Gamespot Review for CoD - Score: 4.0
 

It is actually really sad to read this as actually CoD is a really good game, they just reviewed it way too early :/
Edit: I should have wrote, they released it way too early.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il-2-...er/review.html

As much as id like to agree i cant...

Game gets released..ie retailed, they do a review..

Whoever the haters, and the ones that wanna just go on about this and that and everyone has a choice blah blah this game wasnt finished OR so we dont start ww3 again should of had more testing from beta testers OR were told/warned about how it would be..

I appreciate all the work they are doing now but then...they should be doing that work, they released it so im not going to suk rear ends saying how great they are...if it were free and it wasnt working and they were fixing it for me then id be truly appreciative but its not like that..

Im afraid even though that review may be too early as you say it does reflect what 75% people here feel im sure.

A fair review.

its very unfortunate that another nail was hammered into the combat flight sim genre coffin. There is probably plenty of blame to go around for UBI/IC/Maddox games inregards to releasing IL-2 COD a few months too soon.

I'm sure IL-2 COD will evolve into a great sim sooner than later,and it better be soon, before the Western release. I can see why they delayed the US/Canada release for another month. The last two patches have made considerable headway, now they have to fix a massive amount of bugs and add missing features.

The best review's will be word of mouth. But really, he wasn't being too unfair. Number is a number.

It's still not at a point where I'll nod and say, yeah, go buy it! But it's getting there.

Clod is not a 10 min play game.You start to apreciate it over the time, and it will be much good over the time.Not justice!

I read the review this morning and I get the feeling that the reviewer just doesn't understand the technical hurdles a hard core sim has to go through, especially a flight sim.

I wish major sims could have graphics like Crysis or even Wings of Prey. I know it's not going to happen in 2011 though.

dcs a-10???

Just watch out those screens, he is reviewing the game in XP, under DX9.

Your proof for this is?

Also it was a fair review tbh, might even be too easy on the game. What I would like them to do is another review 6months - 1 year from now and hopefully then if improved give the game a great score in a re-review.

I dont know if it was even a release time issue, I think it was a issue with the devs having absolutely no idea on how to plan, program and release this product. Go back and look at those great bail out animations, where are they? Oh, you can have them in because they kill the game performance even when you are not looking at them? Why in the world did they create all these great tank and vehicle models when they are not going to be used currently? Why not get the game so it renders buildings that dont look like they are 5+ years old because of their low polygon count and horrible textures? Why use ground textures that are really low res and ugly, but have grass effects that no one will ever see except for on takeoff because they only display a few meters away? Why integrate a strenuous physics model but no weather/wind effects? Why having amazing cockpit lighting but poor glass effects like the white crap that is in atm when you fly through a cloud, or the outdated looking oil spash patterns? So many rescources wasted.

That shows very bad planning and communication. Same thing for the absurd bottlenecks, the fact that you cant fly over london because in the distance there is no london because the game cant/wont load the buildings. I mean, these are basic requirments... No tree hit boxes? Really? The excuse being is that there are too many trees and they would have to claculate it for eacgh plane anywhere on the map in SP? Why the hell would you program a game that does that? Thats insane, these are things that should not be an issue now, or even a few years ago.

It just smacks of bad managment unfortunetly, but hopefully it will pull through and not stall.

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.

Unplayable :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMft...layer_embedded

BTW repeatedly calling people morons isn't nearly as constructive as you seem to think it is.

gamespot are usually quite slow on their PC reviews, so I'm a bit baffled they reviewed this before the NA release.

That said reviewers by policy have to review the game in released state, patches don't count. Gran turismo 5 suffered a similar fate.

oh well I have 56 hours into farming simulator 2011, and it scored a 2/10

Dude I don't know what your problem is but everything you have to say has a negative spin on it. Please if you dislike the game so much GO!!! somewhere else because your really becoming a Bore. I don't care if it dosen't look perfect this sim is going to succeed. So just stop.

