Pacific Fighters Review on HEXUS.net

It was strange to me to read the review like this one.
Strange – to put it mildly…

Not even all items listed in the Cons column are actually based in reality – some purely authors opinion, which is very different from mine... And we got so much back for our money, so much – it does not even make sense to argue! And knowing unsurpassed Oleg’s record supporting his products – I have no doubt we are poised to enjoy all those surprises coming in upcoming add-ons…

Author of the review has failed in my eyes to maintain even simple objectivity.
I give this review the score of about 3 out 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire

. Instead of looking at the new features more closely you have focused on every single known weak spot of the IL-2 series, most of them rather old.

---

And they're still not fixed and you accept this after all this time AND accept paying full price for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire

- I counted 63 flyable aircraft/sub-types in the stand-alone version, not 43. There are 43 new ones that were not present in AEP yet.

---

I took my information from an e-mail from Ubisofts Europen Specialist Marketing Manager after I was in contact with him over my concerns about the state of the game. That is Ubis OWN count of the number of flyables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire

.
- You saw only one server for the PF stand-alone version -- where did you look? There are many more now. Everybody can host one, Ubi now has a lobby for them and other game browsers will also support it.

---

On hyperlobby, where I've been flying for the last three years and would reasonably expcet to see a PF server, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire

.
Saying that owners of the stand-alone version who want to play online will be forced to buy FB/AEP is absolutely unfair.

---

Why? Isn't it true that different installs aren't compatible with each other? Surely the majority of pilots will already have FB+AEP, so the servers will be based around FB+AEP+PF, which leaves precious little for PF only pilots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire

.
ignore the dynamic campaigns and make your own missions with the help of the infinite potential the Full Mission Builder offers.

---

And after paying £35 for the game I'm expected to do the work the developers didn't? Where is the documentation for the FMB? How many hundreds of posts are there on the Ubi forums about trying to use the FMB? Its not exactly user friendly, and saying that I should use it only serves to highlight just how little content there is and how bugged the campaigns that we do have are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deckard

Musickna, hello and welcome.

Yes, those are fair comments, and I agree that as a standalone game, it isn't up to scratch. I do hope you notived my footnote that I have prmised to retunr and re-evaluate the game once it has been patched.

Let's hope I can genuinely and honestly score it higher.

---

I hope so too. I'm lucky - I've been playing IL-2 since the demo & I know that problems are fixed. But the reason I think your review was important was that you looked at it from the point of view of a complete newcomer installing his first Maddox game, "Pacific Fighters". And it just does not measure up to previous releases as a first time offline experience. The program was incomplete, the documentation is incomplete - it was a rush job.

When Microsoft released Combat Flight Simulator 3 in a perhaps rather worse, but nonetheless similarly unfinished state, it was panned - and by a lot of IL-2 fans too. CFS 3 never really recovered from that, despite a rare Microsoft patch and heroic efforts by third party developers. First impressions DO count - I think UbiSoft screwed up badly by rushing 'Pacific Fighters" out to meet the pre-Christmas buying season and have singularly failed to learn the CFS 3 lesson.

Yours is not the only negative review out there, and there will be others. I have already read of potential buyers being put off. I hope they will reconsider when the patch appears and the game comes up 1C:Maddox's usual standards. Because then it will the most outstanding combat flight simulation out - and it may even be that now, with all its current flaws. But I know it can better, and it will be.

Perhaps the most positive outcome of all this will be that "Battle Of Britain" may be truly polished when it hits the stores next year. Because that, I suspect, will be a whole new kettle of fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viktor

Not even all items listed in the Cons column are actually based in reality – some purely authors opinion, which is very different from mine...

---

Ok, of course, you're entitled to your opinions, but rather than skim to the end, did you read the review? Perhaps it would put the pros and cons in a better light for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viktor

And knowing unsurpassed Oleg’s record supporting his products – I have no doubt we are poised to enjoy all those surprises coming in upcoming add-ons…

---

So no, you didn't read the review where I quite clearly said that I was reviewing boxed retail copy based on the merits of what was installed on my hard drive and NOT on what was supposed to be coming out in a patch. I even footnoted the review, promising to re-evaluate it once a patch was out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viktor

Author of the review has failed in my eyes to maintain even simple objectivity.
I give this review the score of about 3 out 10.

---

That's ok, I give your post 10 out of 10 for a brilliant display of blinkered loyalty, well done. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musickna

Perhaps the most positive outcome of all this will be that "Battle Of Britain" may be truly polished when it hits the stores next year. Because that, I suspect, will be a whole new kettle of fish.

---

Oh yes, a HUGE fingers crossed for that one. It was Lucasart's BoB on the Amiga that got me hooked on prop based combat sims, oh so many years ago... I'm just hoping that the review response for PF will show Ubi that they have nothing to gain from rushing a release and that they just let Oleg get on with it and give us eomthing that works properly right out of the box.

