Pacific Fighters Review on HEXUS.net

[MA_Moby]

If honesty is an 'agenda' then it's a good one. Agree to disagree Fly By Fire.

[jeNK^]

[[GSV]Trig]

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.

Does that mean that you wont be back and Nick doesnt have to waste his time backing up HIS OPINION of a GAME to you?
Hope so as everytime u post you seem to just pick up on the points that you want to pick up on and miss everyone elses valid points about your entirely holed argument...

[TiG]

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.

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

Dude, whats the problem then?. The review is objective, its more objective than the game magazines that have given it 80%+ marks for a game that is not finished. Whatever anyone says there is no doubting this fact.

Sure Deckard is critical of the game because he believes that a game when released should be finished. If i pay money for a product I don't expect to have to patch it immediately to be able to feel like i play it.

The other thing that personally pisses me off is the promise that all of these new things that wouldn't fit on the 2nd CD were ready, if so where is it?. I personally believe all the new stuff is broken. I get complete stalls in my game for 5+ seconds when i fly anywhere near a ship. This never happened in AEP, I can't notice the difference in graphics, WHAT HAS CHanged?.

All the comments you make to good things about this sim exist in the current AEP+FB setup.

I can't honestly say i think anything in this new release of a standalone package is any good (sorry i lie, i love the b25!). Especially as i'm a bomber pilot and i've got no Japanese bomber or Torpedo's!.

And the AI still is ****, if its a new game it should fix issues, if its a add on then maybe not. I think the large part of this critism is that IT SHould have come as a add on, not a new game.

TiG

[Stoo]

Imagine you win the lottery, you wander into the Aston Martin Dealership, hand over your wedge for a nice new DB9, and a couple of days later they deliver it to your house..

All excited like you jump in and go to start the car, only for nothing to happen.. confused you get out of the car and open the bonnet, only to discover the engine missing and a post it note saying, "Sorry mate we've not finished this bit yet, but if you'd like to pop over in a couple of months time, it should be ready for you to collect.."

You're not going to be best pleased are you?

Games publishers are getting more and more like this, why? Because they can get away with it. Maybe, just maybe, if more people reviewed like Nick does maybe we'd actually end up with more quaility finished games rather than the shoddy half finished efforts thrust upon us by the money grabbing publishers.

Or maybe we should all just say screw it, let EA buy everything and get exactly the same games get rehashed year on year..

[MA_Moby]

Another thread on UBi about the review

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=1111036732

and another

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...5&m=9361045732

[Nick]

Another thread on UBi about the review

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=1111036732

and another

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...5&m=9361045732

Yep, but at least thye're being reasonable with what they think of the game and of the review, which, I think, is something of a breakthrough!

[Zak33]

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.

you know, I am quite sad that you said that you wont be back

Because what everyone here understands is the depth that Deckard plays these games before reviewing. He goes deep....tries hard. He says it like it is.

What I dont want is to see people have money taken for unfinished software. Especially as so many people on low incomes will buy it without warning IF this kind of review does not turn up.

Luckily, this is ONE BIG SITE......and it has a good reviewer. Deckard is good. He knows.

And Hexus is big....realy very big.

OK ...no bull...

it is massive.

Hexus.net is frankly one of the finest Hardware Review Sites....Globally. Its mainly Hardware....we admit that. But it does some Games Reviews too.

The weird thing is we have very high standards. Much higher that perhaps the Industry is always comfortable with. But it DOES mean the TRUTH IS OUT We do not follow the flock uness the flock is going to the good food trough..then we tend to barge past the flock and get stuck in deepest

Deckard loves IL-2. He wanted it to be good. We ALL wanted it to be good. This is a very PRO OLEG/MADDOX/IL2 forum.

But Pacific Fighters is.....not good enough

yet.

As TiG rightly points out....if there ARE disks more of planes...lets have them.

TA

[Nick]

I also want to read (and write) an objective review, I just couldn't find one at this site.

On the Uk's largest online review site? My friend, one thing you'll have to learn is to quantify your statements, especially if you're criticising another's work.

While a lot (but not all) of what was written is true

Oh please, like I'm going to LIE in a review? Everything I have mentioned is there for anyone to see, otherwise I wouldn't have written about it. Or are you suggesting that I just made the whole thing up after a few hours of playing it? I spent a solid week playing PF before I even started on the review.

- 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.

Because it is misleading for a new comer to the game. It suggests many more different planes than there actually are... and for those with FB+AEP, there's even less new. You did read the review, didn't you? Not just skim through it looking for things you don't agree with.

- 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?

And the F2A-2?

- 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.

Because, if you take out the VARIANTS of types, as I clearly said I had done you get a radically different number.
And no, its not 12 new airframes, not by my count, but I am only human and I could be wrong, but to be honest, even IF it is 12, its still a piffling amount for the price of the game, so the point still stands.

- 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?

I think that because I am free thinking person who is entitled to his own opinion of what constitues good value. IL2 did have very few planes to begin with, but this isn't an IL2 enviroment we are in. This is a game released post FB+AEP, so the benchmark have moved somewhat? (see? THIS is called objectivity, feel free to print this lesson out for when you write your review).

- 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?

Because small details like that are far overshadowed by glaring omissions and major bugs. Perhaps you'd like a 'ps' on the review mentioning those things? Not that the first time player would have a clue that they were any different.

The overall picture is wrong because Deckard doesn't even try to find something somebody might enjoy.