Did I ever say it wont?
Did I ever say I hated it?

If I am becoming a bore then dont read my comments, simple. If you have low standards then buy the game and dont complain, because if everyone had the attitude you do, there would not of been the long term Il2 community and dev support that there is.

Can't say much to oppose that review, in all I think it was fair.

Although I'm a hard believer that WOP graphics won't have a profound impact on how great people find this game. A nice graphics package always comes at a price for content it seems.

I'm of the patient flight sim demographic, she's sitting on the HD until I can play it proper. DCS A-10C has come a long way in it's patches since release so I'm sure this will hopefully follow suit.

Cruel review but fair, especially from someone who obviously wants to boot the game up and play it without too much fuss.
I think the kind of buyer who relies on reviews like this would be advised to avoid this game in its current state- there are many broken elements as the reviewer described.
Personally, i'm really enjoying this game. It's a whole new challenge for me and i can overlook the current limitations and if the rate of improvement continues it will be brilliant in a few months.
The skills i learned in Il2 have to be relearned all over again and i get more a of sense in CoD that each plane is VERY individual. Current flightsim enthusiasts would be silly to give up on CoD because it has such great potential, but flightsim enthusiasts are very different to the average gamer.

Let me get this straight, the Devs are going to support this sim because your complaining................and thats why there has been the long term il2 community............ you have got to be kidding me.:confused:

oops same review

Drink enough vodka, that 4 looks just like a 9. Say bye- bye to bad reviewski :!:

As previous posters have said, I hate to say it but the reviewer is spot on. It's actually a very good and objective review and I agree with the reviewer, the game is unfit for regular consumers. I'm still playing and enjoying it though and with every patch it's improving but not having the radio comms fixed yet is just, well bad!

I think they really need some more documentation, printable maps Keys list and more tutorials...ive been with il2 for around 9 years and got to know the game quit well....gave me a headache though because i didnt have the internet back then, got it a couple of years after, and thats when i really started to learn the game, so can you imagine what a newcomer to Cliffs would feel like!.

But i love the game! It needs work but i love it already :)

Amen brother! More documentation, especially on the FMB.

yes, the score is well deserved, I agree. There's not only the performance issues, but also the countless bugs with essential things not working. To add to this, there's the "campaign" feature which is little more than a few missions put together. There is no briefing, no debriefing (aside from scripted text, of course), no ranks, no awards. And a little video in-between would have worked wonders, too.
I have to admit that I'm slowly gravitating back to Il2-1946, too. The state of CoD is just too sad right now. And the other sad thing is that nothing is fundamentally wrong with the sim... its just the unfinished state.

As others have said, I think the score is fair. I've found all the issues the review takes up, and more, and it's sad to see that many in the flightsim-community have left the game behind due to the bugs and issues, or won't pick it up because of the bad rep the sim now reaps.

That being said, I hold the game in the regard that it's a bottle of wine. Namely that it WILL be better with time. Having been a long-time MMO-player, I know that many games won't be ready when they launch. But through the dedication and insanely hard work of the developer (and nobody can claim that 1C isn't dedicated AND works hard to fix the sim) it will get gradually better and better as time passes. IL2:CoD isn't any different there. We've already seen leaps in terms of performance in the two latest patches (at least I have), and I for one have full confidence in 1C's ability to turn CoD into a quality product rivaling the original IL2.

Looking forward to a re-review at a later date, and I think it will be a very different score at that time.

+ most of us also see what this sim is capable of. New users or especially new-comers to the simming sector don't. For them, this is anti-advertising for the simulation market: Non-accessible even in the menus and only for pro's who can fly a plane without instructions or feedback. They don't care about details possible through modification, changing ini-settings or changing ammo-belts.

IMHO the 4.0 score is with a good portion of the IL2-renown-bonus. Several comments also show this.

Personally, I've removed it from my HDD. I will give it a try in another 6 months or so.

