritic or Steam speak volumes.

What I mean by being trolled. Checking the negative reviews, I see

* Kind of a 50/50 split on flight and damage models. About half of the negative reviews by people who actually read like having a clue, say they're crap, the other half that they're very good.
* Almost all the negative reviews mention the Single Player XP-based unlocking of bells and whistles prominently (I say "bells and whistles" because according to SDR you're well able to fly any plane you have paid for).
* A significant number of reviews criticizing the handling of the German fighters. I am much less experienced than some here - it would be good to hear more informed opinions - but in IL-2 I do find the German planes significantly harder to fly to their full efficiency than their American, Soviet or British counterparts.
* Several reviews feature prominently stuff like not supporting 3 monitors as a reason to rate the game as shit. I reckon that's a bit of an exaggeration.
* Very interestingly, an especially articulate review criticizing the producer of IL-2, Jason Williams, with very specific and personal comments. With exactly zero content about the game itself.

We have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.

I also find shocking that dev posting. But not because of the content - that wouldn't ever happen, for starters, because you can't pull out stuff out of Steam like that without incurring in massive penalties. What I find shocking is that their community management procedures are so shallow that it allows a dev - who's probably sunk thousands of hours developing a game - going postal after reading stuff which is, to a substantial part, drivel. Who hasn't sent a raging e-mail into a public mailing list at least once in their lives? It's obvious that the producer scrambled to do some damage control as soon as he got wind of that post.

Asking people to have a thick skin, while kind of standing listless watching a bunch of folks being very unfair about a product on public venues which are known to be a very important factor for sales - Metacritic is shit, yes, but it tends to happen that sales number and good average scores there are correlated - leads to devs considering players less as partners, and more as reluctant adversaries/customers. Sometimes this animosity against developers/producers is warranted - I'm thinking of Stormpowered - and sometimes any rational person would find it hard to even understand the reasons motivating the criticism - I'm thinking of Battlefront here.

I think I am going to purchase this one. I actually quite like what I am seeing on the videos: a quite good balance between the hardcore and the casual. Or so it looks while sitting on the fence  ::)

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Those who pre-ordered the game can fly any plane from the outset. Those who buy after release will have to unlock each plane via the single player campaign XP grind.

There's been quite an interesting back and forth between some users and the flight model programmer over the performance of the German planes.  The programmer basically threw down the gauntlet and challenged those who disagreed with the flight model to give him actual flight data.  Several have done so and he's agreed to make some changes  (still not enough to stop the more ardent of the Luftwhiners but they will likely never be satisfied.)

What's frustrating to me is that the actual flight dynamics in this game are great.  Each plane feels different and is fun and challenging to fly.  The sim runs well and generally looks great.  It lacks in all the stuff that takes that excellent flight model and sucks you in. 

If you just want to fly online, it's a great sim despite the unlocks.  If you are happy with just throwing together some quick battles and flying for 30-40 minutes at a time then it's also pretty good.  If you're looking for anything more than that, it's just not worth it at this point.  A lot is going to depend on what the modding community can come up with, assuming they're given the tools and the permission required to make the mods that will make this game shine.

[Bletchley_Geek]

Those who don't pre-ordered the game can fly any plane from the outset. Those who buy after release will have to unlock each plane via the single player campaign XP grind.

Ehm, that does indeed mean I need to get my act together and jump down the fence :)

There's been quite an interesting back and forth between some users and the flight model programmer over the performance of the German planes.  The programmer basically threw down the gauntlet and challenged those who disagreed with the flight model to give him actual flight data.  Several have done so and he's agreed to make some changes  (still not enough to stop the more ardent of the Luftwhiners but they will likely never be satisfied.)

Thanks for sharing that, SDR. Indeed, I was detecting a certain flair of that "Germanic Fanboyism" that you can find pretty much in anything related to WW2. This back and forth you mention between players and devs points out to me that they do care about the realism of the simulator. It also seems to me that they try to package it in a way which engages players - for good and for bad. The way they're trying to engage players via XP unlocks is indeed questionable, but it is not too different from the "grind" you can find in many interesting titles out there at the moment. Like Elite: Dangerous, for instance. In a game like that you can't allow players to rock into the more flashier ships right off the bat, Premium Beta or not. I am skeptical that this 'the game is the grind' approach is a good one for this genre, but I can't other than respect them for sticking to their guns. For good or for bad, we don't allow anyone to fill our shopping trolley at the supermarket, and I don't see why game developers should allow the players to make big decisions on the design. That's their call - not ours.

