![[GSV]Trig is offline](https://forums.hexus.net/images/hex_statusicon/user-offline.png)
DGen patch isnt official tho is it, why would I want to install it?
By the time your review is out you will be reviewing a different product, by the time the complete product is out Deckard will have changed his review, by the time your girl has come out of the plastic surgeons she will have lost some of that youthful look and optimism and be full of the synicisms of old age.
The purpose of a review is to allow the reader to form an opinion based on the reviewers experience of that product. In what way is that having more impact than it deserves? There are plenty of other reviews out there for potential customers of this product to read. Personally I'd rather read a review from someone like Deckard, who has flown flight sims for many years and IL2 since it was out, than a reviewer ion a general gaming magazine who doesn't know his arse from his elbow when it comes to flight simming. As someone over at SimHQ put it, I'd rather read a critical and objective review such as this, written by someone who cares, than a cherry-pie one written by a hack.Originally Posted by Fly_by_Fire
Not so. Deckard has promised to revisit the review once the patch is out and adjust the score accordingly if the product improves. Not many reviewers would do this.
'Make mine a Spitfire, Landlord!'
No, but then I'll have to do a Rushdie and go into hiding for five years....Actually I'm surprised that you are being let off so lightly so far by them
Has anybody posted the link on UBI's forum?
And perhaps I'm being let off lightly because people can see that what I'm saying, while not pleasant to read, is actually true?
The Hexus review is well and truly alive on the Ubi forum
Geez who is this Haywood guy? goddamn limey SOB stooopid review etc etc (with little to counter the points made within it )
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...5&m=3001063732
But this reply is WELL worth the read.
----------------------------------
Hi,
Maybe I can add a little first hand info here. I belong to the CAF in Southern California and we operate an A6M3 Model 22 and an F6F-5. The F6F will RUN AWAY from a Zero going downhill. It will out accelerate and outrun a Zero in level flight unless the Hellcat still has it's drop tank, in which case it's about even. At about 225kts if you drop the combat flaps it has a rate of turn that'll make your eyes water and will blur the scenery but will bleed energy rapidly. If you don't tag your Zeke in the first 180-270, you better have lots of sky beneath you. Roll into the inside of the turn and pull into a steep dive. Use the higher roll rate and keep rolling to the right until you're out of phase with the Zeke and begin a gradual pull and seperate out of gun range, which you can do easily. A friend of mine, James E. Duffy who flew with VF-15 off the Essex tried this at about a thousand feet one day and it almost got him killed. He got about 180 degrees around the circle, got his pipper just over the cowling of the Zero, which was pulling streamers off his wingtips, but could not get any deflection. Then the Zero started to slide ever more rapidly up the windshield, and back along the canopy and over Jim's shoulder. At this point, the Grumman was buffeting pretty good and he was really scared. He rolled wings level, lowered the nose and headed for the deck. Unfortunately, he didn't have any altitude so he had to level off just above the waves, slowly starting to pull away while the Zeke, now in his six, started chopping him to bits. John Strane, his element lead, shot the Zero off his tail.
The ability of a Hellcat to outrun any Zero is a very well known characteristic. Ten minutes spent in research would uncover this. The fact that you can't do that in this game makes me seriously doubt many of the other flight dynamics modelled here. By the way, an F6F will also turn with, but not outturn, a Zero at or above about 15000ft.
That said, up till now, I've always been a fan. I went out and upgraded my computer when I first saw IL2. I went to the nice lady at Dell and said "Make it so I can play this". I got my computer, got the game and was sooooo happy. I've been happy ever since, until now. Nothing is perfect and IL2, FB and AEP had little bugs, just like you'd expect. The difference here is that the previous games were finished products with some small imperfections (most of which I was unaware of) whereas PF, to me, seems not to be finished at all and to have been produced by a different bunch of people. My game which was fun and, as long as I kept the graphics level reasonable and my drivers updated, smooth and beaufiful has turned into a buggy, stuttery pain in the neck.
I think that one of the real give aways to the whole "authenticity" issue is the really bad paint schemes and the very poor job done at providing markings. Thank God for the independent skinners out there!! After all, if UBI can't be bothered going for authenticity in such a visible and easy to fix area, why should I believe they bothered elsewhere. They couldn't even get something as basic as the dates on the aircraft menu right. A while ago, a developer (called Lucien, maybe?) asked for help through these forums in developing the Japanese types. I suggested j-aircraft.com which is a treasure trove of accurate well researched info. It is sadly obvious that little effort was expended in this area.