I know that it's totally unheard of nowadays for a game NOT to need patching, but a patch is a small fix for a minor problem, this game has some major problems that make parts of it unplayable and so many minor bugs that they all add up to make the game 'not very good' rather than the 'wonderful' it should have been.

BUFF, sure as hell stirred up a hornet's nest over there!

I've just spent two hours replying to all of the posts... geez! :D

Oh and Skii, I appreciate what you said over at SimHQ, cheers chap! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deckard

BUFF, sure as hell stirred up a hornet's nest over there!
:D

---

Actually I'm surprised that you are being let off so lightly so far by them :p
Has anybody posted the link on UBI's forum? :devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deckard

And they're still not fixed and you accept this after all this time AND accept paying full price for them?

---

When you're in love with a girl that has a beautiful face do you always look at that ugly wart at her neck?

Quote:

---

I took my information from an e-mail from Ubisofts Europen Specialist Marketing Manager after I was in contact with him over my concerns about the state of the game. That is Ubis OWN count of the number of flyables.

---

Lol, you need to ask UBI to find out how many aircraft there are? It's your task as a reviewer to do your own count and inform the readers that there are 20 more aircraft types in the box than Ubi makes you believe -- instead of only finding fault with the one type that's missing. -- That is if you actually tested it.
BTW never ask UBi what will be in the box. They only sell what they get from 1C:Maddox -- and how do they know what they will get from them when they set a schedule that considers Christmas sales more important than the developers' ability to complete the product.

Quote:

---

On hyperlobby, where I've been flying for the last three years and would reasonably expcet to see a PF server, no?

---

So you're expecting lots of PF servers in the FB lobby. Really? :shocked2:
I was under the impression that you were writing the review for new users. Unlike you these will find the PF lobbies at the Ubi.com gaming service via the official website. They won't even know that Hyperlobby exists before they do some reading in the forums. And what makes you believe that there won't be a PF lobby in an upcoming version of Hyperlobby?

Quote:

---

Why? Isn't it true that different installs aren't compatible with each other? Surely the majority of pilots will already have FB+AEP, so the servers will be based around FB+AEP+PF, which leaves precious little for PF only pilots.

---

PF was released as a stand-alone version in order to reach new customers and I have no doubt that there will be lots of them. It doesn't really matter to them what you and all the other owners of FB and AEP will be doing. They have all they need to find some other players. Also any owner of PF and FB/AEP can install PF over AEP and as stand-alone at the same time, so there will be enough AEP owners who will be able to join PF-only servers.

Quote:

---

And after paying £35 for the game I'm expected to do the work the developers didn't? Where is the documentation for the FMB? How many hundreds of posts are there on the Ubi forums about trying to use the FMB? Its not exactly user friendly, and saying that I should use it only serves to highlight just how little content there is and how bugged the campaigns that we do have are.

---

I agree that there are not enough single player missions. On the other hand there's nothing as simple to download as single missions. So this fault is not that aggravating on the long term. Creating missions is not just the developers' task; it's also one of the potentials this sim offers to us users. If you don't understand the potentials this tool gives us you'd better not write a review.

The FMB manual can be found in the manual.pdf in the PF folder.

The product may look too expensive to AEP owners. OK, you didn't even bother finding out how many flyable aircraft types there are in the stand-alone version, but you know it's too expensive anyway...

BTW I also thought that PF was too expensive -- compared to AEP. But when I looked at AEP I thought that it was really cheap -- compared to FB. I think we're just spoilt, and your review sounds like the whining of a spoilt child.

BTW a DGen patch that fixes the Beaufighters' crashing into mountains and some other career bugs has already been released some days ago. Time to revise your review.

Quote:

---

When you're in love with a girl that has a beautiful face do you always look at that ugly wart at her neck?.......
I agree that there are not enough single player missions. On the other hand there's nothing as simple to download as single missions. So this fault is not that aggravating on the long term. Creating missions is not just the developers' task; it's also one of the potentials this sim offers to us users. If you don't understand the potentials this tool gives us you'd better not write a review.....
I think we're just spoilt, and your review sounds like the whining of a spoilt child.

---

I have to say I read this and laughed out loud.
I dont know Deckard and have no agenda here so didnt come to defend him any more than I would attack him. However comments such as the ones above taken in the context of other replies and the review make me think you just came here looking for an argument.
You accuse Deckard of being biased in his review and then plainly show a bias from exactly the opposite direction you accuse him of and finish with a personal attack.

You have become a sad person indeed when a rant like yours obviously comes across as acceptable in your own mind as a good defence of PF. I can give you credit for being a zealot, but wouldnt you be better off at some religous forum?

