Ouch, that review was harsh. But fair. Get crackin git'n da patches in moar yo!

I disagree. First of all I have played all kinds of games. I play since the early 90's -- I have seen a lot. And IL2 COD is BY FAR not the worst release -- especially since the devs are there busting their butts trying to fix it. This is already an exception today. Most common are devs running away never to be heard of again -- let alone posting on a forum like this.
Ace"s? Disappeared from the radar after CFS3 release. The community "fixed" the sim the best they could in 7 years of modding work, with some miraculous results, like OFF. Do you think there was ever a single post from the devs in any of their forums in 7 years? Nope, nada, nil.
Pretty much the same story with SH5. It being fixed by the modders over at Subsim since a year, and it has become pretty good.

The reviewer at Gamespot could have easily known that the game is about to be fixed...or that the intent is there. A simple click over to this forum could have told him so. It would have been nothing than fair play and common sense to wait some weeks until you throw a score into the world....a score which may be completely false in some months, or even just in some weeks. Hell, maybe next week end.
I say that he was lazy, and uninterested in the genre. that would not surprise me. It would not surprise me if was uninterested in PC simulation as a whole.

Sorry, that is nonsense pure and simple. If you set a precedent for holding back reviews because the game might possibly be fixed/updated by devs & or modders in the distant future then every single game review is worthless. Do you really think the reviewers should have held of reviewing SH5 until the modders had it for a few years?

I think the review is fair; the reviewer can only review the product that he's testing, not the product that he might have in the future.

I just hope that they write another review in say 6 months or a year when the bugs are ironed out...

No punches held back in the review...devs should have known better and refused to release, so as to protect their good name.:confused:

No. You didn't understand what i was saying. I made precisely the difference between intent to be fixed and no visible intent. If the intent is there -- easy to get that information on all the related websites -- you can hold with a negative score and give it some weeks. And it seems I am not only one thinking that, because that is what Eurogamers has done, and one the biggest German computer games website too. It's nothing else than waiting for a final review and a score until some patches are out. It's not so uncommon.

The German site didn't refuse to review it, they couldn't review it. They simply could not get the sim to run at any acceptable leve to enable them to try it. It was for this reason they warned people not to buy it. That is actually worse than any review score.

The Gamespot review was posted on the 16th, this means he was using the very latest patch because Steam autoupdates to the latest official version. In fact there have been two patches up until now, not including betas. If it is available for sale then it should be reviewed.

This sim was marketed over the internet. Sold over the internet. Reviewed over the internet. What on earth could any developer/publisher be thinking when they release something in a beta state? I have seen worse. The WalMart fiasco with Strikefighters.

no the game is not available on US steam or on amazon.com unless you buy it on a UK site, guys going for it on justflight are far from the average gamer and perfectly know what they are doing