What's frustrating to me is that the actual flight dynamics in this game are great.  Each plane feels different and is fun and challenging to fly.  The sim runs well and generally looks great.  It lacks in all the stuff that takes that excellent flight model and sucks you in. 

If you just want to fly online, it's a great sim despite the unlocks.  If you are happy with just throwing together some quick battles and flying for 30-40 minutes at a time then it's also pretty good.  If you're looking for anything more than that, it's just not worth it at this point.  A lot is going to depend on what the modding community can come up with, assuming they're given the tools and the permission required to make the mods that will make this game shine.

I must say that I'm possibly one of those 30-40 minutes at a time persons - I can't have very long sessions in front of my computer, and the required involvement of stuff like DCS was a deterrant for me. If flight sims had a Save Game feature...

[JudgeDredd]

I have been keeping an eye on this over the past few days (I asked here some questions about the game, and I got a lot of info). One of the reasons I came here was because it was obvious that the game is being trolled and the user reviews out there make little to no sense. I wouldn't say "very badly" because the numbers of reviews on either Metacritic or Steam speak volumes.

What I mean by being trolled. Checking the negative reviews, I see

* Kind of a 50/50 split on flight and damage models. About half of the negative reviews by people who actually read like having a clue, say they're crap, the other half that they're very good.
* Almost all the negative reviews mention the Single Player XP-based unlocking of bells and whistles prominently (I say "bells and whistles" because according to SDR you're well able to fly any plane you have paid for).
* A significant number of reviews criticizing the handling of the German fighters. I am much less experienced than some here - it would be good to hear more informed opinions - but in IL-2 I do find the German planes significantly harder to fly to their full efficiency than their American, Soviet or British counterparts.
* Several reviews feature prominently stuff like not supporting 3 monitors as a reason to rate the game as shit. I reckon that's a bit of an exaggeration.
* Very interestingly, an especially articulate review criticizing the producer of IL-2, Jason Williams, with very specific and personal comments. With exactly zero content about the game itself.

We have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.

I also find shocking that dev posting. But not because of the content - that wouldn't ever happen, for starters, because you can't pull out stuff out of Steam like that without incurring in massive penalties. What I find shocking is that their community management procedures are so shallow that it allows a dev - who's probably sunk thousands of hours developing a game - going postal after reading stuff which is, to a substantial part, drivel. Who hasn't sent a raging e-mail into a public mailing list at least once in their lives? It's obvious that the producer scrambled to do some damage control as soon as he got wind of that post.

Asking people to have a thick skin, while kind of standing listless watching a bunch of folks being very unfair about a product on public venues which are known to be a very important factor for sales - Metacritic is shit, yes, but it tends to happen that sales number and good average scores there are correlated - leads to devs considering players less as partners, and more as reluctant adversaries/customers. Sometimes this animosity against developers/producers is warranted - I'm thinking of Stormpowered - and sometimes any rational person would find it hard to even understand the reasons motivating the criticism - I'm thinking of Battlefront here.

I think I am going to purchase this one. I actually quite like what I am seeing on the videos: a quite good balance between the hardcore and the casual. Or so it looks while sitting on the fence  ::)

my bold
Not to contaminate this thread with the other you mention...but that's a bit harsh BG.

He has pointed out many issues with "that game" from release. A lot of which I noticed myself. The fact that others started to solely focus on that one point (to do exactly what you have done - dismiss other points offered) is being disingenuous and simply disregarding other points made.

I don't know if those points stack up now - but they certainly did on release...I know.

As for the other points - I totally agree that a lot of the negative reviews are likely to be disgruntled simmers (or simply just gamers) who award a very low score just because they can. I've seen many, many reviews on Amazon where people give totally irrelevant reviews and low scores.

However, the product should speak for itself in the end (as that other game has). And by that I mean the people who are playing it and who like it do NOT need to be threatened about the future of their investment. They could very possibly just have said "Look - a lot of people are giving negative reviews and some rather harshly we feel. If you enjoy the game, please make sure you can review it and give it a genuine score as and where you can"

The original post, the follow up post and the deleting of threads is simply outrageous. I am astounded to think that devs and/or publishers think deleting threads is a calming measure to their disgruntled followers.

I don't know what was promised in this game at the beginning. I do know that they've piggy backed on the back of IL-2. When you do that with a game that has a huge following and much respect, you know what the players are expecting...much of the same, only better. Switching (from what I understand towards the end of development) to a ADHD like reward system for a campaign just borders on the unbelievable.