The issue the "reviewer" brought up regarding the number of types provided in the game is, I think, worthy of comment. This deception is not new from UBI Soft and I always took such claims with a grain of salt. Six varients of Bf109 and five FW190's is NOT eleven different types. I thought that was really stretching things a bit but since I have a hard enough time learning two or three types anyway, I figured the great graphics made up for it. But to falsely advertise flyable aircraft on the box is too much!! One of the other people in here repeated the excuse that "they couldn't put everything on just two CD's. Well, then, use three!!
I was prepared to accept the unlikely performance characteristics and poor aircraft markings so long as I could enter "UBI World" and get into a really good dogfight now and again. Good luck in PF!! Despite the fact that both sides had radar, there is no way to get vectored onto enemy aircraft across this vast featureless expanse of ocean, unless you use the map with icons, which, I suppose, amounts to the same thing.
I always thought of these games as a not really serious attempt at modelling reality and just accepted that. However, this time around, I really feel let down. I feel like uninstalling this thing, getting my money back and going back to good old reliable FB+AEP.
-----------------------
Now Thats a good post and sums some things up very nicely imo
" but I'm holding it back so far to give the developers a chance to show what they really can do. "
What they 'really can do'. They have released a game for public purchase! Do you not think that maby that should have been the true goal? To do their best? You would not release a new book with the aim of being a 'best seller' with say the middle 2 chapters missing, but with promises that you'll release them later...
I have no real dout that things will get fixed but just because they Can bring out patches to fix and add more items, that dosnt mean they should.
why?
didnt you have to pay for your copy until after its patched up, or completed?
Did you just pay for the bit you thought was good, and then set up a Direct Payment to UBI so that when you got other bits you liked, or that worked, you could pay them a bit more....until you have finally paid full price?
Superb. I like that scheme.
Imagine little Johhny, on Christmas Day when his Mum and Dad hand him a parcel wrapped up....he opens it , full of excitement and sees what he's wanted for ages.....the latest Flight Sim.
He knows it will be an uphill struggle, to learn it, but he's pretty good with Microsoft Combat Flight Sim, so he'll get there.
2 days later, the lad is distraught....he flew last night for an hour, and then his planes crashed into a hill for no reason.
His parents paid £35 for this....and it is not working.
Its not right. Its not fair. And its not professional. It's a bit selfish of Ubi to launch it AND it makes me worried that Maddox has little control anymore. I dont want to see Il-2 beome Tomb Raider......a money factory, with no care for the players.
S! Pilots
I think all this argument is correct and just. Games being released broken before they are ready is the worst kind of ameturish pap ever and we should never have to put up with it.
Ok, bugs will always appear, but for the game to be out of the box with such large bugs as single player missions not working at all, is farcical, and the people who have done it deserve to get slated, regardless of what they have done previously, the people who defend them unquestionably need to really take a good hard look at themselves.
Quake 2 for instance all those years ago, had about 15 patches over something like 6 months, but the fact was, you could unpack the box and play single player with no problems. This doesnt seem to be the case here does it? And the patches are no longer, 1 - 9mb, theyre 10 - 199mb, which is not acceptible in my book.
Butuz
OMG - poor little Johnny! Tug on our hearts strings why don't ya
Good point though. I'm sure many younger players might not be so forgiving of the flaws as us grizzled vets.
'Make mine a Spitfire, Landlord!'
actually Im thinking of older people now too.....ME for example if I wasnt lucky enough to be part of this online community.
People I work with who play PC games to a certain level would think it was a PC error!!!
too right - I dread to think of the opinion a first time simmer would acquire of the IL2 series if Pacific Fighters were their first taste of the game. This seems to be something lost on some of the long termers over on the Ubi forums.
The term your looking for isnt long termers its fan boys, or infact to be politically correct fan persons..
To take it back to the girl analogy, u love the girl, she cooks, she cleans, best sex ever, she goes out and sleeps with your best friend, do u look back and think well ya know shes done good in the past we'll let this one slide or do u bin the bint?
Trig these analogies get better and better
Which is an un-official patch. But it was out so quickly and fixed some of the major bugs that all it did was to prove how rushed and unfinished the game actually is.
