Hawk Firestorm

Sadly you and many others have far more imagination of where this game could have, and indeed probably should have gone than the devs have had unfortuntely.

They got the vague basics in. Put too much toward the FPS element to push it to the console, and haven't expanded the gameplay or upon the original for PC users I think, well at least this one. There's many simple but important elements of the original that are missing, partly because of the cross platform approach. Between this and hostile waters I'd play the later, so far from what I've seen, looking at the gameplay.

There's alot on that list that break the originals appeal, never mind take the game forward into todays marketplace. Biggest mistake was trying to push it to the console.

I personally don't think this one will. I've said as much in a long thread in the P&C forum. One reason being peoples sofisication and expectations have increased immensly, its simply not enough to just rehash the same game with a new graphics engine for todays market, its a good start but the gameplay needs to be expanded upon, the passion and imagination to make the 'big game' back into it, not to mention having the people with the tallent to do so. They haven't really done that from what I've seen, the other big bone of contention with me is the multiplatform approach they took, this game really belongs on the PC, it's the only platform able to do the above, and also the only platform that does strategy well, consoles are too limited and much of the design of the new version seems to have been butchered I think to accommodate it being pushed to the console. It's become a so so FPS, rather than a more immersive 4x with FPS elements. But overall they did good with the graphics, but suffered a mental block as to where to take the game to as far as the gameplay for todays market, other than to turn it into a joypad wagglers paradise. Games that truely standout above and beyond the rest like the Homeworlds etc these days are few and far between, this had the potential to be one but sadly I think its going to be yet another release it and everyones forgoteen about it 2 weeks later. Which is truely sad.

Here we all are we stumped up our cash all excited expecting a great PC game and from what I've seen so far all I'm seeing is a game for consoles. :( From the UI to the gameplay and many of the key features of the orginal. like free navigation you name it, all seem to have died in the attempt (rather foolish one) to make this console friendly. I've never seen any game for either platform that ended well when it wasn't designed for the platform it was going on, the target audiences tastes are utterly different. Or to put it this way, you may like water, I may like scotch, try mix em and you end up with watered down scotch and who in hell likes that? While it is possible to converge many aspects of the game to make it compatible for many platforms there's a limit, and you guys have gone way past it as have many before you, to the point that the quality of the product is suffering because of it. The PC has and always will be the higher bar of the two and for a game like this its where you should be aiming, the vast majority of those that this game appeals to in the first place started out there, many of them are techheads like myself and they simply won't go for yet another DA2 fiasco expecting sonic the hedgehog lumping over the nearest horizon at any moment. Expectations are very high, and you have the rare opportunity to make a classic than can spawn a whole series of games or make a utter lemon, there's no middle ground here, so far I'm seeing too much yellow, from the controls to the gameplay, its very light on the strategy part and leans heavily towards the 'thumb wagglers'. If you guys want to make a console version all well and good but the pc version should have some game enhancements and its UI catered for that platform and the console theirs other than that the two should meet as little as possible as they are utterely incompatible. I could be wrong but I sincerly doubt there's any Xbox or PS3 users here that came forth with their cash upfront expecting you to be making a console game.

I think it basically comes down to tallent. People worked alot harder with less than they do now, and the industry as a whole I think has become somewhat soft and a bit lazy, and most of all greedy. You had a entire generation of people that grew up with the first computers, tinkering about in their bedrooms learning the craft, it was a new frontier of possibilities, something you young'uns just haven't had I think. ;P The advent of consoles hasn't done much to improve things, but I think has in many respects also pandered to the easy approach, and I think its also had a great effect on the new generation of tallent that's grown up around it. Where early on games relyed heavily on good design and understanding of engineering over graphics the inverse seems to be true, slap on a bit of flash and any ole junk will do, also I think the industry as a whole has changed from products that stood out on their merit to one of marketing. Its kind of sad really, all you see these days is the FPS rinse repeat cycle, over the wide and varied titles of yesterday, and the number of Houses you could pick up the box and see their logo on and buy it pretty much just by having their name on has dropped to zero for me. There's still and always will be a market for quality and well crafted products, but sadly there seems to be few willing to step up and meet the challenge of making them, and finding those with the gift to be able to do so.