So yes, the reviews might be overly critical. Does that mean other reviews should be overly praising? Aren't they just as bad as each other? In one, the dev loses out. In the other the consumer loses out.

In the end it can be fixed by providing what people want...and from what I gather people did not want a "console type" campaign (and that isn't to be down on consoles). They wanted the same and better from the game's namesake - IL2.

Devs and publishers need to understand that it's quite important to listen to the people they are selling to.

It would also be nice for everyone to be objective and fair. But this is the real world - and it's a bit 

[JudgeDredd]

And another thing - I love the fact that modders are out there and they are absolutely superb at what they provide.

But I'm sick to death of reading that they'll rescue something. Developers need to get their fingers out their arse and start producing complete, working products.

[Bletchley_Geek]

Well, JD I think it's a matter of being measured and fair. I found the vibe around BOS to come with a very low Signal -To-Noise Ratio, hence I approached the guys here to see what they actually think about the game. For whatever the reasons, which seem many, there's a substantial number of user reviews out there which aren't really meant to be "reviews".

Regarding the example I used, I won't discuss it anymore. I find facts speak by themselves. Everyone is entitled to make more or less charitable readings.

No game ever comes out without warts, big or small. Yet it is rare that a game is released as a DOA turkey (World in Flames was). Over the years I've come up to the conclusion that we are a bit too prone to cry murder over devs doing stuff in their games, when it's just a case of getting a bad haircut and a pissy attitude.

[RyanE]

I have been keeping an eye on this over the past few days (I asked here some questions about the game, and I got a lot of info). One of the reasons I came here was because it was obvious that the game is being trolled and the user reviews out there make little to no sense. I wouldn't say "very badly" because the numbers of reviews on either Metacritic or Steam speak volumes.

What I mean by being trolled. Checking the negative reviews, I see

* Kind of a 50/50 split on flight and damage models. About half of the negative reviews by people who actually read like having a clue, say they're crap, the other half that they're very good.
* Almost all the negative reviews mention the Single Player XP-based unlocking of bells and whistles prominently (I say "bells and whistles" because according to SDR you're well able to fly any plane you have paid for).
* A significant number of reviews criticizing the handling of the German fighters. I am much less experienced than some here - it would be good to hear more informed opinions - but in IL-2 I do find the German planes significantly harder to fly to their full efficiency than their American, Soviet or British counterparts.
* Several reviews feature prominently stuff like not supporting 3 monitors as a reason to rate the game as shit. I reckon that's a bit of an exaggeration.
* Very interestingly, an especially articulate review criticizing the producer of IL-2, Jason Williams, with very specific and personal comments. With exactly zero content about the game itself.

We have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.

I also find shocking that dev posting. But not because of the content - that wouldn't ever happen, for starters, because you can't pull out stuff out of Steam like that without incurring in massive penalties. What I find shocking is that their community management procedures are so shallow that it allows a dev - who's probably sunk thousands of hours developing a game - going postal after reading stuff which is, to a substantial part, drivel. Who hasn't sent a raging e-mail into a public mailing list at least once in their lives? It's obvious that the producer scrambled to do some damage control as soon as he got wind of that post.

Asking people to have a thick skin, while kind of standing listless watching a bunch of folks being very unfair about a product on public venues which are known to be a very important factor for sales - Metacritic is shit, yes, but it tends to happen that sales number and good average scores there are correlated - leads to devs considering players less as partners, and more as reluctant adversaries/customers. Sometimes this animosity against developers/producers is warranted - I'm thinking of Stormpowered - and sometimes any rational person would find it hard to even understand the reasons motivating the criticism - I'm thinking of Battlefront here.

I think I am going to purchase this one. I actually quite like what I am seeing on the videos: a quite good balance between the hardcore and the casual. Or so it looks while sitting on the fence  ::)

my bold
Not to contaminate this thread with the other you mention...but that's a bit harsh BG.

He has pointed out many issues with "that game" from release. A lot of which I noticed myself. The fact that others started to solely focus on that one point (to do exactly what you have done - dismiss other points offered) is being disingenuous and simply disregarding other points made.

I don't know if those points stack up now - but they certainly did on release...I know.

As for the other points - I totally agree that a lot of the negative reviews are likely to be disgruntled simmers (or simply just gamers) who award a very low score just because they can. I've seen many, many reviews on Amazon where people give totally irrelevant reviews and low scores.