Bad management sounds like something Oleg Maddox has been fired for.

Then what on earth do you use to make an informed choice? There is so much stuff out there that you need some way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Movie makers always say 'word of mouth' is what they really want to generate.

I buy certain items without reading reviews (like ClOD) or seeking the advice of friends because I have experience of the company/author/director's work. Ubisoft have killed that for their company I'm afraid with this release and the debacle that was Silent Hunter V. They used to be such a reliable brand.

Anyhoo, my point is that if we are unfamiliar with something we need reviews and critics, but clearly we need to use our own judgement as well.

did anyone notice, in the video, the tree shadows weren't flickereing?

Fair review.

Love it or hate it (and I could grow to love it and will stick with it, incidentally), CoD was released in a parlous state.

Maybe we'll find out why sometime...

R

Idiots:confused:

Absolutely. I get a strong feeling that there is or was a whole lot of chaos going on behind the scenes there. I would be interested to find out just how it all went down. I'm sorry that Oleg is no longer there- his departure takes with it a lot of the goodwill that was earned... at least with me.

I, too will stick with CoD and I am confident it will evolve into a polished product in due course. Let's just hope they generate enough revenue to keep the patches coming...

S!

I read the review with my flight simming tinted goggles removed. The review is quite good and points out very well the things that are more or less bugged or unfinished in CoD now. Most of us here have been tinkering along with IL-2 since beginning so we surely get over the features/bugs/whatever. But the average gamer that wants to get into Battle Of Britain will be baffled for sure.

Why? Some reasons to follow..The GUI is too complicated and cluttered. Compare to IL-2 where it was a breeze to setup everything. From sounds, graphics to controls and multiplayer. CoD has a lot more functions but the development team has the experience from IL-2 so it feels strange that why not just adjust what was already good to fit in CoD? Making new does not require you to break what already is working.

Performance issues. These will scare away many. Not all are ready to wait for patches or to tinker with settings so they can get acceptable performance. Not all have hours to play, but want to jump in the cockpit and have spin..a smooth one! CoD lacks a lot in this case. For example SSAO was on by default and without Kegetys propably would be still. Now we got an option to turn off this feature in GUI. Better off would be to have a good GUI from the start, where you could adjust settings to your liking. And good documentation of what each setting affects.

Same goes with the houses causing stutter. In original IL-2 the houses/towns/cities were a FPS killer and same applies to CoD. So one can ask why did devs not wrestle this from the start as the experience from IL-2 was there. Add to this the texture sizes noted by Kegetys and no wonder we struggle to get CoD to run acceptably. IMHO flight sim graphics do not need to be like in FPS games. They need to be functional. You do not watch door knobs when zooming past 300mph..you get the pic.

The bugs in game. What were the so called beta testers doing? How can errors in texts, lack of features etc. slip past? When testing your job is to find those bugs in GUI, texts, features..whatever there is. Do things, strain the game to make the bugs appear. Then repeat and file a report to the devs so they can fix it if needed. Devs grant you this opportunity to help them find the lurking bugs, it is not easy for devs to see it all or think of everything thus beta test is needed. As a tester you look at the game as an outsider, not as a fan of the sim or game genre(whatever you are testing). In this case I would give the "chosen ones" a whack in the face, job not so well done as so many easily seen bugs are there. Beta testing is hard work, not an opportunity to just get into an "inner circle".

Some of the critics go to devs as well. 6 years of development time. That is a lot and they had all the experience from IL-2 with them. Oleg mentioned 4 years of development to IL-2 before release. They started CoD development some 4 years after IL-2 was released so basically 8 years of experience! The foundation where start building the next milestone. Sure the team is not big and lacks resources, but this calls for the leadership to plan and prioritize accordingly. Some things have to be left out or to be added later. The priority is to build a CORE on which you can add more later, not to offer it all right away if your resources simply do not allow it. IMO something did not go quite right in the planning and execution of the CoD roadmap. And it all adds up..team has now to work almost 24/7 to fix things that could have been avoided with better planning. It all depends on planning and how you manage the resources. Well planned is half done!