Most PC's out of the box these days are good gaming computers. Sure you can get specialised kit but the vast majority even most laptops are fully gaming capable and have been for many years. As for 'Niche' market there's more Pc's users on this planet than there ever will be Console, Ask microsoft, If the PC market has indeed becomea niche its because of lazy and shoddy developement, and the pursuit of greed over quality, where the bottom line has become more important than what you set out to create. I'll give it to marek he can turn a phrase, the main reasons for developing on consoles are pretty simple, its easier and cheaper to develope for such a unified platform, and of course Piracy, though tbh I most definately attribute the rise in a good portion of that to a backlash by consumers tired of getting ripped off though obviously not all. Its a unified platform and by comparison is like comparing a painting by numbers kit to Micheal Angelo. Does it have advantages absolutely, but it has massive pitfalls as well, the effects of which are clearly evident and the effect its had on the industry and the quality and diversecity of products being offered, it puts everything on railtracks and that's not a good place to be to innovate, something I've seen very little of over the past 10 years. But anyway this wasn't a thread about the the benefits of Consoles v PC's, it was a thread about the game having good graphics, (and while I'm on the subject I'd like to say so far this is one area of this product I've actually seen some incling of any real tallent) and little depth in the gameplay dept, which feels rather empty and uninspired me being a old PC user, I've certainly seen better, and I certainly think BI is more than capable of doing better.

Nothing wrong with expanding into new markets but you have to be careful how you do it, but on the whole the idea of convergence is just plain daft. As for BF3 yes I have, being more of a console game its not my taste and that to me occupies the middle ground between the two platforms that being FPS, the one genre that both do very well, but the instances where this occurs and it does turn out well are very few and far between, so yes the PC has and always will be the higher bar, because it has the power scope and flexibility consoles don't have open to them along with the input method. Games that were developed for the PC then adapted to the console seem to be of better quality but those the other way round don't, because your converting from a limited platform to one that isn't and who's customers tastes mirror the platform they are using. But regardless, I've made my point I don't think the product is inline with what I would want or indeed expect, and I don't think its going remotely in the right direction, the choices made to accomodate it on the console have comprimised it and I think degraded it because of the limitations of one of the target platforms, and needlessly. It feels hollow a simple fly this manta to here blow a few buildings send in the walrus, empty and rather vapid, and the strategic options haven't been expanded upon nor indeed has the game been brought upto the level of the original never mind exceeded it, with the exception of the graphics. Which is a pity, because there was both the hardware and the scope to do so available, but not the imagination will or tallent apprently. I don't think this game will be one people will be talking about in 10 years time but yet another game forgotten about 2 weeks after its release, and from the people that made Arma and the community its created well that's just sad in itself. So yes out of all the options available they picked up the big ball of fluff, and utterly fluffed it.