However, the product should speak for itself in the end (as that other game has). And by that I mean the people who are playing it and who like it do NOT need to be threatened about the future of their investment. They could very possibly just have said "Look - a lot of people are giving negative reviews and some rather harshly we feel. If you enjoy the game, please make sure you can review it and give it a genuine score as and where you can"

The original post, the follow up post and the deleting of threads is simply outrageous. I am astounded to think that devs and/or publishers think deleting threads is a calming measure to their disgruntled followers.

I don't know what was promised in this game at the beginning. I do know that they've piggy backed on the back of IL-2. When you do that with a game that has a huge following and much respect, you know what the players are expecting...much of the same, only better. Switching (from what I understand towards the end of development) to a ADHD like reward system for a campaign just borders on the unbelievable.

So yes, the reviews might be overly critical. Does that mean other reviews should be overly praising? Aren't they just as bad as each other? In one, the dev loses out. In the other the consumer loses out.

In the end it can be fixed by providing what people want...and from what I gather people did not want a "console type" campaign (and that isn't to be down on consoles). They wanted the same and better from the game's namesake - IL2.

Devs and publishers need to understand that it's quite important to listen to the people they are selling to.

It would also be nice for everyone to be objective and fair. But this is the real world - and it's a bit 

A bigger distinction between that un-named game and BoS is that if you read BoS forums, it seems to be split pretty evenly between pro and con.  Although the cons seem to shout a little louder.  With the un-named, people pointing out relatively minor issues and making them bigger issues are by far the minority.  That is on Matrix and other forums.  It is also setting pricing aside.  Coincidentally, BoS is actually more expensive for all in than the un-named game.

As to BoS, I'll again point out that its biggest issue is its trying to be all things to all people.  But most likely, only the hardcore simmers went into early access.  That skews the complaining to people expecting the next coming of IL-2.  Also keep in mind the state of the original IL-2...it took years and extreme community modding to get it to the point of true awesomeness.  Expecting BoS to just be a continuation or evolution of that is unfair.

[JudgeDredd]

There are definitely disgruntled people and often those type of people can be vindictive. Hence scores way below what they likely should objectively be.

I'm afraid I've been burned by enough developers and publishers to even bother to stick up for them. Alot of which was my own doing, I'll admit, by buying early...but still, there are some developers and publishers out there that must surely break some kind of law somewhere. They're big boys and can stick up for themselves.

I wrote a post many, many years ago (possibly even on the IL2-Battle of Britain (when it was initially about the Battle of Britain) that rivet counters were breaking the sim world. Kind of a sweeping statement and not directed at everyone who wanted levels of realisms...but there were (and always will be) a very vocal bunch of people who will want absolute realism, at any cost whatever that realism is...from the look of a particular type of model for a particular aircraft or the actual workings or the flight model.

I look at DCS and wonder where that's heading. Some great modules there - all of which I own - and yet a pretty empty overall experience.

I just don't get who thought this "unlocking" system in the sim genre was a good idea. I mentioned "console" system before because from my limited (very limited) gaming on console gaming, I got the impression games for consoles where prone to having "unlocks" more so than PC games. And in particular the genre...that's NOT how the hardcore sim genre works.

And don't forget people fight change...until it's there and embedded - then it's the norm and accepted.

I could be wrong - wouldn't be the first time.

This just seems to be one of those cluster fucks that's gained momentum by an apparent threat of the game being no more from the devs, a more reasoned post by the publishers and deleting of threads. I understand why they wanted to remove non-helpful (different to non-positive) threads - but that's NEVER going to go down well. EVER. Conspiracy theories abound.

In the end it's their business and it's their work. It could've been avoided (at least on this scale) if they'd listened to the fans of the series. And as I said - you put a tag on a game that represents a very respected game - people are going to expect that AND MORE. You can avoid that expectation by trying to play on the love of another game by leaving it out the equation.

The problem with the internet is too many idiots with a voice - including me  ;) - so I'll go away and hope the game gives you the gaming pleasure you seek.

[RyanE]

Holy Crap!  I own BoS, but really haven't looked at the drama unfolding in any detail.  I just dropped by SimHQ and got a whiff of what is happening.  I feel like I'll need to take a couple showers after seeing that.  After those threads, the Command thread looks like a choir practice.

[Nefaro]

We have had recently on this forum an episode involving an individual ripping a quite massive simulation because of a totally irrelevant detail regarding the maximum speed of aircraft. I can't help seeing something similar going on with this rubbishing - because it is rubbishing, no more, no less.