I do not want to sound like attacking devs. Not at all, just expressing my thoughts. We have the sim in our hands with a lot of potential buried in it, but the release was not as smooth as we hoped for. I wish CoD will get good lift after some patches addressing the most critical issues. But really in it's current state can not recommend it to a casual propellor head, more likely to the hard core simmers who are used to with tinkering.

My .02€

To be honest, I thought it was a perfectly frank review. The devs screwed up, of course people are going to review it badly. Although i think, in fairness, they should review it again six months down the line, like has been mentioned.

I like to see things from my point of view, and Gamespot is painting a bad picture only. From the first moments I thought that the game was unfinished if this is the result of 7 years of hard work. But looking the thinks deeply, I see planes modeled accurately both the exterior and the interior, you can see the internal structure and it is doing part of the damage model. Following this logic every plane required an incredible amount of time because the research, the modeling, etc. In my opinion the simulator is finished but rough, it needs to be "tuned". And it can tune everything there, from what I can see seeing the first patches. For sure, Ubisoft has almost killed this simulator with a crazy policy: anti epileptic filter, probable forcing the dev's team to finish in advance their work. I know this because Ubisoft has killed another sim: Silent Hunter 5, a potential good work from a beautiful romanian team, totally bugged, unfinished and with no more than 2 small patches. Killed. In the perspective of the future, I hope that COD and the team will survive to this bad trend, I see a lot of enthusiasts here and on SIMHQ (never seen 700-800 users in a forum before), and we support the future development of COD.
Henry Ford was a master about negative trends, I think that COD should follow his way.

ps
sorry for my english

Though it pains me too, the review is a fair call on the current game. Even without the obvious issues with the game engine, there is precious little content to simulate the Battle of Britain in real depth.

I know two of them, here's what they told me after release: dozens of bugs were reported, and not fixed before release. Most are still not fixed today.

I don't think so. Games are generally reviewed on release - that's where the big show (more or less) takes place and the studios advertise how awesome their new game is. I don't see why it should be different for CoD.
The only chance to remedy this is to fix things asap (and I think the current weekly patches are still a slow pace; I know the devs are working hard, but the game's state makes fixing it not really humanly possible in a satisfying way) and maybe to release an addon that is nothing short of fabulous.

Fully agree! Lack of prioritizing and just...weird planning must be the main reason for the end product. It's easy to see in-game i.e vehicles, plenty of detailed vehicles but not a single destroyer, cruiser, battleship, sub. Super detailed gorgeous cockpits but a partly broken partly horrible sound engine. If this game was a sandwich, one half would be buried in butter and the other half dry as a piece of cardboard.

How do you know that 6 years are "a lot" for developing Cod? I don't understand why the people is criticizing the devs so hard, when we know that a so complex flight simulator requires "a lot" of developing time, especially. Maybe some people here wants to play with birds of prey, it required "a lot" less developing time.

It's a fair review. You can't rate a game high if it runs like crap, just because it's supposed to be a flight sim. I used the word 'supposed' because you can't SIMULATE anything with 10 fps on your screen.

S!

Utu, if you read what I wrote carefully. Oleg & Team were not building a flight sim for the first time. They had already made IL-2 that has been a huge success. In many interviews they said that everything learned from making IL-2 will be used to make CoD better and the next step.

What I am saying is that they have the knowledge and tools + experience in making a flight sim. This alone helps as they do not need to start from scratch. Combine this with good planning and resource management and production time is less.

Let's take Rise Of Flight, different product but a flight sim nevertheless and good in what it is portraying. No competition or comparing. It started off with a relatively small group and was released with a few planes only. But it since then has steadily grown, more planes and features have been added along the way in a pace that suits them. In other words they know how to manage resources available and to prioritize what and when to add. Also a lot of bugs have been fixed too ad the graphics improved yet runs smoothly. Good example how a small team can pull off something like this when building on a solid core which you can expand later, when applicable. I think you agree, Utu.

