Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 65 to 80 of 109

Thread: Pacific Fighters Review on HEXUS.net

  1. #65
    TiG
    TiG is offline
    Walk a mile in other peoples shoes...
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Questioning it all
    Posts
    6,213
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    48 times in 43 posts
    heh i have to say if thats one thing that pisses me off more than anything is the total ignorance people show to posts that are completely true. There is nothing malicious with that post, ITS the truth!.

    Its a constant reminder that Hexus is a community for a reason, It listens to all, even with critism the review deckard wrote has had, i'm sure as much as he defends it he realises there are a few things that have caused problems.

    Large maps being good and bad being one thing, that fan boys have been banging the drum about.

    TiG
    -- Hexus Meets Rock! --

  2. #66
    Senior Member Tumble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Right in the Pickle Barrel
    Posts
    7,217
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked
    315 times in 217 posts
    omg.. just had a look over there... Steve V has gone on a personal mission it seems.. vindictive little sod ANYBODY that has questioned either the advertising, lack of stuff in the game thats on the box or MENTIONED Nick's review has had their account suspended and the thread locked...


    WHAT A NUB.....

    Quote Originally Posted by The Quentos
    "My udder is growing. Quick pass me the parsely sauce." Said Oliver.

  3. #67
    No more Mr Nice Guy. Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,021
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    316 times in 141 posts
    Hi RocketDog,

    First off, I want to just thank you for your reasoned comments on the review and game over at SimHQ. Your posts were one of the few (but now growing) number of reasoned posts that weren't just a knee-jerk reaction to an unwelcome review.

    The AI cheating is on the Ace level for sure. I don't really play at any other level anymore, not unless one of the kids wants a crack so then I load up a B17, whack on infinite ammo and invulnerablitity and let them get on with it.

    I did several tests to absolutely sure I wasn't just seeing a fluke, after all, I'm more than aware of the type of person who would read the review. By that I mean that in general, filight simmers aren't a bunch of gullible sheep who'll buy the latest thing just becuase it has all the bells and whistles, these are intelligent people. Many of these people probably know far more about WW2 planes than me, some probably even know the timing order for a Merlin engine or something, so I have to be sure what I'm talking about, especially if its a negative point.

    Like I've said at SimHQ and Ubi, I'll be re-reviewing the game post patch and you can bet your bottom dollar that ALL the points in my review and those raised on the forums about the game and the review will be looked at VERY closely indeed.

    I'm actually already preparing myself for people to slag me off all over again if I score the game well, post patch. I can hear the accusations of switching my opinion to please the masses already... or am I just becoming paranoid? (this doesn't mean that I will be giving a higher score, I don't know, I haven't played a patched game yet!)

    A quick note about the score. FB+AEP is the current benchmark to measure all flight sims by atm, purely becuase it is the best out there. (Sorry LOMAC boys, AEP is just so much more accesible...) So, with FB+AEP as the benchmark, we can call that the 'average', and the average in a range of 1-10 is 5. PF, as a standalone game is worse than FB+AEP, so it scores below 5, hence the 4. PF as an add-on for FB+AEP, when similarly benched against AEP as an add-on again comes up short purely becuase AEP worked and was far less buggy, straight out of the box, hence PF gets a 4 again.

    No-one has ANY idea how badly I wanted to score this game up in the 7-8 range, purely because I damn well near live and breathe FB+AEP, but I think in the long run, an honest review is better than a rose tinted "ignore the problems if you're a true fan" review, any day of the week.

    Here's to the patch! (two weeks!)

    Oh, and if you're ever on my six.... be gentle, eh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dareos View Post
    "OH OOOOHH oOOHHHHHHHOOHHHHHHH FILL ME WITH YOUR.... eeww not the stuff from the lab"

  4. #68
    No more Mr Nice Guy. Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,021
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    316 times in 141 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tumble
    omg.. just had a look over there... Steve V has gone on a personal mission it seems.. vindictive little sod ANYBODY that has questioned either the advertising, lack of stuff in the game thats on the box or MENTIONED Nick's review has had their account suspended and the thread locked...
    Post some links please, Tumble?

    Am up to my eyes in replying on other forums and dealing with e-mails... it'd be a help, thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dareos View Post
    "OH OOOOHH oOOHHHHHHHOOHHHHHHH FILL ME WITH YOUR.... eeww not the stuff from the lab"

  5. #69
    Resident abit mourner BUFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sunny Glasgow
    Posts
    8,067
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked
    181 times in 171 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by menthel
    Methinks they are getting twitchy.
    In the words of the great Roy Orbison "Just running scared ..."

    MSI P55-GD80, i5 750
    abit A-S78H, Phenom 9750,

    My HEXUS.trust abit forums

  6. #70
    Reputation: ding dong!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In turbulence.
    Posts
    640
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    'Make mine a Spitfire, Landlord!'