Absolutely not. Console 'ports' are of lower quality and depth, if I 'dislike' them its purely because of this, the PC is the higher bar here by far. The reason they are are very simple the platform has a tight design focus and technical capabilities, the consumer tastes between those that use them are generally vast, there is a small group that kind of live inbetween the 2, but for the majority they are poles apart. You can do one or the other well or try and do both badly. BI's user base is going to be made up of PC users, that's a no brainer some will go for it many many more won't. Gaming tastes as with everything are subjective, there are for instance people like myself who do play FPS games, although liking flight/combat sims and strategy and RPG, but most of all the reason I have these tastes is on a game by game basis and the PC games I've come to enjoy were all very well crafted, and other game 'ports' like DA2 I utterly reject because they are vapid, and lack depth because of the limitations of consoles and the influence its had on the design path to try put it to them. This is another, and I'm absolutely positive I will be far from alone here. Like I said if your a primarily a PC developer and you take on a remake of a PC game, then say okie PC users were going to remake it what in heck do you think people are going to be expecting at the end of it? Joypad waggling nonsence with sonic the hedhog? I think not. Like I say there's no middle ground here, if you take such a licence and people trust you as a maker of good PC games and you don't deliver, or in this case go completely against what the majority of your consumer base is expecting from you to deliver, that damages your brand and once you've done it you never get it back. It's a double edge sword really, peoples expectations are going to be high indeed, you've got the opportunity to make a great sucess, or completely fluff it and damage your brand, and alienate your existing customer base, and damage their faith and trust in your brand. But in answer to your statement no I don't hate consoles per say, I hate the degredation and effect they have had on the quality and variety of products being thrown out the door, and yes I see much of that in this offering and yes like I'm sure many will be I'm greatly disapointed in both BI and this title. Frankly they can do alot better, and yes I do think they have utterly fluffed a licence few only could dream of ever obtaining and the opportunities that it presented.

No there isn't, nothing new will be added now that hasn't been already planned on till the release in Sept, other than minor tweaks. That being a console game, okie fair enough get them to stump up front to support it, don't reach out to your PC customer base and then go off and make a three wheeled skoda.

What's odd about it, I've said yes the graphics are good, though I think the design of the landscapes wasn't thought out well especially considering use by a AI. But graphics alone don't make a game, and I suspect there's many smaller groups that have produced products alot better than games offered today. If size was related to quality then EA would be the rolls royce of the gaming industry and erm *cough*

No it wasn't in fact the announcement that is was being pushed to console was only made on the 17th, infact I think I started this thread long before the annoucement as I was concerned it was being pushed down that route as I and I'm sure many others who stumped up expecting a PC remake that took the game to the next level, only to get a half breed console game. Nor was it many months ago when I posted a thread on the forums after seeing footage of the game and it being described as having 'strategic elements', because at the time from what I saw it appeared to me that they had gone out focused on the graphics side of the game, but didn't seem to have a grip of the base gameplay engineering that made the original so popular, and the more I've seen in the demo has confirmed this it seems my concerns were spot on sadly. I suspect like myself many here were expecting a quality PC remake, that expectation being set both that it was comming from BI, who have been a PC developer and produced many of the games I currently own. To do this game justace it required the power and versitility of the PC, its processing power, input method that lends itself to game with strategy and depth, where consoles were designed for waggle waggle waggle, shoot boom ya dead. I suspect and this is speculation on my part that BI is having funding issues with the current climate, and considering how little progress the game has made since it was annouced, and someone over there looked at carrier command as a cash cow to cash in the brand name to raise funding for Arma3. Which is sadly because if BI had gone about this the right way, and set out their stall to keep the bar where it should be, this game had the potential to out do any other title or series they've done todate, and some here maybe hoping that mystically between now and sept it will appear but it simply won't. At the moment I'm seeing a game with nice graphics and little depth, that I would place below hostile waters and by long chalk gameplay wise, never mind a full remake, and the biggest culprit its going that way is the decision to push it to console and the sacrifices that have had to be made to do so. I guess the guy in the footage was correct it is going to be a game with 'strategic elements' (very few) and basically be a joypad waggling FPS wonder with a carrier in it, carrier command on the box but none of it in it. If they had gone out from teh get go and designed a console game fair go, but this convergence idea is one of a idiot practiced by a fool, two different platforms one deisnged for FPS type games, and consumers who tastes lean towards the deign of the platform, and the other which is very varied, who consumers tend to have more demanding and varied tastes. Which is as I've said you can make a PC game and then try adapt it to the console but I've never seen one that has worked the other way round, and I certainly think the developement of the two should be spearate other than the very most basic of elements, each tailored to the platform its going on, and more importantly the consumer base. And to be honest I don't think this title was ever suited for consoles, not unless you completely abandon the elements and design which made the game so popular in the first place, it started on the PC it should have stayed there, its the only platform with the power and versitilty capable of doing it justace. There's simply not nor do I believe will there be, anywhere near enough depth, especially on the strategy front to appeal to many PC users, I'm sure the thumb wagglers will love it for a week or two. Graphics 8/10 gameplay and design 3/10 could do far far better, and indeed should be.

I can certanly understand BI's reasoning to want to push it to the console market too, however while the graphics engine etc can be converged the rest of the games developement should be separate, better to have a excellent PC game and try convert it to console use than a mediocre console one converted to the PC. If the design choices are only for a PC game I'll be amazed and TBH even more concerned, because what I'm looking at appears to be a dual platform game and its limiting its potential significantly on the strategy front, something consoles just arent good at. If Arma had followed the same design doctrine it most certainly wouldn't have been the successful series of games it has. If BI wish to develope for consoles they should do but they should design products specific to that markets audience, not a half way house approach, the world doesn't need another so so game house. As for PC users seeing Console software substandard yup absolutely, the two different platoforms have consumers with totally different expectations and tastes, trying to converge the two is simply silly, what you gain on one hand you loose on the other not to mention fluffing up a opportunity on such a licence and the damage you cause to your brand. The game todate I'm seeing is heavy on the graphics and very light on the gameplay design, where the orginal was the flipside, as with many older games alot more attention was paid to the gameplay because the hardware wasn't about, today the opposite seems to be true, personally I think its partly because of the impact consoles have had on the upcomming generation of developers, me at 45 I'm old school I like good well thought out games with good gameplay, graphics ya nice but the game itself is far more important. Personally I find it rather sad, the standard and quality of games has dropped enourmously from the old games like Wingcommander etc where the gaming industry drove the hardware industry, now there's the hardware but there seems to be no developer talent about to use it. Ironic I guess. But I think this will end up being a mediocre Xbox game pushed to the PC, rather than a excellent PC game pushed to the Xbox as it should have been, and probably spawned a whole series of games, instead of being forgetten about 3 weeks after release. It's like star wars MMO all over again, get a fantastic licence then utterly fluff it.

I do agree there are some elements you can do to help make a product capable of being put to the console, but I'm seeing too much of it so far, to the point it degrades the game, the lack of free navigation for one. Yes its beta, I'm fully aware of this and have done many many many betas before this one, however my concerns stem from where I see the game is currently heading, and sadly it appears so far while there are some good elements the base engineering of the gameplay is rather weak and lacks tactical depth. The UI is clunky and unwieldy in many places and liveable in others as are the controls, but that aside there are some things that currently do the game injustace in many respects such as free navigation, the effect it has on strategic options for the player, as well as it appears there's too much being payed to the FPS side of the game and too little to the strategy side. While the old game does invoke nostalgia, I'm also smart enough to know that if you just made a updated version with better graphics in todays market I don't think it would be a big success, peoples expectations have evolved and grown, the game needs alot more expansion in the gameplay and there's a massive scope in all areas from the 4x elements to the air/land/sea side that can be expanded on enourmously, and still offer a great deal of appeal to those that like FPS and blowing things up. I wouldn't say the main reason is that devs develope games for consoles because there's more of them, there's more PC's about than there ever will be consoles, its more of a case that its easier to do so and as a result earns more cash, PC gamers are a pretty demanding bunch, and the platform has many variants and different hardware so its harder to do, over that of a unified platform. As to it not having a effect on the industry or the populace at large well, I'd strongly disagree, 10-15 years ago you could pretty much get a game in every genre, nowdays its all FPS because of the impact of consoles, the quality of products being offered these days is rather poor as is the variety. Looking at when this is supposed to be comming out the door and what I've seen so far yes I've deep concerns on whats going to be at the end of it, I find myself asking is this going to be better than the original or even better than hostile waters and well so far I'm thinking no, better graphics sure gameplay well...

Indeed I do, sadly it doesn't seem to have effected the games developement path in a positive manner from what I'm currently looking at. I don't know if that's because he's been lured to the darkside ala consoles. heh I'm sorry boys but the path your currently taking your out apple picking jumping up a pear tree. Or to put it another way, the original holds a great palce in many peoples minds along with games like Homeworld, Wing commander you name it. As is now you think people will be saying the same of this game in 10 years time?? If the answer is no then your going down the wrong path because the title most certainly has the scope for it. And for me at this point he answer is sadly and absolutely no.

Harsh I don't think so. The UI, the lack of free navigation, and many of the subtle and important strategy elements of the original just aren't there. (Or indeed been expanded upon to reflect users increased expectations of depth) It kind of feels like someone went hmm carrier command, went out did the lovely graphics etc but didn't understand the subtle elements of the originals design that added to the strategic play, never mind to expand on it for todays audience. This game should have been aimed squarely at BI's existing user base, its precisely the audience that it would appeal to in the first place. I understand BI trying to market the game into the Console market, and there's nothing stopping them but the PC version should be the high water mark and ported from there to the console not the other way around. At the moment other than the graphics the gameplay is rather empty and devoid of any strategical depth, from free navigation and long range deployment, deployment on the move you name it many of the originals features aren't there, and yes its a beta, but from the way its been done it doesn't appear they will ever be there because of the attempts to converge the game to the console market. This game was crying out for the PC, its the only platform with the power and input methods to make it with the depth it deserves. At the moment there's far too much flash and no substance, as far as the gameplay and strategic elements of the game, it lacks a great deal of depth because its being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator that being the console. I swear consoles have been the baine of this industry since their inception, I've not seen a 'classic' Pc game in about the last 10 years becasue of this inane and moronic idea of platform convergence, that you can mistically take 2 completely different target audiences and somehow magically make them co-exist and end up with a premium product at the end of it. I'm expecting a deep and rich improvement of the original not a half baked console port, and the vast majority of those that hear the words carrier command will be too. Someone should go put a watered down bottle of scotch on the CEO's desk and ask him if he likes it, I'm pretty sure he'll say no as will the vast majority that have been waiting for a remake of this game for decades. Make quality, do the craft, the rest will take care of itself.

Yes a thead with a update notice and a download link would be nice as a sticky plz.

While the grahpics are good etc, the gameplay I find rather lackluster and below that of the orginal, rather than improving it. Perhaps its because they are trying to go for a half way house so it can be ported to console I don't know. But there's little depth to the gamplay as is at the moment which is a concern, many of the games orginal aspects have been overlooked that added to the strategic elements and the games framework needs alot more depth to it if its going to be a success I think, other than the send in the manta's blow this up send in walrus it is now. Too much attention paid to the graphics no where near enough payed to the gameplay.

Yup I've mentioned this in my thead, as per the original game the walrus's should deploy from the stern of the carrier.

I fully understand this however to begin with its best not to shoot yourself in the foot and in many ways they have, yes BI use alot of ai, as to the quality of it well.. Alot of attention has gone into the graphics but one of the fears I had originally was that not so much was being payed to the framework of the gameplay itself, and that seems to be true from what I've seen. There's several several CC clones that have appeared over the years and game of that ilk, Hostile waters etc, all these games gameplay rely's heavily on the AI, and I find myself wondering from what I've seen so far will this game play as good, and at the moment I'd say no. Not just because of the AI, but there are many strategic and tactical elements that aren't there, at the moment its send in mantas blow this up send in walrus's I win, not particulary rewarding. But as I've pointed out coding the AI is hard enough if the terrain your expecting them to do it on is tougher than it needs to be, from can't push down trees to falling off ridges into gullys to narrow passages grps of vehicals can't traverse, to gradiants the vehicals have a hard time with. And of course the vehicals themselves as with wheeled steering and a turning circle in tight places with a grp of vehicals it makes it harder for both the player and the AI to control over tracked units that can pivot. And the carrier is a disaster when it comes to deploying walus's because of where they are deployed from, like I say the sea doors as in real life should be at the stern and as in real life for the AI there's very good reasons why you would/should do that. And if you deploy them in combat you quickly understand why. *post release* Sadly it appears all my concerns have come home to roost, its a crying shame to have release any product in this state not to mention the astronomical loss of opportunity from doing so.