I dont defend Deckards apparent mistake regarding the flyable planes, I am at work for some hours yet so I will not be counting them myself to see who is right either, I am sure he will be the first to state if he got that wrong.
Sly digs and innuendos about him not actually playing the game before the review are frankly pathetic and best saved for slating of magazine reviewers who give generic reviews.
If you had read other threads in this forum you would have got an idea of who he is and what he does regarding games, a professional reviewer who dabbles in games is certainly not an attack you can level at him.

In conclusion I would say it disappoints me to read rubbish like your post. You make no attempt to give an unbiased post, you make no attempt to gain a solid background to the topic or writer, you assume WAY too much of buyers of this game and their abilities and internet conenction and then attack the author for the same thing and you polish your whole performance with childish snide personal attacks.
I am sure deep down there is a frustrated writer inside you, why not wow us with your interpretation of a review. Seems to me it is easy to mock and judge but oh so very difficult to produce something better/more accurate.


I personally profess to be an occasional player of FB/AEP and now PF. I have played a few missions and wholeheartedly agree with some of the points raised. How can you not?
Broken missions, huge boring flights between events, incomplete contents in comparison to the box cover, bad AI and sniper AA are major faults that cannot be brushed under the carpet. OK so it looks good......so did AEP. Doesnt look like we got much for our money over and above it then does it?
So it will be patched and all will be good :inquisiti not much good to me on a 56k modem is it? Virtually impossible for me to download it and unplayable in a satisfying way without it.

Objectivity comes with experience, experience comes with age. Perhaps we will hear more from you when you're all grown up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire

BTW a DGen patch that fixes the Beaufighters' crashing into mountains and some other career bugs has already been released some days ago. Time to revise your review.

---

Fixed the other major bugs too have they?

"Baco-ECV56
Member
Member # 2557

- posted 11-01-2004 16:00

Yeap sims are defenetlly for shooter uppers...
But then aggainm that review is plain wrong.
No problem with carrer modes, No lack of content, contradicts itself: Good: maps are Huge, Bad: maps too large.."

yea a really seriouse review.. Geez...
People should need licens to write reviews man..."

Hey Deckard... May I see your licens and registration? :crazy:

I like this one!

"Originally posted by Villicus:
That's what happens when you get one of them console braindead trigger pullin button butchers to review a sim that takes skill and discipline to master. Go back and play with sonic hedgehog boy. Yo mama know you tryin to review sims?"

Lemming, I love those personal attacks accusing other persons of personal attacks. Welcome to our club of childish forum posters. Enough said.

I don't care who Deckard is or what else he does. I only read that review that shows an incomplete, partially incompetent and biased picture and I feel that I have all the right to answer this with a biased posting. By focusing on bugs and the old engine limitations and almost ignoring the new features this review seems to be an attack itself.

I have written short reviews (not in English) for the previous IL-2 products and I'm preparing my own PF review but I'm holding it back so far to give the developers a chance to show what they really can do. It will also contain a warning to people on a 56k modem (like myself). But rather than just scare them away I'll also tell them that it's possible to get the patches on CD via the UBI Customer Support or from Games magazines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire

Lemming, I love those personal attacks accusing other persons of personal attacks. Welcome to our club of childish forum posters. Enough said.

I don't care who Deckard is or what else he does. I only read that review that shows an incomplete, partially incompetent and biased picture and I feel that I have all the right to answer this with a biased posting. By focusing on bugs and the old engine limitations and almost ignoring the new features this review seems to be an attack itself.

I have written short reviews (not in English) for the previous IL-2 products and I'm preparing my own PF review but I'm holding it back so far to give the developers a chance to show what they really can do. It will also contain a warning to people on a 56k modem (like myself). But rather than just scare them away I'll also tell them that it's possible to get the patches on CD via the UBI Customer Support or from Games magazines.

---

Never said I wasnt childish :) , just amazed that it was the best you could come up with as a response to the review.

Soooooo, youre holding back your review of a new game until the developers have had a chance to patch the product they released and that people are buying. I assume this is because you dont want to give your opinion of the game now in its broken state, you want them to fix it first so you can make it glowing. Doesnt seem like you are giving an honest review then?

By the time your masterpiece is ready will it be relevant anymore?

By the time it's ready it will start to become relevant, while the current Hexus review/rant will become obsolete with the new development before long. As I mentioned before it's even outdated now already (DGen patch)!

Unfortunately the current Hexus review will still have more impact than it deserves as it will influence many readers' first --and often lasting-- impressions. Impressions that remain even when the product itself has already been improved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musickna

Perhaps the most positive outcome of all this will be that "Battle Of Britain" may be truly polished when it hits the stores next year. Because that, I suspect, will be a whole new kettle of fish.

---

Yes, let's hope so. If BoB is just another rehash of the IL2 cannon then I'll be bitterly disappointed. It deserves better flight modelling, smarter AI, and more dynamic weather, to name just a few of the improvements I'm sure all of us would like to see.