Even a small team can do wonders when they know what they can handle or not and plan/prioritize accordingly. Not taking a task too much to deal with. So this is why it makes wonder that with all the experience it took 6 years and release was not one of the most smooth ones. Sure things did change along the way, but still the core of the sim was here. The goal to be achieved.

We got a sim that has all the potential built in. But it is still a bit unpolished. Eventually patching will make it as supposed, but you can not deny the importance of the first impressions on release. Hordes of gamers form their opinion based on reviews and if it is not very favourable, no matter how good the game itself might be or the potential it would possess, the sales will be hurt. Cold fact. Most of them never look back, some might after a while IF the game gets support and is patched. Same applies to CoD.

Considering the big sites are mainstream gamers oriented they usually overrate and easily give away nines for dumb games, this silly 4.0 is a really bad note, adding to this Gamespot is a CBS/US game site and the game is not even released there. None of them will play the russian state version and 90% of those reviews will be out dated by Monday, the patched game already deserve a 7.
Warning the kiddies by saying it's not your casual pop corn game is ok, but ultimately trashing the game with a fubar rating while tons of people are already enjoying it, is ridiculous.
European critics were right the game was indeed unplayable, now this ugly picture is fading out and a stunning CoD at high resolution is revealed.
The European point of view has to stop because it is no longer relevant or the US release will be another fiasco only based on false rumors this time.

Yours is not a valid argument from my point of view. Microsoft after 10 (ten) years made Vista, one of the crappiest operative systems ever, but they had experience on XP, Millennium, 98 and 95. But Seven works good. The problem with Cod is not a supposed lack of experience from the devs, because now it is showing all its potential, in 15 days (yes, the classical 2 weeks), they made 2 patches and the sim can run on older machines without problems at a very acceptable visual candies. Do you know A2A Simulations and their Accusim for fsx? They made a P47 Razorback, a B17 and recently a Spitfire mk1 and mk2, all "accusim" technology. You know that fsx is not a combat flight simulator, well, every one of those "accusimmed" planes required a huge amount of time to be finished. And our Cod planes are working with a concept very close to the concept of an "accurate flight simulator", and in Cod there so many planes to make accurate and precise. In my opinion the responsibility of this bad picture is only Ubisoft: bad marketing, bad logic, bad customer care, bad dev's care, etc.

Microsoft isn't really the best example. What went wrong with Vista is a case study for many software team managers.

I think it's a fair and honest review. If I'd have to rate CoD in its current state I'd probably give it a 6.5 (after ~38 hrs played, according to Steam), which already includes a hefty flightsim fan bonus.

This is what happens when you release an unfinished product, simple as that.

And no "but it's sooo complex and stuff!!!" moaning will change the fact that besides the obvious technical problems a lot of content simply is less than satisfying. The campaigns IMO are an embarrassment considering what large parts of the community have been asking for many years.

S!

Utu, I would not compare MS and Maddox Games on the same day, not even an OS to a game. Say Oleg and Luthier had same resources as MS then we would talk about a totally different ballpark ;)

You seemed to miss the point that even Oleg's team for sure has the knowledge and experience on simulators how could same things come as legacy from IL-2 to CoD(towns causing heavy performance loss etc)? I for sure appreciate the patches as they do improve the gaming experience, but how come was the system or core of the game not optimized from the beginning?

Publisher has propably nothing or VERY little to do with how Oleg/Luthier manages his team/resources. They are interested when the game is out and how well the contract is fulfilled. Sure they will press devs if release dates begin to slip and problems arise. There is money at stake, cold business and bean counting. It is the dev's responsibility to use given timeframe effectively to deliver a product that should in most cases work out of the box. CoD is not one of them, even it is good with lot of potential.