  7. #71
    Senior Member Tumble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Right in the Pickle Barrel
    Posts
    7,217
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked
    315 times in 217 posts
    "afraid to post"
    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=7271086732

    "To Steve V"
    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=7501007732

    "No more cockpits"
    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=5771064732

    "pacific Fighters is a step backwards in the flight sim world. Standards are dropping"
    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=5771064732

    "hexus.net really skewred PF" (you know about this one tho
    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=1111036732


    that little lot is nothing but closed threads, apart from the first one.. but it does show the feeling and atmosphere over there. All closed by Steve V. Off the front page alone. All of them question PF sightly... pattern anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Quentos
    "My udder is growing. Quick pass me the parsely sauce." Said Oliver.

  8. #72
    Sublime HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Void.. Floating
    Posts
    11,819
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked
    233 times in 160 posts
    • Stoo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2*Xeon 5450 @ 2.8GHz, 12MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 1600MHz FBDIMM
      • Storage:
      • ~ 2.5TB + 4TB external array
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI Radeon HD 4870
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Operating System:
      • OS X 10.7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Samsung 244T Black
      • Internet:
      • Zen Max Pro
    How utterly pathetic, that guy *really* needs to learn how to moderate, paid or unpaid he really hasn't got a clue..
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  9. #73
    No more Mr Nice Guy. Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,021
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    316 times in 141 posts
    Well, at least they haven't locked the really big thread where Takata copied and pasted the full text of the review.... yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dareos View Post
    "OH OOOOHH oOOHHHHHHHOOHHHHHHH FILL ME WITH YOUR.... eeww not the stuff from the lab"

  10. #74
    Senior Member Tumble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Right in the Pickle Barrel
    Posts
    7,217
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked
    315 times in 217 posts
    ooh.. is it very busy in there?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Quentos
    "My udder is growing. Quick pass me the parsely sauce." Said Oliver.

  11. #75
    No more Mr Nice Guy. Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,021
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    316 times in 141 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by menthel
    . Oh well, here is waiting hopefully for the patch.


    Two weeks! !
    Quote Originally Posted by Dareos View Post
    "OH OOOOHH oOOHHHHHHHOOHHHHHHH FILL ME WITH YOUR.... eeww not the stuff from the lab"

  12. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckard
    A quick note about the score. FB+AEP is the current benchmark to measure all flight sims by atm, purely becuase it is the best out there. (Sorry LOMAC boys, AEP is just so much more accesible...) So, with FB+AEP as the benchmark, we can call that the 'average', and the average in a range of 1-10 is 5. PF, as a standalone game is worse than FB+AEP, so it scores below 5, hence the 4.
    Thanks for the explanation. I think if you had included this in your review you might have got a bit less, errr... flak on the IL-2 boards. I don't think there was any great disagreement about your criticisms of PF, although some might argue that the strengths were mentioned less than the weaknesses. However, the the low mark seems to have surprised most IL-2 enthusiasts who read it.

    I wonder if most people might regard 5/10 (your rating for FB+AEP), as a barely adequate mark, rather than a quite good one? After all, for most exams in UK education a mark of 40% or below is actually a fail and (say) 60% is only just about comfortable. The median degree in UK universities is now a 2(i) (usually awarded for an overall mark of 60 - 70%), so in that context the 4/10 for PF sounds terrible. Once it's clear you don't really rate FB+AEP very highly either it becomes a bit easier to see where you're coming from. Although I must admit to some surprise when I saw that you rate the Tiger Woods Golf game so much higher than even FB+AEP. Is it really that much better at what it does than FB+AEP? Maybe I should uninstall the flight sims and take up virtual golf .

    Regards,

    RocketDog.

  13. #77
    No more Mr Nice Guy. Nick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,021
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    316 times in 141 posts
    Rocket Dog, sorry, I need to explain this. I meant that I regard FB+AEP as the benchmark so it is the 'new' average, regardless of what it would score in a review of its own.

    If I was reviewing FB+AEP as it is now, It'd get something like 8.5 or maybe 9.

    But when comparing other games to it, I say that FB+AEP is the average by which others are measured, so I imagine FB+AEP as scoring a 5, then see if the game I'm reviewing is better or worse than FB+AEP. You have to knock the benchmark game's score down, otherwise you run out of room if a better game comes along...

    For example, say I had reviewed FB+AEP and given it 8.5, then game A came out that was better, that would have ot score 9 to show it was better than FB... then game B comes out that beats game A so I have to give that 9.5 and if THAT gets beaten then I'm at 10/10, the perfect score... after that, where do I go?

    Now, if I had done a review for FB+AEP and given it 8.5 and PF was a brilliant advancement of the series (for that read bug free and complete) and I felt it was a better game than FB+AEP, I would have given it probably a 9. But now the new benchmark when it comes to comparing games means that FB would score a 4 if PF was the standard at a 5 when comparing sims.

    What this means is that to advance the score is very hard to do and rightly so, after all, this is people's hard earned money that publishers are asking for, and its not a small sum either. The days of games being a standard £24.99 are long gone, £35 is usual with that creeping up to £40-45 for some games now... In my opinion, to justify charging that much, a game HAS to be good.

