Another CoD review in WWII mag
 

Seems about right, if somewhat brief.

Article review
 

I would say the author was being kind. :o

Considering the brevity he pitched it right.

Wow, very generous.

Dog fights are little more than flight paths and setting up a ground straffing run?

Who has been taking flying lessons from? - Alambash? :-P

Fair enough review, although I have to scoff at his comments about dogfights. He's obviously not doing something right haha ;)

My thoughts, too! LOL

In fairness, I thought the review was quite fair -- aimed at WW2 enthusiasts that are knowledgeable about period aircraft, tactics, etc and have decent, but not cutting edge, PC's at home. The review looks at CoD fresh out of the "Steam box" with the included Campaigns (ugh) and quite straightforward Quick/Single missions. No mention of the FMB which realistically is out of the domain of all but the most zealous sim enthusiasts.

This all-too-brief review didn't touch on one of CoD's main strengths (currently) which is its online multi-player feature. Even then, some perseverance is required on the part of the newly initiated -- starting with the non-intuitive GUI. A classic case of a GUI being easy to use once you know how -- it's the gettin' to know how that can be a bit off-putting. Unfortunately, CoD multiplayer doesn't have an inhouse voice comms, just an awkward type-your-message chat window. Easily solved with Teamspeak 3 -- but again, this is not universally known throughout the WW2 aviation community. Yet, IMHO, it's voice comms that really brings Cliffs of Dover alive and FREQUENTLY sets the stage for the heartstopping dogfights and bombing runs that we all seek.

All in all, a score of 2.5/5 seemed fair for a sim that is still incomplete and needs fixing in so many areas. It doesn't deserve a "zero" grade, IMHO, because of the many things Cliffs of Dover actually does very, very well. As they say: YMMV.

Its a fair review, except maybe the dogfight description and this;

"the exterior environment is graphically outdated, with dull textures and colors. And because the world below is little more than a flat plane, the game experience lacks a certain visceral quality"

I don't find the textures and colors dull, but I do adjust my Video card settings to setup the terrain color etc to my liking. The world below is naturally relatively flat especially viewed from height, but has plenty of true elevation when viewed at low level. For a flight sim I don't find the exterior graphically outdated at all, quite the contrary, although there is much room for improvement, and can see community involvement is this regard.

No sim will ever get a good review when its released unfinished, especially one this unfinished. The sim deserved poor reviews, but a major point missed by most reviewers is that the series will be a work in progress for many years, and reviews after a few issues are sorted could be much more favorable. This may give pause to any potential customers to atleast keep the sim on the radar for future reference. The good news is the development has another chance to improve the overall reviews when they release the next addon. By then there will have been atleast on major patch for COD, and any new features included with the addon can be applied to COD.

I totally agree, but I think the reason the reviewers don't mention its future is because they will not speculate on its support. How do they know it won't get dumped. They don't and neither does anyone. I believe it will, but I don't know it will. It is pure speculation, shyte happens. It will be interesting to see what reviewers will say after the next patch if it is significant in its fixes.

There is no speculation on whether or not the sim is a WIP, as it is still obviously a WIP shown by the continued work of the developer for the last year. The reviewer is just stating his opinion on the sim and could easily state his opinion that the sim is still a WIP. Its not like reviews are that accurate anyway, just opinions of those with varying knowledge of the development.

The problem with reviews is that they are taken at a certain point in time. Jason for example seems to have a problem in that a lot of RoF reviews were done in the early days, they didn't do RoF any favours, and the magazines are not interested in updating them.
That can cause a real issue later on down the line.

You can hardly expect the reviewer to be sure its going to be finished if the developer is so vague about what will be finished, plus CLOD has been out for 10 months now, he prob thinks it IS finished.

No, I know you and I think all will be ok in the long run, but it would be foolish to predict the positive outcome of future work on this as a done deal in a review. There are many factors that could cause this or any other sim to not get fixed. SimHQ is doing another review on this later for that very reason.

That is a definite problem for ROF, while COD has a chance for a reprive when the sequel is released.

I'm not saying they should predict a positive outcome, I am just suggesting that the reviewer should reflect the fact the developer hasn't finished working on the sim.

I agree we certainly don't need anyone saying anything positive about the sim.

I hope that the devs actually read all the reviews and take the time to keep reading after the reviewers talk about the bugs, because the next thing they always talk about is the lack of content. Adding another 50% performance boost or another plane is cool, but if there isn't anything to do with them besides play a broken campaign or get into another uninspired furball. These reviews are not going to change their tone even if the engine is running at 300fps on a Pentium II. Either give us some additional multiplayer modes, or give us the tools to make the game fun for everyone, not just the "kill:death ratio: sperglords who only care about their stats.

I thought it was quite positive Chivas. It could of been much worse. Reviews should be honest and truthful to the version he has.

Are you really believing that every player, who is having now with CoD, is described by your description????

Ok, I'll buy that, but that is the problem with premature release.

I agree, 100 percent.

I reasonable review on the state of the game. External graphics are subjective, I quite like them, and available combat is more then a just strafing run but in the light of earlier reviews its actually quite positive.

.... later reviews ...
 

sometimes a bad start does not necessarily mean also bad reviews later on.
Here, check this one out:
http://www.pcgamer-magazine.com/pcga...110?pg=30#pg30
It`s not about CloD but about another great airwar sim that also had a bad start. Rise of Flight.
;)

it'd be interesting to know which version of the game he tested.

I would guess its the latest version as Steam in most cases would automatically update the sim.