Developer has to monitor the progress and how things keep shaping up. A constant watch for things that might cause problems/delays and act accordingly if such occasions arise. This calls for resource allocation. If a feature proves to be hard to implement or riddled with problems then decision making steps in. To keep it or add on a later date, how high this troubled feature is prioritized etc. Experience makes a difference here as you should know from previous products which areas require most work. Get the pic?

Now this goes all the way back when devs decide to create a new product. The goal must be clear from the start, within the limits of your resources and timeframe. Hard to explain as english not my native tongue.

In short seems CoD dev team has propably made some mistakes along the way, suffered from lack of resources and what not. Passion and ambition is sure there, but result leaves something to desire for. Rough start, but I am sure the near future patches will remedy a lot of the issues. It is just that the rough start and bad reviews can hurt sales of CoD to the wider audience. And once a game has got a low score on a big site it is hard to turn the tide.

The big pic is much more than we see here. What we can do is to provide data on bugs and such to developer so they can fix them ASAP. That way a lot can be saved and future development of CoD continue.

So..thumbs up and support the devs :)

The RoF's campaign after 2 years from the date of the release is poor and the people is waiting for a new one. Cod is not released yet in the US and some people is moaning that "the campaigns are an embarrassment". Then, stop to download patches and stop to play this game, but I bet that you the next monday will be waiting for the new patch.

I will tell you this. I saw the problems that IL2 had, I read the forums, but I also read the outline post as well. I am new to IL-2 but I love flight sims. I went ahead and bought it from Just Flight, so I could get my hands on it before release here state-side. I am glad I did, because this is obviously a company that cares, they put out something that isn't ready yet, but unlike some other titles they will be here in the long run. I know this won't be a FSX, "see you later" fiasco.

I was very disappointed by the single player campaign, but the more I read on here the more I realize that this game is developed more for the online community and that the online community tries to develop the campaign side. Single player is more of a practice. Over-all I think this will be a very good game over the next few months. Just the latest beta patch did wonders.

I don't care about the number( + usually Gamespot's mark number is somedays not so fair), but what they wrote seems quite fair, although i cant say about sounds as i havent lived sounds of cannons. When i more than few players will start gettign good FPS( which will increase i hope) the online will be a true blast. for now i just tried at my friend's pc( which his speakers are 6+ years old), but hopefully another mate of mines is available for bying the cd :)
Keep it up 1C !

Apples and Oranges IMO. RoF was the 1st product of a very small team that made clear that it was a work in progress from the start.

I really expect different from Maddox games with all their prior experience, especially since the lack of an immersive SP campaign has been criticized since the original Il2. And RoF on release had FAR fewer problems for me than CoD.

The fact that I'm disappointed with the campaigns and annoyed by the plethora of bugs doesn't mean I'm not enjoying CoD. Otherwise I wouldn't already have spent so many hours with it.

I'm sure CoD will get better over time, already the 1st two patches for example have significantly improved performance for me but that doesn't change the fact that the current state of the sim leaves a lot to be desired and that the Gamespot review is indeed a fair review of this product.

Gamespot, LOL

I'm capable of making my own mind up on things without reading guff like this ... I do buy PC Pilot each second month and no doubt they will do a review too, their reviews are mostly biased and sometimes idiotic, but at least I expect them to make it clear that IL2 CoD (rightly or wrongly) is a work in progress.

I'm sorry, but I never even opened the link, as soon as I saw Gamespot I smirked.

"Fair review of the product".

Maybe so, although I am not sure I actually agree with it. The list of games and especially sims that went public half broken is endless...from small niche sims to big blockbuster MMO's with 100M$ production cost. And there are many which became great games / sims nevertheless, because the devs and the community continued to support it, with sometimes massive improvement only some months after the initial "failed" release. Someone played the first months of EvE Online? Or Age of Conan, or even WoW? Or SH3, SH5, ROF, BoB WoV, and so on. Heck, I can remember the whining at the release of the original IL2 that it was "unplayable" on mid range and lower range machines! And see what it has become -- reference N°1 in WW2 combat simming.