And to say that a review is outdated at this point in time is just a bit silly. The review is still current as it is a review of the game as it instlalls on your hard drive. If you have no internet connection then this is the game you're stuck with, so the review stands as being current. IF the game is re-released as a 'Gold' version with the bugs fixed, THEN the review is out of date and a review of the 'Gold' version (or whatever it may be called) is needed to up date potentila buyers.
More impact than it deserves? In what way? In that it stands out from the rest of the reviews of the game by NOT scoring it well? By glossing over the games shortfalls and NOT highlighting them?
Yes, first impressions last a long time, and its games of this standard that stop new players coming into the genre, which means a reduced fan base which means less revenue which means less development. The review says that it would be better to spend money on FB and AEP, so I'm not even detracting profit from Ubisoft. In fact, I'm doing them a favour by reccomending people go and buy working, relatively bug free games that truly show what 1C Maddox can do.
Well, you've just lost all credibility there I'm afraid. You're saying that you will deliberately hold your review back until the game is good. So that would mean you have already decided a score and are now just waiting until the game is good enough to enable you to easily defend a hgih score, something that you can't do with the game in its current state.
Of course, by the time the game is patched, people will have either bought it and know what it is like and have the patch OR will have bought it and returned it, meaning your review is pointless as it won't actually interest anyone.
Why would you not want to install it? Because you like all the bugs and need something to complain about? BTW it's a Beta patch but it was officially introduced by Ubisoft people.DGen patch isnt official tho is it, why would I want to install it?
I also want to read (and write) an objective review, I just couldn't find one at this site. While a lot (but not all) of what was written is true, it does not seem sincere to me. Some examples:Personally I'd rather read a review from someone like Deckard, who has flown flight sims for many years and IL2 since it was out, than a reviewer ion a general gaming magazine who doesn't know his arse from his elbow when it comes to flight simming. As someone over at SimHQ put it, I'd rather read a critical and objective review such as this, written by someone who cares, than a cherry-pie one written by a hack.
- Why does the fact that many aircraft types are sub-types of other airframes bother Deckard so much in PF? It's always been that way in the series.
- Why does he repeatedly say that some of the types that are listed as flyable on the box actually aren't, when it's actually only one type?
- Why don't he mention the fact that PF stand-alone users will also be able to fly 20 types that were already included in AEP, besides the 43 new types?
- Why does he say that there is 'something like 8 or so actual new aircraft'? I'm counting something like 12 new airframes and 43 new sub-types that AEP owners will get.
- Why does he think that something like 20 airframes and 63 sub-types is not enough for a stand-alone product when the original IL-2 1.0 had less than half that amount?
- Why doesn't he even ask what other changes there are besides new aircraft? Why doesn't he mention all those little changes like reduced muzzle flashes, increased visibility of ships, new FMB options like the ability to control AAA fire, and those dozens or hundreds of other little changes an attentive observer will find?
The overall picture is wrong because Deckard doesn't even try to find something somebody might enjoy. If he'd mention that most of the annoyances are nothing but the flip side of the coin he'd look more credible to me. We have a sim that has decent offline and online modes, allows us to record and watch our flights, create our own missions on new maps-- all of this with the same code. It's only natural that there have to be made compromises to make all of this possible on a Personal Computer. As soon as you have accepted this you're ready to enjoy the game. Asking for perfection in so many areas looks nothing but stupid to me. BTW I'm quite sure that we will have to live with most of the AI stupidities until BOB is released.
Why? Because after some years with the IL-2 series, several emails exchanged with the boss of the developing team, and even one or two of my suggestions realized by them, I do have confidence that they listen to their customers. Even Deckard seems to have some confidence, that's why he added the last footnote to his review.>... 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....
why?
didnt you have to pay for your copy until after its patched up, or completed?
But of course an overly critical review will make some noise, attract some users from SimHQ and UBI to this site. Haha, look how they react. What a funny experiment. And I fell for it.
Or whatever your agenda is.
Read again and try to understand what I wrote. You're misquoting me. More and more I realize that you didn't do a quality review, this is not a quality site, and I shouldn't waste my attention to it.Well, you've just lost all credibility there I'm afraid. You're saying that you will deliberately hold your review back until the game is good.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
