CloDo review of a french video game mag...

[jibo]

typical brainless we throw it to the dump "review"
sadly new comers will never look back after this kind of bleak picture,
meanwhile they won't loose their time, Toy Story 3 gets a 7, quality gaming is saved

[ubermachtig]

I can't read French that good, frankly I'm quite horrible at it.

What I did understand, though, is that they gave it a 3 out of 10, which is really unfortunate. I hope one day they will review it again and conclude a better score out of it.

[C_G]

Bugué de partout, mal programmé, mal opti‐ misé... IL‐2 Sturmovik : Cliffs of Dover est une déception gigantesque. Il est impossible d'y voler sans des saccades délirantes qu'on ne tolérerait même pas sur un jeu en bêta‐ version. Alors oui, les cockpits sont peut‐être jolis, les modèles de vol un peu améliorés par rapport à IL‐2 Sturmovik (et encore...), mais à l'heure actuelle, le jeu est simplement injoua‐ ble. Il ne reste plus qu'à espérer qu'une (longue) série de patchs vienne corriger tout ça. En attendant, on ne peut que contempler ce gâchis avec des grands yeux pleins de larmes.

---------
Translation by C_G:
---------

A complete bug-fest, badly programed, badly optimized... IL‐2 Sturmovik : Cliffs of Dover is a huge disappointment. It is impossible to fly without insane stuttering which one wouldn't tolerate from even a beta version. So, yes, the cockpits are perhaps lovely and the FM may have been somewhat improved compared to IL-2 (and even then...), but at the present time the game is simply unplayable. We can only hope that a (long) series of patches will correct all this. In the meantime we can only contemplate this mess with tears in our eyes.

[TUCKIE_JG52]

I've never seen so many, to get so angry with so few by so few bugs.

90% of the "intended bugs" are things that people haven't read in the manual (antropomorphic controls, engine failure due to unexperience, shaking when outside parameters, gyroscopes sounds when no engine running, and a long etc). Everywhere in the manual there are advices about buildings and trees to be deactivated or minimised if there are fps problems. That's a simply question that every flight simulation fan knows "thanks" to FSX.


CoD must be analysed as a flight simulator, not as a computer program. Read manual, learn to fly properly, and when you have more than 10 flight hours in full real settings without killing your engine, then analyse.


Of course, a gaming magazine is not expected to make any kind of serious analysis about a serious simulator. That guy simply didn't read the manual.

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by TUCKIE_JG52

I've never seen so many, to get so angry with so few by so few bugs.

90% of the "intended bugs" are things that people haven't read in the manual (antropomorphic controls, engine failure due to unexperience, shaking when outside parameters, gyroscopes sounds when no engine running, and a long etc).


CoD must be analysed as a flight simulator, not as a computer program. Read, manual, learn to fly properly, and when you have more than 10 flight hours in full real settings without killing your engine, then analyse.


Of course, a gaming magazine is not expected to make any kind of serious analysis about a serious simulator.

I understand all of the abover are not bugs, but that doesn't mean CoD has only a few bugs. FMs, DMs, performance, UI bugs, Campaign bugs, sound bugs, controller bugs, loadout bugs, FMB bugs, stability bugs, broken radio commands etc.

Face it, CoD is seriously bugged and deserves the low scores it is getting. I personally would give it 50% and that would be generous.

[bugmenot]

Just one precision : this guy has been playing flight Sims on PC since, well, the beginning of the 90s... I mean, he's probably been playing for a longer time than most people on this forum.

I'm not saying he's always right on this kind of games, but still, most of the time I know I can trust him.

BTW, Canard PC is probably the only real independent magazine in France, they do not rate games like the usual "big" websites or magazines... they don't care if the game is published by a big or a small publisher. If the game is good, that's good, if the game ain't good... too bad.

I also hope they'll review it once again in the future, they've already done that before, I'm pretty sure they'll do it again for CoD.

[TUCKIE_JG52]

Originally Posted by ICDP

I understand all of the abover are not bugs, but that doesn't mean CoD has only a few bugs. FMs, DMs, performance, UI bugs, Campaign bugs, sound bugs, controller bugs, loadout bugs, FMB bugs, stability bugs, broken radio commands etc.

Face it, CoD is seriously bugged and deserves the low scores it is getting. I personally would give it 50% and that would be generous.