Not to contaminate this thread with the other you mention...but that's a bit harsh BG.

He has pointed out many issues with "that game" from release. A lot of which I noticed myself. The fact that others started to solely focus on that one point (to do exactly what you have done - dismiss other points offered) is being disingenuous and simply disregarding other points made.

I don't know if those points stack up now - but they certainly did on release...I know.

JD's right.  All wasn't perfect at release and there is still a ways to go.  Let's not dismiss all criticism on desired improvements.

As for the IL2:BOS developers, perhaps they should take such input from their customers and try to make use of it instead of fortifying their position and delivering Punishment Patches and tantrums.   

And another thing - I love the fact that modders are out there and they are absolutely superb at what they provide.

But I'm sick to death of reading that they'll rescue something. Developers need to get their fingers out their arse and start producing complete, working products.

Good point.   O0

[RyanE]

I found it completely playable as a game on release.  There were a few crashes here and there for some people.    If you follow a lot of those threads through, they were related to not letting Directx and .net install all the way through.  I made that mistake on first try also.

Most of the discussions were around features being added to limit manual intervention or make it more like Harpoon.  Its not like it a mess on release.

A thought occurred to me on initial perceptions on Command...A number of the biggest complainers on initial release were some of the rivet counters.  I posted a couple times about the risk of letting rivet counters take over the development of the game.  I have that same concern on BoS.  The devs spend so much time trying to make sure every single 2-person motor boat is in there that they never get to the important features.

Another issue is people who have no clue about modern naval combat.  We are seeing that now and I think its related to the Steam release.  The types of posts we are seeing now is people don'y know what a sonobouy is or what OTH radar is, etc.  Command is not where you are going to learn the basics of modern naval combat.  You have to have a baseline of at least being able to google stuff and then see how it applies in the game.

[Father Ted]

Also keep in mind the state of the original IL-2...it took years and extreme community modding to get it to the point of true awesomeness.  Expecting BoS to just be a continuation or evolution of that is unfair.

This is the most important point to my mind.  I don't think that anyone could argue that BoS isn't better than Il2 in terms of FMs, DMs and graphics.  What it lacks is content (planes, theatres and campaigns/careers) and I'm sure the original IL2 was in a similar state on release.

[Nefaro]

I found it completely playable as a game on release.  There were a few crashes here and there for some people.    If you follow a lot of those threads through, they were related to not letting Directx and .net install all the way through.  I made that mistake on first try also.

Most of the discussions were around features being added to limit manual intervention or make it more like Harpoon.  Its not like it a mess on release.

A thought occurred to me on initial perceptions on Command...A number of the biggest complainers on initial release were some of the rivet counters.  I posted a couple times about the risk of letting rivet counters take over the development of the game.  I have that same concern on BoS.  The devs spend so much time trying to make sure every single 2-person motor boat is in there that they never get to the important features.

Another issue is people who have no clue about modern naval combat.  We are seeing that now and I think its related to the Steam release.  The types of posts we are seeing now is people don'y know what a sonobouy is or what OTH radar is, etc.  Command is not where you are going to learn the basics of modern naval combat.  You have to have a baseline of at least being able to google stuff and then see how it applies in the game.

I complained about the UI lacking tools & essential info, some inabilities of the subordinate AI, and the lack of sound in the game.  I'm not a complete noob when it comes to knowledge of modern naval & air warfare.  It was just lacking in usability and features I had expected, especially for an $80 sim.  I still see some of the same stuff reported so there is work left to do before it reaches the point of being unquestionable.  It should've been listed as 'Early Access' for awhile, IMO.  This is not to say it's a complete write-off.  The hard working devs will get it all filled out in time, I am sure.  ;)

While there may be some new Steam users tearing their hair out, that's generally expected of any Steam release.  Especially when it's a program with such a difficult UI to learn.  Hopefully some of them aren't turned off by veteran players' backlash, they eventually figure things out, and we get a few new fans of the genre.  Instantly lashing out with derogatory replies calling them "noobs" and telling them to "go back to Call Of Duty", as I've seen people do so many times on Steam, doesn't help such possibilities.  Even if the specific poster will never try the game again, there are numerous other lurkers who will see such posts and get the impression that the elitists run all the new people off.  I try to avoid such fiery retaliatory posts against new players' criticisms anymore.  Just makes things worse.

Hopefully the IL2:BoS devs have got a grip and will stop retaliating too.  I'm still astonished by their nerfing of the time compression in response to someone "levelling-up" too quickly.  ::)