Really sad and ironic. As a hardcore gamer for many years, I learned about IL-2

1946 from Gamespot about 4-5 years ago. I've played so many games since

the days of pong, I can't count, but nothing remotely close to the staying power of IL-2.


Hopefully CoD gets fixed soon and this low review score can be upgraded to

something respectable. It would be a real shame to have this review stay

out on the web as is. I mean, most gamers don't bother to buy games with

such a low score. There are simply too many good games to buy, so why

waste the time? 1C, you really have to do something about this. Get the

game fixed ASAP and ask Gamespot to re-review it. I ask myself, if it was 5

years ago and I saw that IL-2 got a score of 4.0, would I have bought it?

No chance, no way, no how. You want new simmers? You won't get it with

this review. Better fix it. Delay the U.S. release longer if you have to.

It's just a number.. Honestly I am an active gamer and never read gamespot nor their reviews. It's just like movie critics, You can't judge a piece of software or a movie flick from what others experience.

As the game has progressed I am another that has come to appreciate the game. Yes when it first released it was rather gloomy. However a few patches later its making a rather speedy recovery.

I'm looking forward to the future of IL2!

It's not how you start...but how you finish. Team Maddox/Luthier, time to finish strong:!:

The screenshots speak for his self, how fair can be a review if it dont review the graphics possibilities that the game offers.

He even complain about low quality textures ... that he put there.

here is the Crysis review in the same site :

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/cr...%3Bread-review

And the screenshots section :

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/cry...most.&cvr=3Y50

You will not find graphics tuned down there, and the reviewer even quit importance to the lack of DX11 support.

I call that Biased BS.

Pretty much.


"In time, Cliffs of Dover might soar. But for now, all but the most patient simmers should leave this damaged aircraft in the hangar for further maintenance."

I'm sure your relentless complaining will inspire them.

It's a fair review. There's just so much broken in the game that a 4.0 is what it deserves. In a way, 1C are lucky because a more experienced flight simmer would have picked up the dodgy CEM that blows up engines at BoB combat height, the lack of FFB etc and might have rated it even lower.

What's so frustrating is that many of the problems were easily avoidable. Could they not find one single English speaker to proof read the text? Hadn't they looked at Google Earth pictures of England before deciding to paint it lime green? Why ditch IL2's fine QMB that allowed skin selection etc?

Maybe because the game is unplayable on high settings if you actually want to shoot a target or fly over a city? Also crysis 2 looks great and runs smooth as butter even on a low end comp rig. COD does not.

Maybe, but all you do all day is bitch about anyone who makes valid criticisms of the game. So I would say thats less productive, so either contribute or stop making yourself look like a fanboy kiddy.

-Its not complaining either, its constructive criticism... (99% of the time).

My contribution is no less than yours. You are whining (99% of the time), and I am responding to your whining with helpful comments.