Sorry but you still analysing it as a computer game, not as a serious flight simulator.

Those you mention are minor bugs. Some of them are things you can see there and will be in future developments.

I dedicate to FLY, not to look for gaming weaknesses. Compared to real flight, I feel like I've had to obtain my real PPL-A license not to fly Cessnas... but to fly CoD.

I've seen very experienced virtual pilots, too much used to fly in simulators only (and maybe never in real life), that fell to anger against CoD by not reading the manual and facing with the problems I've mention about.

Once performance problems solved, there's no way back from CoD to 1946.

That's my oppinion, of course low end users will have a very different oppinion, I can undestand that.

[BigC208]

Originally Posted by TUCKIE_JG52

Sorry but you still analysing it as a computer game, not as a serious flight simulator.

Those you mention are minor bugs. Some of them are things you can see there and will be in future developments.

I dedicate to FLY, not to look for gaming weaknesses. Compared to real flight, I feel like I've had to obtain my real PPL-A license not to fly Cessnas... but to fly CoD.

I've seen very experienced virtual pilots, too much used to fly in simulators only (and maybe never in real life), that fell to anger against CoD by not reading the manual and facing with the problems I've mention about.

Once performance problems solved, there's no way back from CoD to 1946.

That's my oppinion, of course low end users will have a very different oppinion, I can undestand that.

You're a bit of an idealist Tuckie. We, as pilots see the brilliance and potential of this game. Adjustable gunsights, ammo selection, realistic engine management and damage conditions etc etc. For an average gamer who expects his games to run right out of the box this game was a nightmare right out of the box on release. If it was not for Steam a lot of people would've returned it to the store and get a refund. Can't blame them either. You buy something, you want to use it now, not one year from now.

Lucky for them Steam does not do refunds so now they have a chance to get the patches and be awed. Best of both worlds. Don't want to study, keep it simple and just fly and shoot untill you foam at the mouth. Want to have the study sim experience go full realism and experience it from a real pilots point of view. The workload will be a bitch but getting a kill makes it all worth it. Cranking the gear down after part of the hydrolic's are shot away and only half the gear comes down is intresting. Can you fix it with compressed air or do you hand pump it down? Mind blowing! Al this for $50 bucks..and you get to shoot at stuff

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by TUCKIE_JG52

Sorry but you still analysing it as a computer game, not as a serious flight simulator.

Those you mention are minor bugs. Some of them are things you can see there and will be in future developments.

I dedicate to FLY, not to look for gaming weaknesses. Compared to real flight, I feel like I've had to obtain my real PPL-A license not to fly Cessnas... but to fly CoD.

I've seen very experienced virtual pilots, too much used to fly in simulators only (and maybe never in real life), that fell to anger against CoD by not reading the manual and facing with the problems I've mention about.

Once performance problems solved, there's no way back from CoD to 1946.

That's my oppinion, of course low end users will have a very different oppinion, I can undestand that.

So let me get this straight. CoD has planes in it that you fly, you fly a plane in real life... so that means CoD doesn't have bugs?

Sorry but the fact that CoD may a "sim" does not preclude it from being bugged. I have read the manual (poor as it is) and I can assure you, the fact that FPS drops to single digits when you fly near an industrial complex or any docks is a serious bug. The fact that the Spitfire Mk I, Ia, Hurricane I DH Prop, the Bf109 etc are all well below real performance specs is a bug.

I could go on but I fear that your mind is made up, you think CoD is a bug free simmers dream.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by ICDP

I understand all of the abover are not bugs, but that doesn't mean CoD has only a few bugs. FMs, DMs, performance, UI bugs, Campaign bugs, sound bugs, controller bugs, loadout bugs, FMB bugs, stability bugs, broken radio commands etc.

Face it, CoD is seriously bugged and deserves the low scores it is getting. I personally would give it 50% and that would be generous.

U forgot BUGS bugs.

Dont wanna go into why u have decided the pretty much everything have bugs in one form or another. I guess u know every detail of the game after only 2 weeks, quick learner maby.

Just because U think its a bug, doesnt mean it IS a bug.


P.S. If u find u have stability "bugs" for ex. my suggestions is: uncheck all the boxes in the difficulty section, that should do the trick (or turn of Twitter, Messenger and Spottify when u play). That might even fix the FM and DM "bugs" to.