There are I think several large design flaws as is now. Firstly the Island enviroments themselves, who ever did them did a nice job. However they didn't do it with any idea of getting a AI to move a group of vehicals around in them, they are too small have too much impassible terrain, too many high mountains to obstruct air units, and very narrow paths completely unsuitable for a ai to be able to manage well. The Islands need to be bigger, with more passable terrain and if there are to be valleys they need to be much wider to accommodate the ai moving and fighting with a group of vehicals in them. I'm sure the guy programming the AI routines would like to throttle him/her. :) Also related to this is the design of the vehicals themselves, walrus's need to be tracked vehicals not wheeled. Tracked vehicals can pivot on the spot, they are easier for AI and the user to control, especially in tight places they need to be changed I think. The carrier itself also needs some changes too I beleive in favour of the AI, that being the docking bay for walrus's should be at the stern of the ship as per the orginal game. There's many good reasons to do this as it's alot easier to handle and the carrier can deploy/recover on the move as per the orginal game, and it's far less prone to collision and AI docking problems because of the ships hull. The Mantas I think should have a pivoting front turret that can track a target like a Helo gunship independant of the hulls movement, rather then the clucky see saw thing with weps being fixed riggid to the hull, the flight models for mantas is very poor indeed and need alot of improvement as its very hard to control never mind hit anything. The ole startrek beams that obsure the target also need a look at, perhaps a more descrete pulse laser effect. The changes to aid the AI I think are very important, if they remain as is now this game isn't going to provide fluid and smooth vehical combat but the rather poor game of dogums it is now.

Also the wheel menu well I know you guys are prolly looking to port this to consoles but for the PC version can we have mouse Icons please. Wheel menu's don't work well on the PC.

Well from a coding viewpoiont they are just adding to problems that shouldn't and don't need to exist in the first place, I think it's because now where you have larger teams of programmers each working on their 'bit' but don't have a good understanding of how their bit effects someone else's. Where in earlier games the team was far far smaller so everyone had a overview of everything. Who ever is doing the modeling needs to have a grasp the limitations of what your going to be able to cater for coding it and vice versa. And from my observations that's out of sync currently. Having wheeled vehicals for instance in such narrow terrain with tightly packed buildings is a distaster to code for, because it can be hard enough for a human to manuver in the AI will just get stuck. It detracts from the overall quality and feel off the gameplay immensly as vehicals need to be able to fight and flow around the battlefield like water, and there's definately some engineering elements that are preventing this. As a engineering sample this is a start but there's a shed load more work to be done before this goes out the door.

Indeed and in many cases buildings cept the command center too, but overall the design of the islands while maybe okie for player control, are going to be hopeless for any ai to navigate. And tree's etc getting in the way are part of this.

Well like most I'm one of the ones that dive in without the manual. :) And tbh I think its a good test of the design of any UI and control method if the user can pick it up quickly because it's about what they have seen and come across before. This one however well it took me 15 mins to find the map, and a good while to find the other interfaces because unlike many games where you expect to have the mouse pointer free to click on a icon which toggles with the right mouse to perform a action like movement etc this one doesnt. The 'map' rather than opening up another window was totally zoomed in so that it jsut basically looked like a menu background and was rather confusing to find. And the key speed and direction controls are very unwieldy, as per the orginal game I'd rather have mouse control available to set the speed etc I wanted Someones had a bit of a technical orgasm as I like to call it, they were looking at how super sexy it was over fuinctionality and how the user interacts with it, other thing that was quite disconcerting was the change in mouse DPI from what it was in windows in the menu's.