And you are wrong by automatically assuming there is something there to enjoy instead of playing with an open mind and looking to SEE if there is anything to 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.

But these aren't annoyances. The bugs I have highlighted show that the game was released in an unfinished state and with it this way you're expecting me to score it highly saying that it will be great if it gets patched? Who do you think I am, Mystic Meg?

We have a sim that has decent offline and online modes,

*sigh*, Have you read the review, cos I'm really staring to think that you've just reacted to posts about it that you've read elsewhere. With 11 single missions and bugged or tedious campaign modes, where is the decent offline mode you speak off? QMB? With the AI flight models able to pull ridiculous moves? Or in FMB, which is confusing at best (just look at the number of posts asking for help with FMB on the Ubi Forums to back me up on that one).

allows us to record and watch our flights, create our own missions on new maps-- all of this with the same code.

So I should score it higher because this FLIGHT SIM lets you watch an in game home movie? Or because 1C Maddox are intelligent enough to use existing code to make a new game? Sorry, but that pointonly highlights features that we already have in FB+AEP, and you seem to be expecting me to mark PF up because they INCLUDED it!

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.

Why should I accept it? They managed it easily enough in FB+AEP.

Asking for perfection in so many areas looks nothing but stupid to me.

I didn't ask for perfection, I asked for playable code, not to much to ask that the game be usable out of the box, is it?

BTW I'm quite sure that we will have to live with most of the AI stupidities until BOB is released.

Again, why? These are long term gripes that have simply not been addressed. I'd happily wait till June 2006 to have BoB looking good and running in a playable, major bug free condiditon, straight out of the box.

Even Deckard seems to have some confidence, that's why he added the last footnote to his review.

Thank you, even though through all of this you have ignored the fact that the review is based on the boxed, retail copy HENCE the promise to re-evaluate once it is patched.

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.

What? If I did this to attract new users to the forums, do think I would have done it in a way to have them come over here with a negatiove attiutude, cos they're sure not going to stay after they've had their pop at me are they? Why do you think I registered at SimHQ and Ubi, to advertise the review over there? Go read the posts, I've spent more time over the last two days on SimHQ and Ubi discussing the review than I have on the forum I actually moderate!

There's no conspiracy theory here, but becuase you read a review that is so far away from your own view, you think I'm up to something? Sure, we advertise the forums with the review, this is a commercial site after all, but it sure as hell doesn't make economic sense to try and attract disgruntled memebers does it?

I think that perhaps you need to go and read the replies to threads on Ubi and SimHQ, as you'll find that there are more and more people who are agreeing with the review. Certainly there are only a few that are saying 4/10 is a fair score, but most people are agreeing that all of the points I've raised in the review are valid and honest.

And all (bar a few adamant die-hard fans who believe Ubi can do no wrong) have agreed that the game could well look very different after the patch and feel that my promise to re-review after patching is as fair as can be.

I've seen the line 'well, you go write a game if you reckon you can do better', very often in the last few days. But I'm going to give it a twist, just for you. You go write your review and post a link to it here, if you reckon you can do better.

In fact, I'll give it even more exposure by posting it in a sticky on this very forum, just to give a balanced view of the game, can't say fairer than that, can I?

[menthel]

Well Deckard, you have certainly got some people's back up with your review! I have installed it separately to see how it stands up on its own, and unfortunately it really doesn't. The quick mission thingis the only bit that really works and even then the AI will shoot you out of the sky with one shot! The single player missions are aweful and far too long, unless you try the usaf pearl harbour one, and then it is very short indeed as you get blown out of the sky by a dozen zeroes. At least the planes we do have look nice and most fly ok. Oh well, here is waiting hopefully for the patch.

[RocketDog]

Nick - just a comment on your review. You mention the apparent inability of a Hellcat to escape a zero by diving. I just checked with a quick QMB mission to see if the "all planes dive at the same speed" oddity was still present in PF. To my surprise I found that a Hellcat is actually able to accelerate away from a Zero in a steep dive. I'm not sure when this changed in the game physics, because I remember P-47s not being able to dive away from Bf-110s (!) in the first AEP. Maybe on Ace settings the AI cheats so much that it can't be shaken, but against average-level AI there is a definite difference in dive acceleration. Might be worth looking at in more detail if you update your review post-patch.

Agreed about the lack of single missions, though - shocking. Mind you, it's still a good 6.5/10 game .

Regards,

RocketDog.

[BUFF]

gee, can you believe they temporarily banned a guy for saying this
"quote:
Originally posted by brass_rat:
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD05MDA=
No torpedo bombers in a carrier based sim? If this review is accurate then I'll have to reconsider purchasing PF. "

"I'm going to give you a week to make up your mind. Thats when your UBI access will be restored."

[Tumble]

that's a bit harsh.....

[menthel]

Methinks they are getting twitchy.

[Skii]

gee, can you believe they temporarily banned a guy for saying this
"quote:
Originally posted by brass_rat:
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD05MDA=
No torpedo bombers in a carrier based sim? If this review is accurate then I'll have to reconsider purchasing PF. "

"I'm going to give you a week to make up your mind. Thats when your UBI access will be restored."

I believe that was the work of a certain Steve-V, who I'm sure was the same individual who deleted Deckards original post raising concerns with the state of the PF release.

Thats it Stevie - if you jam your fingers hard enough into your ears you won't hear the noise..

but it will still be there

[Stoo]

Along with Deck's review, just to remind them of reality