The reviewer should know all this, and maybe he does. But then he should also know what a niche product this is, and that it's almost a miracle this console crazy world is getting a new serious WW2 combat sim AT ALL. He should be very careful what he is doing.

So yes, he can say truthfully what his first impressions are on this current day -- fair enough. But it would have been a lot smarter, and IMO more fairplay, to not give a score at the moment, but to wait instead until the planned revisit in 6 months.
That is what Eurogamers.fr has done, and I think that is a much better idea if you want to give the game a chance.....and the genre. Review yes, but no score until the devs have gotten their chance on fixing it.
http://www.eurogamer.fr/articles/tes...test445?page=3

Now Gamespot has done the damage and the score of 4/10 will run through the internet, hurting this sim, and ultimately the genre as a whole. Even if you score the game 8/10 in six months it's hard to take that back.

Not very smart !

Wow, that is THE coolest fs video I've seen to date :) Should be uploaded to Gamespot as a user video! ASAP!

Very true, when you throw mud it sticks unfortunately, CoD is not the only release that was released early, RoF was too, we are in a global recession just now and if the devs never got money then they would be unable to continue and its as simple as that, its not as if the devs of IL2 have done a runner, they are giving support and patches and very good patches too now that they can pay some bills, any good review should take note of the global recession and what it means and be more realistic IMHO.

+1

Well said and thought.

What you say is right, in our opinion, i.e. that of the select and very adoring combat flight sim niche.

However in the big, bad world of business, a product was released, for whatever reason, in a state barely fit for purpose. In most professions one would get slammed for giving the purchasing public something so obviously undercooked.

Gamespot simply did what they do with other games once released - review them.

We shouldn't blame Gamespot for not being as one-eyed as we are; rather we should blame Ubisoft/iC/Maddox for the untimely release of this product.

That said, I love 1C/Maddox and IL2 & CoD, and I will endure patiently while it becomes, I hope, the wondrous product it could become.

R

Fair review of the product

I never read reviews. Many of them are written by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

The counter to that argument is that reviews are useless for people who think they always know best.

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

The reviewers comments are accurate IMHO.

I myself am now after several evenings of tweaking, enjoying a reasonably satisfying gaming experience particularly with the dramatic increase of quality with the damage modelling.

Even though overall performance with CoD for me at this time is poor, I have now seen enough to know that this will be significantly superior to the original IL2 given time.

Cheers, CS. :)

With the beta patch, I actually have smoother game-play than Il-2 1946. It's like a dream, to see a low level airfield attack, with flak bursts and huge fountains of earth erupting, and cars driving around, without any stutters at all. A year from now, we will be hearing about 1,000s of people having their lives ruined from becoming addicted to CloD. I'd be addicted now if we had some more maps like Malta and Libya.

You CANT expect customers to have the opinion that 'oh it'll mature like a bottle of wine' esp now days, they already got my money but it doesn't mean Im gonna play it, there's not much there to play even if it was running perfectly which it isn't. I hope the U.S. release goes better but they have their work cut out for them in a critical way, we'll see how much more patience Ubi has because this can't go on for ever..we're talking YEARS of more dev time to fix this at the current rate! Good luck.

It's a well-known fact that most people these days don't have the patience to last them through a commercial break on TV let alone the patience to let a developer actually fix the issues. And they CANNOT do so without clear answers from the community.

Yes, the sim should have been flawless (or at least had less bugs than it currently has) when it was launched. Well, it is what it is, and we all accepted that when we bought the sim. I, however, AM a firm believer that a good sim is like a good bottle of wine, and just by the look of the two last patches that 1C has given out, the performance has leaped ahead. I'm confident that the sim will be more than playable by the majority of customers within one to two months, and I for one am fully willing to wait for that time to come.

Years to fix the issues? I think not.

ROF was optimised after a year of tweaking, beta testers sweating etc....a year (althugh it was looking good right after the start)...lets hope CLOD will need less or at least not more than that....

well the time will tell how many damage is done...If it fails I will be sorry as I was looking for this title...then again with new HSFX and upcoming UP3.0 for "old" IL2 - I will be ok....

Hello,

just to say that I've found the review pretty fair.

And for all the fanboys that think that these guys at Gamespot are biased, they still have their reviews for the previous IL2 series. Here are the grades and first line of comments :

IL2 Sturmovik : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...-review&page=2

Grade : 9.2/10. IL-2 Sturmovik is destined to be a classic. This is one of those simulations that reminds you why you love the genre.

Forgotten Battles : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...lt%3Btitle%3B5

Grade : 8.6 Forgotten Battles doesn't make the sort of huge impact that the original game did, but it's generally a very worthy successor.

Ace Expansion Pack : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...%3Bread-review

Grade : 8.5 The list of minor flaws could go on and on, but its total length is minuscule compared to the massive number of excellent additions this expansion serves up.

IL2 1946 : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...lt%3Btitle%3B2

Grade : 8.5 A combination of all the former IL-2 Sturmovik games and expansions, as well as new 1946 combat from an alternated ending to World War II.

Yeah, they sound like biaised reviewers, sure. They absolutely loved IL2 original and gave good grades and good reviews to the sequels even if the grade shrunk because of aging graphics. What they said on CloDo is just as fair and as accurate as to what the software deserves. And, BTW, they also conclude by : You better leave the plane in the hangar for maintenance AT THE MOMENT. The reviewer is expecting the game to become a decent software at the end.

I wouldn't call that a biased review.

Indeed, a sad story. Please point out the new WW2 flight sim produced by amateurs that is better than CoD. I'd like to buy it. Thanks!

A pretty fair review, IMO, the key phrase being ‘at the moment’. If it was to be reviewed today (post Friday’s beta patch, and before today’s Steam update), I’m sure it would have been entirely different.

I don’t think that this review would put off a dedicated sim fan, maybe (hopefully) just delay a decision to purchase. As mentioned, there are too few of this genre available at any rate, but I would also not categorise a flight sim fan as a ‘casual gamer’, the kind likely to be most influenced by this review.

Today the game’s major flaw would have probably been the AI’s improbable aerobatics, judging by current posts :lol:

It was to be expected. It is clearly visible that the reviewer knows the old IL2 and was hoping for the next game to make it big. Although he also must rememver that he is to publish a fair review, giving an average user on how the game runs, feels, looks. And in that respect the review is fair, to be honest. 1C also must make games applicable to the wider crowd, and it does since we have the wide range of difficulty/realism settings. In this case the planning WAS horrid and we can`t do nothing about it. CoD is taking hits and seems trailing black smoke from one of the four engines currently. But it is not too late. Saldy for me to say, 1C will have to make up a HELL OF A LOT to make this game come back to the stage lights. It is required that they make multiple patches, and quick. Also, the communication with the community should be sustained , because it just may be the current biggest asset of 1C and that is community & product support.

It is also relatively "easy" to make a comeback - just put out another COD product - meaning an expansion pack. We have two pros here :
1 - they get additional money from the hardcore crowd (me 100% I buy it);
2 - they will trigger additional reviews which then will have to review not only the exp. pack, but take into account the full product aswell ;
3 - CoD can remind other users of its existence.


With that said, more such reviews will cause a catastrophe to CoD. Me, I damn KNOW that if back in 2001 I saw a bad review of IL2, I wouldn`t even touch it hence I would never know my #1 game ever.

If there are no alternatives then your comment about amateurs being able to do better was complete BS. Maybe some amateurs will come along in the future to make a better WW2 flight sim, but right now that isn't looking too likely.