|
Dimitris -> RE: Command v1.01 review at SimHQ (10/26/2013 3:15:55 PM)
|
Some of the comments in these forums and elsewhere make it sound like the game is the house equivalent of a construction dump. (And nobody will pay to move-in to an unfinished house... right?)
The game is perfectly playable right this moment, and that was also the case when it was first released. Warts and all. It is already IMHO (and of others) the best air/naval wargame out there, period.
That we are here, discussing flaws discovered both pre- and post-release and evaluating what must be addressed first, does not mean the game is "half-finished". It simply demonstrates that we're not a "take the money & run" shop, and that we're here for the long haul.
This reminds me in many ways the situation with the F-16A during its first few operational years (1978-1982/3ish).
Was it a work-in-progress? Very much so. Were there a ton of bugs & flaws waiting to be fixed? You bet. (And some of them, like the wiring-caused vertigo or the initial engine problems, got quite a few pilots killed). Was there a truckload of backlash from the existing "user community" who were used to doing things differently? You only had to ask an F-4 pilot about the sidestick controller or the lack of a dedicated WSO. And most of the criticism about its limitations at the time ("No autonomous LGB capability? No Sparrow? No TESEO? No NAW precision strike? No PGMs except Mav-A/B? No variable-geometry inlet? No built-in ECM? What are these guys thinking?") was technically accurate. While also missing the greater point.
The greater point being that the aircraft was already doing things none of its predecessors could do (9G, HOTAS, vastly improved SA, unparalleled strike precision, longer range, lower LCC, etc. etc.), it was based on more modern fundamentals (eg. MIL-STD-1553 - a very big thing back then) and that it was the first step of an evolutionary path that would rectify all its initial shortcomings and turn it into the most successful US-built jet fighter of all time, surpassing even the "sacred cow" that was the F-4.
Those who appreciated its potential were quick to acquire it even in its initial version despite its limitations (US, Israel, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Turkey), well before it was used in combat. And in combat, used by operators that understood its strengths and weaknesses it went from one homerun to another (Osirak, Bekaa).
The rest (F-16C etc.) is history.
Now of course someone will come up with the valid objection "yeah but the C and particularly Blk40/42 was the first version that fixed most of the major initial limitations, and the big recognition & sales really only came after the mid-80s and especially post-Desert Storm".
To which I answer... so what? For every product you have early adopters willing to go through the teething problems because they recognize the value they are getting from day-1 (imagine the Israelis fighting Bekaa just with F-4s), and (a typically much larger volume of) later customers who realize they've been missing on a good thing. This happens all the time. We often recognize this behavior in ourselves as users of other products/services so we are aware of it and understand it and work with it.
So, to summarize. Command will be "finished" when there's nothing to improve or add, and if Harpoon is any indication it may take a few decades to get there. In the meantime, we're adding things, fixing flaws, and enriching the game from the feedback of the customers. Does this make it "unfinished", a work-in-progress? Yes, you could say that. Does it make it unusable, a "construction dump", something not worth the price of entry right now? In our mind, and the overwhelming majority of the people who have bought it until now, no. It simply means it has a bright future ahead, and ignoring it really means missing out on a good thing.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