    I have expalined this over at Ubi and SImHQ, but those threads are so damn huge now, its getting hard to find anything. Now I now that changing a scale seems odd and unfair, but if you look at it a bit like a ladder, it makes more sense. FB+AEP is the rung we're on now and its as high as we've gone. Now, is PF taking us further up the ladder or not. In the state its in now, no, its a step down, doubly so for offline play and first-time or casual pilots. So FB+AEP is where we are now and all contenders must be judged against that, hence the score for PF.

    As for TW: PGA 2004, yes it does score highly, but that's because its a good game. Now, I'm in the middle of TW:2005 and although I haven't made up my mind completely, I 'm veering towards giving it a lower score than 2004. I don't want to say too much as I'm mid-review on it, but I'm finding that this sin't a real advancement on '04, they've added things like Tiger Proofing to artificially make the game harder and other than needless cosmetic tweaks this is the same game I was playing a year ago. Other than that, I can't really say much more as I'm still thinking and writing, but I hope it shows you how I work out my scores.
    Last edited by Nick; 03-11-2004 at 10:55 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dareos View Post
    "OH OOOOHH oOOHHHHHHHOOHHHHHHH FILL ME WITH YOUR.... eeww not the stuff from the lab"

  14. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Hi..my first post here but after reading that review I feel I need to. That review is terrible. Its not objective and it reviews a sim like a game. Things like balance?!?! Sims don't have balance, there a take on real life. WW2 wasn't balance so neither should a sim based on WW2 combat be.

    When writing a review its best to think of what the product your reviewing is trying to achieve, not what you want it to acheive or what your expected it to achieve. PF, like Il2, IL2:FB and Aces is a sim not a game.

    Forgoes fun for authenticity? Its swings and roundabouts, one mans chalk is anothers cheese. Its a sim, people who play this want authenticity. They find that fun. If you don't find this fun then becauses its authentic then put that as a pro cause thats exactly what 1C:Maddox strives to acheive!

    "Maps too large" Im sure the WW2 aviators would agree there but again, people who play this want authenticity, the immersion factor, 100% accurate maps. If you want to play the battle of Midway thats balanced and on the small side and not authentic go play BF1942!

    Bugs? I agree theres a few but apart from a couple of campaigns which are not fixed I've not found anything that stops me playing this. I bought BF1942, UT2k3, Soldner, BF:V, GTA3 all when they came and they were actually unplayable due to bugs. PF is not unplayable, theres not even that many bugs. Mostly trivial things, not crashes.

    Unplayable careers. Theres 1 career that could be considered unplayable but I've so far completed a Royal Navy career and a USN career. There not unplayable. You say there boring. Take a step back and put this in perspective. People who play this want to recreate these great battles 100% accuratly. If you find it boring its clear that a simulator is not for you. Maybe someone who likes sim should have reviewed this.

    "Career mode shot to hell" Whats that supposed to mean?

    "Tedious amount of flying before anything happens"
    Its clear your not a sim guy, some people love this. PF wants to recreate the Pacific war in the air, It does this admirably. You shouldn't mark it down for a feature which makes it authentic and is deliberate cause you don't like it! I suggest before making any more reviews you take step back and look at what the game/sim wants to acheive, what its goals are. Large maps and long flight times are part of the the Pacific war. How is that a bad thing given its trying to be authentic. I doubt the WW2 pilots liked the tedious flight times either. BTW, there is a time skip feature that is documented.

    "Code not optimised for latest GFX cards"
    Maybe not for ati card, which I agree isn't great but for Nvidia cards its optimized. But then look at most of the games to come out in the last few years, upon initial release your lucky to get them running properly with any card *cough*BF:V*cough*

    "Plane set not that big, especially if you have FB+AEP" 251 planes not big? Compare it to M$CF2 when that came out (ignoreing third party addons). That had 7 flyables. PF has 40. Also given the amount of hours it takes to build a plane and the cockpit, then program it I consider that to be quite a few. I agree, flyable torpedo bombers are missing and thats a bad point however but patches will appear soon enough.

    "It's an unfinished game, simple as that." To a degree I agree, at the same time you could sit there forever trying to digitally recreate WW2. There has to be a cut off point. I wouldn't say its a game either. Its a simulator.

    I agree, the AI is crap, there are bugs but you paint this sim out to be a game, pointing out what your see as faults but actually are not when looking from the point of view this is a simulator.

  15. #79
    Reputation: ding dong!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In turbulence.
    Posts
    640
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 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."
    They (Ubi - or Steve V at least) banned me for criticising them for banning this guy!

    They didn't say as much, but I can't make any new posts nor access my profiule when logged in. So it's new account time

    That puts them in breech of their own rules of conduct, which states a member must not 'Restrict or inhibit any other Member or user from using and enjoying the communication features on the Sites.'
    Last edited by MA_Moby; 03-11-2004 at 11:57 AM.

    'Make mine a Spitfire, Landlord!'

  16. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    12,113
    Thanks
    906
    Thanked
    580 times in 405 posts
    But there unpaid admins so that makes them above and beyond the rules...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PF Readme.txt needed please
    By Zak33 in forum PC
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30-10-2004, 12:56 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-12-2003, 02:18 AM
  3. ABIT AB-2003 DigiDice SFF System review @ Hexus.net
    By DR in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2003, 11:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •