PDA

View Full Version : It is so true... :-(



Takata_
11-01-2004, 05:55 PM
Hexus.net PF review

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD05MDAmdXJsX3BhZ2U9MQ= =

Product: Pacific Fighters
Author: Nick Haywood
Date Of Review: 1st November 2004

Introduction:

At last! Here it is! The much anticipated and, amongst the community, much hyped next instalment of the IL2 series.

This is the game that massive amount of massively loyal IL2 fans have been waiting for ever since it was first mooted last year. Has it got anything to offer those fans? Does it live up to their hopes and expectations? Is there anything in the game to draw new fans in? Let's see.

The IL2 series has been running a good few years now and is largely the work of one man, Oleg Maddox. Since the release of the original IL2 Sturmovich, Mr. Maddox has provided his loyal fans with games of such depth, realism and authenticity that even pilots who actually flew these planes find the games to be as close to the real thing as you can get. Which is some praise indeed and shows just how dedicated Oleg is to getting right.

The original IL2 was superseded by Forgotten Battles, which expanded the first game's plane set, improved the damage and flight models and gave the graphics a serious update. This was followed by an expansion pack called, strangely enough, Aces Expansion Pack which gave virtual pilots even more planes and a Western Front to fly over. At the time, there were some grumblings as both FB and AEP had some rather large bugs or in places just weren't complete with missing campaigns, though these were later resolved in patches.


Pacific Ocean Scene:

So now we have the latest addition to the stable which this time focuses on the American and Japanese battling it out across the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. With previous releases in the IL2 series, each new game was really just an update or add-on for an already established title, whereas PF marks a major departure for the series in that for the majority of the game everything is carrier based. Not a huge difference, you'd think, but when you have a quarter of the normal runway to take off on and the whole **** thing is moving, suddenly things become a tad more interesting‚‚ā¨¬¶. But I'm getting ahead of myself, let's back peddle and have a look at everything else eh?

Now, installing the game gives you three options. You can install it as a standalone product and just play PF, or you can install it over FB and AEP, or do both. The advantage of installing over is that you get all the planes in FB+AEP as well as the new ones in PF. Install it as a standalone and all you get is what's in PF, even if you have FB+AEP elsewhere on your drive.

This is where the first of your problems arise. Different types of install aren't compatible with each other. Not really a huge problem if you're a long term player as you're bound to have the others anyway. But what if you're a new player? PF is a standalone game with the flight engine, damage modelling et al all there and not needing FB+AEP to fly. I guess the thinking behind this is to attract new players or perhaps appeal to a larger market. The snag is that the vast majority of online players already have FB+AEP and will use the install over option to give them access to all the planes. So if you go out and buy this as your first flight sim, you can't fly against anyone other than those who have done a PF only install‚‚ā¨¬¶. And as more planes are available from a dual install, not many people will be flying PF on its own. At the time of writing, out of 70 or so servers, only ONE is running pure stand alone PF with the others being a mix of FB+PF or FB+AEP.

So the point here is that if you're thinking of getting into the game and taking part in the big online wars that they fly, you're still going to have to go out and buy Forgotten Battles and Aces anyway, and that's after having paid for PF as a full price game too.

Ok, so we'll put that gripe to one side and let's have a look at what we've got with PF as a stand alone game.


Plane Sets:

Well, according to the box, we've got all the major types here, everything that played even the tiniest part in the Pacific and Far East campaigns. For the allies you've got a plethora of planes from F-4s (no, not the jet powered ones, the ORIGINAL F-4s), P40s, P51s and Seafires (the carrier version of the Spitfire) and for the Axis side you've got Zeros, Zekes and Betty's‚‚ā¨¬¶ but hang on, lets have a closer look.

It says here that I've got 93 different planes in the game, which is certainly impressive and of those 93, 43 are flyable, which is equally as impressive. It all seems good, doesn't it? But on closer inspection, this is slightly misleading. Those 43 flyable planes include the different sub-types for each plane. So what you actually have, once you exclude the variations is 19 different planes, and that's being generous and counting types like Seafire and Spitfire as different planes, though they were virtually identical. Look even closer and you'll find that some of the types that are listed as flyable on the box actually aren't but will be in a near future patch. Now, I'm all for reasonable patching of a game to make it better, but releasing a game promising something and then AFTER purchase saying it isn't actually there but will in the patch? That's not really on now is it?


Plane Handling:

Ok, let's move on from there and look at the planes themselves.

Well, I've not got any idea how a Seafire should fly or whether a Corsair should stall at whatever speed so I can't really comment on that, but suffice to say that as usual, the 1C team has done itself proud with the way everything flies. Zeros turn tightly, P-47s dive and pick up speed like dropped anvils‚‚ā¨¬¶ and the Beaufighter, not seen in the series before, is sublime. Oh, we're back to new planes again, aren't we? Ok, another gripe. Looking at the plane set for PF, let's also take off those types that were released in the AEP add-on pack‚‚ā¨¬¶. And that leaves us with something like 8 or so actual new aircraft, never flown before types‚‚ā¨¬¶. So the guff on the box, is just that‚‚ā¨¬¶ guff.

Now having firmly established that the planes 'feel' right and that there aren't really as many brand new planes as UbiSoft would have you believe, let's see what the actual game itself has to offer.

As with all the other games in the series, there are plenty of options to keep you entertained. In fact, the front end of the game is identical to all the others. You have a choice of a quick mission builder to just choose what you fly and who to fly against and a comprehensive full mission builder which allows you to set up waypoints, make mission events and do pretty much anything you want. On top of these, and where you'll probably want to spend most of your time is either in the single missions or the career modes, so we'll focus on those.


Missions and Campaign:

The single missions are essentially there to give you a quick fix and let you fly some pre-scripted mission for the various sides in the war. In FB this was great, with lots of variety and enough to keep you engrossed for hours. AEP took a little flak in this area as what missions there were weren't exactly exciting and some even seemed to be clones of others with different planes dropped in.

PF however takes the single missions to whole new level, unfortunately, that level is sub-basement F or even G. Yep, they are dire. For the vast majority of planes, there are no missions, and for what planes do have missions, most of those are 'carrier take off' or 'carrier landing'. In total, for all the planes you have there are a grand total of 11 missions. Of those 11 there are only 4 actual missions with the rest of that 11 being flying different planes or sides in the same 4 missions.

Just so we're clear, this IS a stand alone, full price game, ok?

Alright, so the single missions fall short in number, but perhaps the quality outstrips the quantity? Erm‚‚ā¨¬¶ sort of. This is where the link between authenticity and fun comes in, something which the 1C team seem to have forgotten. Having faithfully followed the authentic route, ensuring my P40 climbs at the right rate and stalls properly, 1C has also opted for realistic maps too. That means you'll sometimes be flying for 40 minutes before anything even reasonably exciting happens. Then you face a 40 minute flight home. Sorry, but if I wanted to do over an hour of flying and not shoot anything, wouldn't I have plumped for MS Flight Sim 2004 instead? This is supposed to be a game about shooting other people down within a historical setting, but it is a game and as such, it's just not fun.

Now, to alleviate the boredom and allow you to do something else whilst flying over oceans of blue, seeing nothing for hours, you can engage the autopilot and use the time skip function‚‚ā¨¬¶At least you could if the autopilot was reliable. I loaded up the Beaufighter campaign, keen to see what this new plane could do, saw how far we had to go and after 15 minutes of staying in formation decided that the autopilot could look after things while I made a cup of tea. I came back, steaming mug in hand to find six smoking holes in the ground and my pilot dead. One quick restart later and it transpires that the autopilot flew me into a hill. But not just me, the AI flew themselves into the hill too‚‚ā¨¬¶ all of them. Reload, crash, reload, boom.. etc etc.

So that particular campaign is bugged, lets try a carrier based one instead. Oh, super‚‚ā¨¬¶. Miles and miles of blue‚‚ā¨¬¶ 1hr 10 mins on the mission clock and still no sign of anyone other than my flight and we return to base. And that's a mission? Load it up with map icons on so I can cheat and see where the enemy are to find that there ARE no enemies about in the entire ocean! Load up again with the external views on to find I can see a view of the enemy carriers, but, as there are no landmarks in the sea, I have no idea where they are and our patrol route sure as hell doesn't go near them. Forget it, engage the autopilot and head home‚‚ā¨¬¶ oops, that was a mistake, it just flew me into the sea‚‚ā¨¬¶ great.

Now you could argue that I should not use autopilot and just fly 'hands on' using the time skip. Which is fine, except that with everything happening 8 times faster, the slightest jiggle on the stick is amplified into a massive yank causing you to crash‚‚ā¨¬¶ plus the screen jerking along soon gives you a blistering case of eye strain.


One on Ones:

Ok, perhaps things are better over on the Japanese side? Let's try being Japanese and torpedoing some carriers‚‚ā¨¬¶except you can't. Unbelievably, there are no carrier based torpedo carrying planes for either side. How can this be? Try the Pearl Harbour mission as a Japanese pilot and you get some tiny 60lb bombs to scratch the ship's paintwork with but not one single torpedo. Even in the Battle of Midway missions, the first and largest carrier battle where aircraft played a massive part in a long range war, you don't get a torpedo bomber. For a game that is based on the Pacific war, this is an almost unforgivable omission.

Ok, how about we forget the single missions with their bugged autopilots and total lack of variety, lets forget the career missions with their bugged autopilots, tedious flight times and incompetent AI. Lets go for some quick missions to see how various planes do against each other.

Hmm, I want to fly something I've not flown before, so lets jump in the F6F and go up against a Zero. Ok, so he's out-turning me, my best bet is to use my plane's superior weight against his light and underpowered plane. I'll dive away from him, pick up speed quicker and come back in for another pass. Oh, he's still right behind me. Ok, let's redline this baby in the vertical, then loop out at the bottom‚‚ā¨¬¶. Eh? He's STILL about 6 feet behind me?

Now I'm no expert and don't claim to be, but from all the biographies and technical data that I've read in the past, this just isn't right. Zeros just can not do high speed dives and stay as manoeuvrable as this game seems to think they can. Sure, they can out turn just about anything in the sky, as US pilots found to their cost early on in the war, but the Zero is relatively slow and suffers from overly light controls which lock up at high speed. So there is something seriously wrong with the flight dynamics there.


Game AI:

But it isn't just the flight model that is flawed. All the AI planes, whether in your own flight or opposing you, are capable of performing moves that just aren't possible. A P47 is a huge plane, weighing in at 9 tons. It can take massive amounts of damage but can't turn with any Japanese plane. The tactic for these guys is to get high, swoop down, make the shot and climb away. However, climb in a Zero, go up against a P47 and spend 10 minutes in a turning dogfight, watching the AI handbrake turn in midair without stalling or spinning.

Ground attack doesn't fair much better, with an old gripe, which has been levelled at the series for a long time and still hasn't been corrected. The gunners, whether on the ground, defending ships or in the back of enemy planes all have a supernatural sniper-like ability to kill you in just a few shots. Get too close to them and you'll soon regret it, in fact you'll very rapidly regret it. Three rounds of tracer fly out the back of a bomber, one round killing your engine, the next round taking out your aileron controls and the last round killing your pilot‚‚ā¨¬¶. This is particularly annoying when you've flown for 40 minutes to get to that point‚‚ā¨¬¶. And yes, it happens in the career and single missions too.


Conclusion:

So in summing up, what have we got here?

Well, as a stand alone game we've got 20 or so actual different planes to fly with a handful of missions across different maps which all look the same because there's lots of sea involved. We've not got some of the planes that are advertised as being in the game and will have to wait for the patch to fly them. We have career modes that are boring at best and, more usually, bugged so badly as to be unplayable. We've got sniper like AI with amazing flying abilities that defy the laws of physics making dog fighting a question of getting a good hit on the first pass or face getting out-flown by a guy with a kite compared to your uber-machine. All in all we've got a bugged and badly executed piece of software, which, if I was new to the genre or series, I'd take back for a refund and buy something else.

Looking at PF from the viewpoint of already owning FB and AEP, you get even less. You still get the same bugged mission and dreadful AI but this time, you get even less in the plane set as most of the varieties of aircraft are already available to you through FB and AEP. All you get here are some more maps and some unenjoyable missions, unplayable careers and the chance to land on or attack carriers, though torpedoing them is out of the question unless you cheat and use a ground based plane off a carrier.

Now don't forget that this is being sold as a full priced game.

You've got to ask yourself, is it worth it? I'd say no, it isn't. As a stand alone game, with its glaring omissions, major and minor bugs and unbalanced gameplay it just isn't worth the asking price. As an add-on for FB+AEP the value in there is even less. You'll already have most of the planes, so why pay for the flight model all over again? From the viewpoint of someone already owning FB+AEP, there simply isn't enough in here to justify the full game price. There's only just enough here to call it an add-on and charge a price in line with an add-on pack. On top of that, given the different compatibilities for different installs, a new player wanting to play with the huge online community is going to be left with little choice but to buy FB and AEP too‚‚ā¨¬¶ so that's two full price games and an add-on just to play online, and, let's face it, there's so little that works in here for the single player, online will be the only way to get any longevity out of it.

All in all, this effort from 1C Maddox positively reeks of being a rushed job. No doubt UbiSoft's thinking is to get the game out before people go and blow their money on Half Life 2 and Christmas. If Ubi had an inkling of what their fans for this series is like, they'd know that the fans will buy this no matter when the game comes out. It would've been far better to have actually play tested this game and eliminated enough of the bugs to make it playable than to have released this poor effort, especially since Ubi thinks they can demand a full game price for unfinished work. If I were you, I'd wait until the game is patched to a playable level before investing. Save your pennies for Half Life 2 and make Ubi wait for your cash until they give you something worth the ‚£35 they're asking.

FOOTNOTE: Throughout the history of the IL2 series, one thing that has always been obvious is the support the games continue to receive from the developers after release. This review is of the boxed copy, retail copy and as such, reflects what you get in that box, NOT what is promised but as yet undelivered. I will re-visit the review after the game has been patched, and if necessary, I will adjust the score.

SCORE 4/10

Pros
It's by 1C Maddox
First prop based carrier sim
Authentic everything
Absolutely HUGE maps
Compatible with FB and AEP (if you have them)

Cons
Bugged all over the place
It's an unfinished game, simple as that.
Plane set not that big, especially if you have FB+AEP


No torpedo bombers in a carrier based sim
Not enough single player missions
Career mode shot to hell
Maps too large
Tedious amount of flying before anything happens
Forgoes fun for authenticity
Not enough content, even as standalone, to justify price
AI either very dumb or too accurate
Code not optimised for latest GFX cards

Takata_
11-01-2004, 05:55 PM
Hexus.net PF review

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD05MDAmdXJsX3BhZ2U9MQ= =

Product: Pacific Fighters
Author: Nick Haywood
Date Of Review: 1st November 2004

Introduction:

At last! Here it is! The much anticipated and, amongst the community, much hyped next instalment of the IL2 series.

This is the game that massive amount of massively loyal IL2 fans have been waiting for ever since it was first mooted last year. Has it got anything to offer those fans? Does it live up to their hopes and expectations? Is there anything in the game to draw new fans in? Let's see.

The IL2 series has been running a good few years now and is largely the work of one man, Oleg Maddox. Since the release of the original IL2 Sturmovich, Mr. Maddox has provided his loyal fans with games of such depth, realism and authenticity that even pilots who actually flew these planes find the games to be as close to the real thing as you can get. Which is some praise indeed and shows just how dedicated Oleg is to getting right.

The original IL2 was superseded by Forgotten Battles, which expanded the first game's plane set, improved the damage and flight models and gave the graphics a serious update. This was followed by an expansion pack called, strangely enough, Aces Expansion Pack which gave virtual pilots even more planes and a Western Front to fly over. At the time, there were some grumblings as both FB and AEP had some rather large bugs or in places just weren't complete with missing campaigns, though these were later resolved in patches.


Pacific Ocean Scene:

So now we have the latest addition to the stable which this time focuses on the American and Japanese battling it out across the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. With previous releases in the IL2 series, each new game was really just an update or add-on for an already established title, whereas PF marks a major departure for the series in that for the majority of the game everything is carrier based. Not a huge difference, you'd think, but when you have a quarter of the normal runway to take off on and the whole **** thing is moving, suddenly things become a tad more interesting‚‚ā¨¬¶. But I'm getting ahead of myself, let's back peddle and have a look at everything else eh?

Now, installing the game gives you three options. You can install it as a standalone product and just play PF, or you can install it over FB and AEP, or do both. The advantage of installing over is that you get all the planes in FB+AEP as well as the new ones in PF. Install it as a standalone and all you get is what's in PF, even if you have FB+AEP elsewhere on your drive.

This is where the first of your problems arise. Different types of install aren't compatible with each other. Not really a huge problem if you're a long term player as you're bound to have the others anyway. But what if you're a new player? PF is a standalone game with the flight engine, damage modelling et al all there and not needing FB+AEP to fly. I guess the thinking behind this is to attract new players or perhaps appeal to a larger market. The snag is that the vast majority of online players already have FB+AEP and will use the install over option to give them access to all the planes. So if you go out and buy this as your first flight sim, you can't fly against anyone other than those who have done a PF only install‚‚ā¨¬¶. And as more planes are available from a dual install, not many people will be flying PF on its own. At the time of writing, out of 70 or so servers, only ONE is running pure stand alone PF with the others being a mix of FB+PF or FB+AEP.

So the point here is that if you're thinking of getting into the game and taking part in the big online wars that they fly, you're still going to have to go out and buy Forgotten Battles and Aces anyway, and that's after having paid for PF as a full price game too.

Ok, so we'll put that gripe to one side and let's have a look at what we've got with PF as a stand alone game.


Plane Sets:

Well, according to the box, we've got all the major types here, everything that played even the tiniest part in the Pacific and Far East campaigns. For the allies you've got a plethora of planes from F-4s (no, not the jet powered ones, the ORIGINAL F-4s), P40s, P51s and Seafires (the carrier version of the Spitfire) and for the Axis side you've got Zeros, Zekes and Betty's‚‚ā¨¬¶ but hang on, lets have a closer look.

It says here that I've got 93 different planes in the game, which is certainly impressive and of those 93, 43 are flyable, which is equally as impressive. It all seems good, doesn't it? But on closer inspection, this is slightly misleading. Those 43 flyable planes include the different sub-types for each plane. So what you actually have, once you exclude the variations is 19 different planes, and that's being generous and counting types like Seafire and Spitfire as different planes, though they were virtually identical. Look even closer and you'll find that some of the types that are listed as flyable on the box actually aren't but will be in a near future patch. Now, I'm all for reasonable patching of a game to make it better, but releasing a game promising something and then AFTER purchase saying it isn't actually there but will in the patch? That's not really on now is it?


Plane Handling:

Ok, let's move on from there and look at the planes themselves.

Well, I've not got any idea how a Seafire should fly or whether a Corsair should stall at whatever speed so I can't really comment on that, but suffice to say that as usual, the 1C team has done itself proud with the way everything flies. Zeros turn tightly, P-47s dive and pick up speed like dropped anvils‚‚ā¨¬¶ and the Beaufighter, not seen in the series before, is sublime. Oh, we're back to new planes again, aren't we? Ok, another gripe. Looking at the plane set for PF, let's also take off those types that were released in the AEP add-on pack‚‚ā¨¬¶. And that leaves us with something like 8 or so actual new aircraft, never flown before types‚‚ā¨¬¶. So the guff on the box, is just that‚‚ā¨¬¶ guff.

Now having firmly established that the planes 'feel' right and that there aren't really as many brand new planes as UbiSoft would have you believe, let's see what the actual game itself has to offer.

As with all the other games in the series, there are plenty of options to keep you entertained. In fact, the front end of the game is identical to all the others. You have a choice of a quick mission builder to just choose what you fly and who to fly against and a comprehensive full mission builder which allows you to set up waypoints, make mission events and do pretty much anything you want. On top of these, and where you'll probably want to spend most of your time is either in the single missions or the career modes, so we'll focus on those.


Missions and Campaign:

The single missions are essentially there to give you a quick fix and let you fly some pre-scripted mission for the various sides in the war. In FB this was great, with lots of variety and enough to keep you engrossed for hours. AEP took a little flak in this area as what missions there were weren't exactly exciting and some even seemed to be clones of others with different planes dropped in.

PF however takes the single missions to whole new level, unfortunately, that level is sub-basement F or even G. Yep, they are dire. For the vast majority of planes, there are no missions, and for what planes do have missions, most of those are 'carrier take off' or 'carrier landing'. In total, for all the planes you have there are a grand total of 11 missions. Of those 11 there are only 4 actual missions with the rest of that 11 being flying different planes or sides in the same 4 missions.

Just so we're clear, this IS a stand alone, full price game, ok?

Alright, so the single missions fall short in number, but perhaps the quality outstrips the quantity? Erm‚‚ā¨¬¶ sort of. This is where the link between authenticity and fun comes in, something which the 1C team seem to have forgotten. Having faithfully followed the authentic route, ensuring my P40 climbs at the right rate and stalls properly, 1C has also opted for realistic maps too. That means you'll sometimes be flying for 40 minutes before anything even reasonably exciting happens. Then you face a 40 minute flight home. Sorry, but if I wanted to do over an hour of flying and not shoot anything, wouldn't I have plumped for MS Flight Sim 2004 instead? This is supposed to be a game about shooting other people down within a historical setting, but it is a game and as such, it's just not fun.

Now, to alleviate the boredom and allow you to do something else whilst flying over oceans of blue, seeing nothing for hours, you can engage the autopilot and use the time skip function‚‚ā¨¬¶At least you could if the autopilot was reliable. I loaded up the Beaufighter campaign, keen to see what this new plane could do, saw how far we had to go and after 15 minutes of staying in formation decided that the autopilot could look after things while I made a cup of tea. I came back, steaming mug in hand to find six smoking holes in the ground and my pilot dead. One quick restart later and it transpires that the autopilot flew me into a hill. But not just me, the AI flew themselves into the hill too‚‚ā¨¬¶ all of them. Reload, crash, reload, boom.. etc etc.

So that particular campaign is bugged, lets try a carrier based one instead. Oh, super‚‚ā¨¬¶. Miles and miles of blue‚‚ā¨¬¶ 1hr 10 mins on the mission clock and still no sign of anyone other than my flight and we return to base. And that's a mission? Load it up with map icons on so I can cheat and see where the enemy are to find that there ARE no enemies about in the entire ocean! Load up again with the external views on to find I can see a view of the enemy carriers, but, as there are no landmarks in the sea, I have no idea where they are and our patrol route sure as hell doesn't go near them. Forget it, engage the autopilot and head home‚‚ā¨¬¶ oops, that was a mistake, it just flew me into the sea‚‚ā¨¬¶ great.

Now you could argue that I should not use autopilot and just fly 'hands on' using the time skip. Which is fine, except that with everything happening 8 times faster, the slightest jiggle on the stick is amplified into a massive yank causing you to crash‚‚ā¨¬¶ plus the screen jerking along soon gives you a blistering case of eye strain.


One on Ones:

Ok, perhaps things are better over on the Japanese side? Let's try being Japanese and torpedoing some carriers‚‚ā¨¬¶except you can't. Unbelievably, there are no carrier based torpedo carrying planes for either side. How can this be? Try the Pearl Harbour mission as a Japanese pilot and you get some tiny 60lb bombs to scratch the ship's paintwork with but not one single torpedo. Even in the Battle of Midway missions, the first and largest carrier battle where aircraft played a massive part in a long range war, you don't get a torpedo bomber. For a game that is based on the Pacific war, this is an almost unforgivable omission.

Ok, how about we forget the single missions with their bugged autopilots and total lack of variety, lets forget the career missions with their bugged autopilots, tedious flight times and incompetent AI. Lets go for some quick missions to see how various planes do against each other.

Hmm, I want to fly something I've not flown before, so lets jump in the F6F and go up against a Zero. Ok, so he's out-turning me, my best bet is to use my plane's superior weight against his light and underpowered plane. I'll dive away from him, pick up speed quicker and come back in for another pass. Oh, he's still right behind me. Ok, let's redline this baby in the vertical, then loop out at the bottom‚‚ā¨¬¶. Eh? He's STILL about 6 feet behind me?

Now I'm no expert and don't claim to be, but from all the biographies and technical data that I've read in the past, this just isn't right. Zeros just can not do high speed dives and stay as manoeuvrable as this game seems to think they can. Sure, they can out turn just about anything in the sky, as US pilots found to their cost early on in the war, but the Zero is relatively slow and suffers from overly light controls which lock up at high speed. So there is something seriously wrong with the flight dynamics there.


Game AI:

But it isn't just the flight model that is flawed. All the AI planes, whether in your own flight or opposing you, are capable of performing moves that just aren't possible. A P47 is a huge plane, weighing in at 9 tons. It can take massive amounts of damage but can't turn with any Japanese plane. The tactic for these guys is to get high, swoop down, make the shot and climb away. However, climb in a Zero, go up against a P47 and spend 10 minutes in a turning dogfight, watching the AI handbrake turn in midair without stalling or spinning.

Ground attack doesn't fair much better, with an old gripe, which has been levelled at the series for a long time and still hasn't been corrected. The gunners, whether on the ground, defending ships or in the back of enemy planes all have a supernatural sniper-like ability to kill you in just a few shots. Get too close to them and you'll soon regret it, in fact you'll very rapidly regret it. Three rounds of tracer fly out the back of a bomber, one round killing your engine, the next round taking out your aileron controls and the last round killing your pilot‚‚ā¨¬¶. This is particularly annoying when you've flown for 40 minutes to get to that point‚‚ā¨¬¶. And yes, it happens in the career and single missions too.


Conclusion:

So in summing up, what have we got here?

Well, as a stand alone game we've got 20 or so actual different planes to fly with a handful of missions across different maps which all look the same because there's lots of sea involved. We've not got some of the planes that are advertised as being in the game and will have to wait for the patch to fly them. We have career modes that are boring at best and, more usually, bugged so badly as to be unplayable. We've got sniper like AI with amazing flying abilities that defy the laws of physics making dog fighting a question of getting a good hit on the first pass or face getting out-flown by a guy with a kite compared to your uber-machine. All in all we've got a bugged and badly executed piece of software, which, if I was new to the genre or series, I'd take back for a refund and buy something else.

Looking at PF from the viewpoint of already owning FB and AEP, you get even less. You still get the same bugged mission and dreadful AI but this time, you get even less in the plane set as most of the varieties of aircraft are already available to you through FB and AEP. All you get here are some more maps and some unenjoyable missions, unplayable careers and the chance to land on or attack carriers, though torpedoing them is out of the question unless you cheat and use a ground based plane off a carrier.

Now don't forget that this is being sold as a full priced game.

You've got to ask yourself, is it worth it? I'd say no, it isn't. As a stand alone game, with its glaring omissions, major and minor bugs and unbalanced gameplay it just isn't worth the asking price. As an add-on for FB+AEP the value in there is even less. You'll already have most of the planes, so why pay for the flight model all over again? From the viewpoint of someone already owning FB+AEP, there simply isn't enough in here to justify the full game price. There's only just enough here to call it an add-on and charge a price in line with an add-on pack. On top of that, given the different compatibilities for different installs, a new player wanting to play with the huge online community is going to be left with little choice but to buy FB and AEP too‚‚ā¨¬¶ so that's two full price games and an add-on just to play online, and, let's face it, there's so little that works in here for the single player, online will be the only way to get any longevity out of it.

All in all, this effort from 1C Maddox positively reeks of being a rushed job. No doubt UbiSoft's thinking is to get the game out before people go and blow their money on Half Life 2 and Christmas. If Ubi had an inkling of what their fans for this series is like, they'd know that the fans will buy this no matter when the game comes out. It would've been far better to have actually play tested this game and eliminated enough of the bugs to make it playable than to have released this poor effort, especially since Ubi thinks they can demand a full game price for unfinished work. If I were you, I'd wait until the game is patched to a playable level before investing. Save your pennies for Half Life 2 and make Ubi wait for your cash until they give you something worth the ‚£35 they're asking.

FOOTNOTE: Throughout the history of the IL2 series, one thing that has always been obvious is the support the games continue to receive from the developers after release. This review is of the boxed copy, retail copy and as such, reflects what you get in that box, NOT what is promised but as yet undelivered. I will re-visit the review after the game has been patched, and if necessary, I will adjust the score.

SCORE 4/10

Pros
It's by 1C Maddox
First prop based carrier sim
Authentic everything
Absolutely HUGE maps
Compatible with FB and AEP (if you have them)

Cons
Bugged all over the place
It's an unfinished game, simple as that.
Plane set not that big, especially if you have FB+AEP


No torpedo bombers in a carrier based sim
Not enough single player missions
Career mode shot to hell
Maps too large
Tedious amount of flying before anything happens
Forgoes fun for authenticity
Not enough content, even as standalone, to justify price
AI either very dumb or too accurate
Code not optimised for latest GFX cards

rummyrum
11-01-2004, 06:11 PM
Well how serious can you take this when large maps are both a pro and a con......come on. I got no problem with critical reviews but this is a bit farcical......first prop based carrier sim, yeah in his short life span I am sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Maple_Tiger
11-01-2004, 06:17 PM
Thats alot of typing.

You do know that there is a patch coming very very soon? Also, they could not put everying on two CD's.

It helps to use 4x instead of 8x.

Sure, there could be more torpedo based planes made flyable for carriers. I'll agree with that.

Have you tride using the 56.72 driver that was recomened?

TX-WarHawk
11-01-2004, 06:17 PM
The reviewer slips on the ball many times, but some arguments are right on the money. Like planeset, missions and about the after-release- patch.

fordfan25
11-01-2004, 06:18 PM
i agree with some of the things he said but defanitly not all of them.this game could have used a few more months dev time IMO. dont get me wrong i was just like every one else i wanted it now lol. hopefully the patch will fix the bugs and give us a few more planes.

If thay do this game the way thay did F.B and AEP with all the devoted patches and free and pay for add on's then i have "ZERO" problem with the game. Heheheh zero problems i crack my self up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LC34
11-01-2004, 06:19 PM
Everyone has their own opinion but when his opinion contradicts his OWN opinion then you just wonder what he was thinking writing that review.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From Author: Nick Haywood
Pros
Absolutely HUGE maps

Cons
Maps too large
Forgoes fun for authenticity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last con I quoted kind of puts his frame of mind in perspective if you ask me. Theres a reason its called a "Flight Simulation" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Like I said I dont care what he thinks we all have our opinion, but hes even arguing with himself!

NegativeGee
11-01-2004, 06:20 PM
Well, I wonder who this Nick Haywood is.... sounds like a few of the regular axe grinders to me...

I'll give him a compliment on succeeding in writing a review in which he manages to give just about every short coming in the IL-2 series a thorough mention. Pity he forgot to mention some of the good points while he was at it.... a slip of the mind? I don't think so.

Heck, he even managed to turn good things (AEP compatability) into glaring flaws. Hmmm... whats your hidden agenda, Nick?

While PF does have some problems, this blows them out off all proportion and does not even attempt to make a balanced portrayal of the product.

I'll be generous and give this review 4/10 and file it under: b*llocks, Sounds like complete.

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

"We would like to endorse this review by Nick Haywood! He is so good at spin even we can learn from him!"

Bearcat99
11-01-2004, 06:20 PM
I bet this guy flew every sim that came out..... I bet he has an incredible reference point..... PF isnt perfect but it is, particularly when combined with FB2.04 the most awesome WW2 product on the market ever. For you new guys... you neednt worry bout some things..... 1C will deliver. Everyone wont be satisfied for sure but for a certainty the final version of this sim will be quality for sure.

Weather_Man
11-01-2004, 06:20 PM
:yawn:

Thanks for sharing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

CaptainFlunky
11-01-2004, 06:38 PM
I really think the only problem with PF is that the bar has been set so high that it would be impossible to live up to our expectations, and that the pacific was such a different kind of war compaired to the eastern front. Lets look at each of those individually;

AEP is the cumulation of how many years of development and patches? Loads. Remember when the original Il-2 came out? we had what, three campaigns and maybe a dozen flyable planes. It was a totally differnet game. I admire the thousands of hours of work and effort that 1C:Maddox put into the game, after he had our money. I can't think of another company that has EVER added free content to a game. A labor of love for sure. Does PF has it's drawbacks? Sure. But I will be willing to bet that it will be a very different game in six months from now. Of course, my only concern is that PF will be put on the backburner and we won't see the sort of support we are used to because BoB is coming down the pike, but thats just my own worry. Is it the best flight sim out of the box I've ever played? No, that would be Longbow. But I know that there is more coming, all the annoying little bugs will be ironed out, and it will be as good, maybe even better than AEP when all's said and done.

As far as the 'flavor' of the theatre, especially carrier opps, it's a totally different ball of wax. At first I was disapointed with the mission selections, flight length, and repetative nature of a campaign for the USN. Then I thought that there might be no other way to depict carrier warfare. It was a series of fleet engagements and island assults over thousands of miles, rather than an almost static war of attrition where enemies were just a handful of miles apart. So although 25 straight missions over Iwo Jima, and it's limitless supply of airplanes housed in heretofore unknown underground bunkers might seem a bit tedious at times, how else could you pull it off? The land based campaigns in PF do need some serious work, which I'm sure will happen.

All in all, I can understand both camps, those who are hugely dissapointed, and those who staunchly defend it. I know that soon enough, PF will be the game we all dreamed of, and in the meantime, do what I do; if you get bored of endless miles of blue, get back in that reliable old Il-2 that we all have known and loved for so many years.

I shall now get off my soapbox.

Takata_
11-01-2004, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaptainFlunky:
(...)All in all, I can understand both camps, those who are hugely dissapointed, and those who staunchly defend it. I know that soon enough, PF will be the game we all dreamed of, and in the meantime, do what I do; if you get bored of endless miles of blue, get back in that reliable old Il-2 that we all have known and loved for so many years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that, but I'm disapointed for newcommers that this game has been so hastly released. I don't say I wasted my ‚"ö¨ 49.99 for PF but this game alone is not worth the money for offline new gamers without a lot of fixes and future community add-ons. On-line PF games are either not very fun with poor Japanese planeset and flak/stutters/pauses issues. Check dogfigts servers and see that very few are playing Jap side at the moment.

CaptainFlunky
11-01-2004, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takata_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaptainFlunky:
(...)All in all, I can understand both camps, those who are hugely dissapointed, and those who staunchly defend it. I know that soon enough, PF will be the game we all dreamed of, and in the meantime, do what I do; if you get bored of endless miles of blue, get back in that reliable old Il-2 that we all have known and loved for so many years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that, but I'm disapointed for newcommers that this game has been so hastly released. I don't say I wasted my ‚"ö¨ 49.99 for PF but this game alone is not worth the money for offline new gamers without a lot of fixes and future community add-ons. On-line PF games are either not very fun with poor Japanese planeset and flak/stutters/pauses issues. Check dogfigts servers and see that very few are playing Jap side at the moment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%. I worry, well not worry, but can understand how newcommers would get this game, play it, say it sucks, and forget about it forever. But then again, if you are at all interested in flightsims, enough to buy one, you'd either have to be living in a cave in Antarctica not to have heard of IL2/FB/AEP. I have to admit that I was at first hesitant of buying the original IL2 back in the day, being a hardcore CFS2 junkie (I know, I know), the russian front didn't interest me in the slightest (now I find it fascinating), and with great trepidation I bought it. My computer at the time couldn't run it so it sat collecting dust on a shelf. Then I got a new rig and decided to install it again, as sort of a benchmark, and haven't stopped playing since.

aminx
11-01-2004, 07:35 PM
i have the sim since one weeck and i agree entirely with what the reviewer stated,it's all true.Worse even the game is unplayable without a top of the line pc with a 650usd graphic card which apparently will anyway not work correctly.I personally felt something was seriously wrong when the forum first opened,i immediately asked wether we would be getting all the torp bombers present at the begining of the conflict and i got rude and abnoxious replies from one of the new developers on the team who never gave a straight reply to anyones questions, then he dissapeared from the forum.With time i realised that we were going to be decepted and now we have to think about another 600-650usd more for a graphic card which we are not even sure will work properly with the sim ,great!!!!!!
aminx

CaptainFlunky
11-01-2004, 07:49 PM
I was just thinking, if PF was released by any other company, I'd be seriously upset, not CFS3 upset, but I'd feel really betrayed.

PlimPlam
11-01-2004, 07:50 PM
I agree with him on the stand alone/add on point he brings up. I put off buying aep because it seemed to me- at the time- to be jets and stuff that never really flew with the spit thrown in as the real plane- yes I know there were other planes too. But that is how it seemed to me.

But I bought it so I could get pf. And I knew I would have to buy it.

But the guys who just wandered in to the store and said neat are going to be stuck with some strange thoughts about where their money went.

That being said people who like to fly wwii planes already know about it. All about it and what it needs to make it work- and how to add all the planes.

So he has a point. But I would like to see where he finds his servers.

Anyways word of mouth brought me here. So Im spoiled I guess.

Only read half the article though as it wasnt very good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Athosd
11-01-2004, 07:52 PM
More of a tirade than a review - I give this effort 4/10.

PF is indeed an expansion - with the unprecedented ability to also be employed as a stand alone. How is that a bad thing?

The lack of flyable torpedo bombers is offset by the inclusion of several very good, and significant, twin engine bomber/attack types.
So PF loses points for not doing exactly what every previous PacWar sim did?

If this fellow desires instant action he can play QMB - plenty of possibilities there. Or, gasp! take a few minutes to learn something about the FMB.

Not saying PF doesn't have warts - but this sort of lopsided whinging reeks.

Sigh

Athos

aminx
11-01-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I bet this guy flew every sim that came out..... I bet he has an incredible reference point..... PF isnt perfect but it is, particularly when combined with FB2.04 the most awesome WW2 product on the market ever. For you new guys... you neednt worry bout some things..... 1C will deliver. Everyone wont be satisfied for sure but for a certainty the final version of this sim will be quality for sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thaaaaats....right keep em happy ,chuck a bone to the dogs.
aminx

Hunde_3.JG51
11-01-2004, 08:42 PM
Unfortunately again, I agree with most of what is said. Not to mention obvious (IMO) FM flaws. There should be torpedo bombers, the offline campaigns are almost unplayable for me as it takes forever for one mission even using time-skip, early problems with campaigns themselves, etc.

Peronally the amount of planes is sufficient for me, BUT that is because I am a fanatic for this stuff (Hell, I would pay $40 just for B-25 and A-20 addition to FB/AEP). But for the casual gamer I'm not so sure.

I especially agree with this part and it has always been true, and IMO it is a real killer:

"Hmm, I want to fly something I've not flown before, so lets jump in the F6F and go up against a Zero. Ok, so he's out-turning me, my best bet is to use my plane's superior weight against his light and underpowered plane. I'll dive away from him, pick up speed quicker and come back in for another pass. Oh, he's still right behind me. Ok, let's redline this baby in the vertical, then loop out at the bottom‚‚ā¨¬¶. Eh? He's STILL about 6 feet behind me?"

As an experienced FW-190 driver I can tell you how disgusting this is, offline and online.

Unfortuantely I think they made a mistake with PF, it really needed more time to develop. I feel bad for Oleg & crew for the amount they have to work and be under the pressure of deadlines. I hope they take as much time as they need with BoB, if there is a BoB.

To be honest I am more concerned about what this release will do to 1C/Maddox than about the game itself. I am just afraid that newcomers will form a bad opinion of them, unaware of their tremendous support as we regulars are accustomed to. I have complete confidence in 1C/Maddox, but that has come through experience, experience unknown to many unfortunately.

I highly recommend buying FB/AEP/PF, but not PF as a standalone if you are a newcomer. You may get the wrong first impression, and we know how important first impressions are. Like I said, I hope 1C/Maddox doesn't suffer too much from this, as we will likely all suffer in the end. Dam* the political/financial aspect of it all.

Maple_Tiger
11-01-2004, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LC34:
Everyone has their own opinion but when his opinion contradicts his OWN opinion then you just wonder what he was thinking writing that review.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From Author: Nick Haywood
Pros
Absolutely HUGE maps

Cons
Maps too large
Forgoes fun for authenticity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last con I quoted kind of puts his frame of mind in perspective if you ask me. Theres a reason its called a "Flight Simulation" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Like I said I dont care what he thinks we all have our opinion, but hes even arguing with himself! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



LMFAO...lol

Eraser_tr
11-01-2004, 09:05 PM
not exactly the most reliable review source I must add. That whole review was pretty much a sum of all the whines possible.

On out of the box flyables, there are significant differences between some variants. He also seems to forget that most sims out of the box have fewer flyables, and that the planes that were in AEP, the FM's are improved(ie p-38 being more stable)
He compares FB/AEP's highly developed state to PF having only been just released, not il2 or FB when they were first released.

Doesn't really matter to me what he thinks, PF installed as an addon fixed every little gripe I had with FB before it and added onto it nicely.

Tully__
11-01-2004, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aminx:
...Worse even the game is unplayable without a top of the line pc with a 650usd graphic card which apparently will anyway not work correctly.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, it plays fine on my P4 2.0GHz with 768MB PC2100, GF4 Ti4200 and Creative Vibra!128 sound on excellent settings and is even tolerable on perfect (though I did have a CTD on perfect). Hardly "top of the line", though by no means bargain basement.

VW-IceFire
11-01-2004, 09:18 PM
I'll agree to some of what is said upto the point where he says its less value for people who already own FB+AEP. Truth be told...once PF gets a few patches and some fixes here and there we'll be back flying in 3 theaters all over the place and it'll be great.

LuftKuhMist
11-01-2004, 09:32 PM
How previsible that the wolfpack of fanboys would defend a GAME and attack the credibility of this guy.

Man, 4/10 is LOW (too low if you ask me) but this ain't a good STANDALONE game nonetheless.

BaldieJr
11-01-2004, 09:52 PM
Blah. Blah. Blah.

I have PF installed as stand-alone on my work-machine and I'm having a great time with it.

I have it installed with FB+AEP at home and I'm having a great time with it.

Is it perfect? Hell no.

Is it fun? Hell yes.

Does anything else really matter? Hell no.

Why? Because 1C has always came through in the past.

Now if the reviewers could just write a review that tells readers that the series is FUN I might take thier reviews seriously.

Remember the glowing CFS3 reviews?

Afreaka
11-01-2004, 10:29 PM
I will as many in this thread and on the background of this somewhat biased review join in the chorus of booohs. And yeahs... More specifically for any newcomers to the game who might at first glance overlook the shortcommings of the game as a standalone product. Equally the higher standards Oleg & crew have been able deliver in the past. One had almost become accustomed. And with that in mind a fatigued, ohhh no..., permiates the thread as the gamepackage is flung throught the mail and lands breaking like fine china.
What is the Zero's true top speed? climbrate? Anyone?
Our knowledge is truely common yet divided as it was once said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Stiglr
11-01-2004, 10:43 PM
This review isn't "biased" at all.

Boy, if I'd written it, you sure wouldn't have seen "the planes feel right". They don't (this based on AEP progress of the FMs, confident that FP is more of the same, just with different errors on different planes). Haven't since the beginning of IL-2, back when there WAS fairly accurate energy bleed and earth atmosphere.

The bones the reviewer picks are apt ones. The package is touted as a standalone, and as such, it seems to disappoint. I think that the fact that it has much more utility to someone who owns AEP is worth noting.

Afreaka
11-01-2004, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This review isn't "biased" at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, I was trying to be 'nice'. Biased, as on the bases of what, dare I say, 'we' have come to expect from maddox. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Ruy Horta
11-01-2004, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I bet this guy flew every sim that came out..... I bet he has an incredible reference point..... PF isnt perfect but it is, particularly when combined with FB2.04 the most awesome WW2 product on the market ever. For you new guys... you neednt worry bout some things..... 1C will deliver. Everyone wont be satisfied for sure but for a certainty the final version of this sim will be quality for sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Harsh review, but not unexpected.
He makes many valid points about the stand alone state of PF. Unfortunately off this board and in the general public people can be more critical than the worst whiner, with on added extra - they might NOT buy the game.

You are lucky with such a dedicated group of fans.

Dipping your head in the sand or (until we see "free" patchea filling all the gaps) delivering just empty promises doesn't mean much.

You yourself have announced this game as released a week or so ago, so where is the release patch?

heywooood
11-01-2004, 11:10 PM
..hmmmm, I wonder if anyone thinks.....nah.

In the interest of being objective about this review, let me say that he mentioned the patch and offered to revise this article post patch and that this was only a critique of the boxed PF....albeit a tad on the harsh side.

I still dont have my copy so I'll just go stand over here next to the lamp now.

I suggest you all take this review with a truckload of salt, mm-kay?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

necrobaron
11-01-2004, 11:20 PM
I'm enjoying PF, but what can I say? He brings up some valid points. I do disagree with some of his points and the final score, though. Currently, I'd put PF around a 7.0-7.5 out of 10.

Even still, I'm not overly upset about PF's shortcomings given 1C's record of post-release support. With any luck, after a few patches PF will be up to par.

I do have sympathies for anyone who bought PF, but doesn't have FB,AEP or an internet connection(for the patches). In that scenario, I agree that PF isn't worth the $40.00 price.

clint-ruin
11-01-2004, 11:28 PM
I'd love to read a postmortem-of-a-game on PF on Gamasutra.

Two things that seem to have completely stuffed development:

Time constraints, being forced to rush for an october release.

The little poll Oleg ran on integrating PF with AEP installations.

If you add one really, really huge feature that requires a fair amount of Q&A so as not to completely stuff peoples existing installations .. and then push the release date forward .. guess what? Some kind of compromise has to be found. Any feature that was not already 99.9% done when that request from UBI came down the line was probably dropped immediately.

I don't think you'll find too many people saying that v3.00 of PF has absolutely no room for improvement. The good news is, it's being improved. Unfortunately UBI aren't the only ones being hurt by bad press over this rushed release.

diabloblanco1
11-01-2004, 11:36 PM
Reviewers often take themselves too seriously. In turn some people take the reveiw of a game too seriously. I prefer to buy games and try them for myself. I don't base buying a game I my like based on a gaming review. I try it and keep or take it back based on "my" personal experience. Some of my favorite games got poor reviews and some of the dog games I returned got GREAT reviews(probably paid off for it). My dime for the day.

chris455
11-01-2004, 11:48 PM
Dude-
The next time you post something this lengthy can you at least give us a hint and entitle it appropriately? (like, "War and Peace" maybe?)

MK2aw
11-01-2004, 11:50 PM
I think PF is awesome, and i have been playing since commodore 64 F-15 strike eagle.

slap DGENBETA3.11 and you are off and runnning.

did anyone see my screen shot post?



Mk2aw

RiesenSchnauzer
11-01-2004, 11:53 PM
I am a big fan and expect many improvements but I don't like reading things like there wasn't enough room on two cd's and then seeing the EXACT SAME planes in PF that are in AEP with NO changes to flight model, variants, or loadouts. If you are going to stick the same Pony in then give it rockets or something. This was just filler material because so many models were not done. I would have rather seen the P-47N than all of the P-51, P-47, P-38, P-39, and P-63 repeats. Its total overlap which is bull for a new full game. I paid for the same models twice.

Even so, Oleg usually gives above and beyond the call of duty to those who are patient and I am certainly enjoying this new game. I do think that a new buyer may be left in the lurch.

sapre
11-02-2004, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiesenSchnauzer:
I am a big fan and expect many improvements but I don't like reading things like there wasn't enough room on two cd's and then seeing the EXACT SAME planes in PF that are in AEP with NO changes to flight model, variants, or loadouts.I would have rather seen the P-47N than all of the P-51, P-47, P-38, P-39, and P-63 repeats. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HAHAHA
Very funny.
Do you even have the PF?
If so, you havnt even flyed the old planes.

TheJoyStick
11-02-2004, 12:14 AM
Did they even add new p51s, p47s, p38s, or p39s?

I don't think so..


However, here's my .02$


Well.. To start off, PF MP is the most fun thing I've ever experienced in my life.. I've yet to play on a 128 person server, but the one's I've played on have been lagless and very, very enjoyable (unless I have to fly jap, as I have very poor TnB skills, and, well.. Those planes aren't very forgiving, seeing as how a rock could snap one like a twig)


The new planes they added are fine with me.. I can fly the f4s, but don't really like em much..

PF to me is more of a payed-for patch that makes the game more like it was back in the original IL2 days with the ability to hear through the cockpit (MAJOR PLUS), the reduced muzzle flash (which, IMO, is worth about 2$ in itself), and the new maps...

All of that stuff is well worth the price, and the game runs like a top on-line.

I don't give two shats about offline, cuz that's boring me-vs-AI who cannot feel anyway. Good for target practice, but boring in the long run..



And now I can actually fly as an American against the Japanese, rather than Axis Vs Allies.

Great stuff. Although I really, really, really want that patch.

cafflier
11-02-2004, 12:27 AM
Hi,
Maybe I can add a little first hand info here. I belong to the CAF in Southern California and we operate an A6M3 Model 22 and an F6F-5. The F6F will RUN AWAY from a Zero going downhill. It will out accelerate and outrun a Zero in level flight unless the Hellcat still has it's drop tank, in which case it's about even. At about 225kts if you drop the combat flaps it has a rate of turn that'll make your eyes water and will blur the scenery but will bleed energy rapidly. If you don't tag your Zeke in the first 180-270, you better have lots of sky beneath you. Roll into the inside of the turn and pull into a steep dive. Use the higher roll rate and keep rolling to the right until you're out of phase with the Zeke and begin a gradual pull and seperate out of gun range, which you can do easily. A friend of mine, James E. Duffy who flew with VF-15 off the Essex tried this at about a thousand feet one day and it almost got him killed. He got about 180 degrees around the circle, got his pipper just over the cowling of the Zero, which was pulling streamers off his wingtips, but could not get any deflection. Then the Zero started to slide ever more rapidly up the windshield, and back along the canopy and over Jim's shoulder. At this point, the Grumman was buffeting pretty good and he was really scared. He rolled wings level, lowered the nose and headed for the deck. Unfortunately, he didn't have any altitude so he had to level off just above the waves, slowly starting to pull away while the Zeke, now in his six, started chopping him to bits. John Strane, his element lead, shot the Zero off his tail.
The ability of a Hellcat to outrun any Zero is a very well known characteristic. Ten minutes spent in research would uncover this. The fact that you can't do that in this game makes me seriously doubt many of the other flight dynamics modelled here. By the way, an F6F will also turn with, but not outturn, a Zero at or above about 15000ft.
That said, up till now, I've always been a fan. I went out and upgraded my computer when I first saw IL2. I went to the nice lady at Dell and said "Make it so I can play this". I got my computer, got the game and was sooooo happy. I've been happy ever since, until now. Nothing is perfect and IL2, FB and AEP had little bugs, just like you'd expect. The difference here is that the previous games were finished products with some small imperfections (most of which I was unaware of) whereas PF, to me, seems not to be finished at all and to have been produced by a different bunch of people. My game which was fun and, as long as I kept the graphics level reasonable and my drivers updated, smooth and beaufiful has turned into a buggy, stuttery pain in the neck.
I think that one of the real give aways to the whole "authenticity" issue is the really bad paint schemes and the very poor job done at providing markings. Thank God for the independent skinners out there!! After all, if UBI can't be bothered going for authenticity in such a visible and easy to fix area, why should I believe they bothered elsewhere. They couldn't even get something as basic as the dates on the aircraft menu right. A while ago, a developer (called Lucien, maybe?) asked for help through these forums in developing the Japanese types. I suggested j-aircraft.com which is a treasure trove of accurate well researched info. It is sadly obvious that little effort was expended in this area.
The issue the "reviewer" brought up regarding the number of types provided in the game is, I think, worthy of comment. This deception is not new from UBI Soft and I always took such claims with a grain of salt. Six varients of Bf109 and five FW190's is NOT eleven different types. I thought that was really stretching things a bit but since I have a hard enough time learning two or three types anyway, I figured the great graphics made up for it. But to falsely advertise flyable aircraft on the box is too much!! One of the other people in here repeated the excuse that "they couldn't put everything on just two CD's. Well, then, use three!!
I was prepared to accept the unlikely performance characteristics and poor aircraft markings so long as I could enter "UBI World" and get into a really good dogfight now and again. Good luck in PF!! Despite the fact that both sides had radar, there is no way to get vectored onto enemy aircraft across this vast featureless expanse of ocean, unless you use the map with icons, which, I suppose, amounts to the same thing.
I always thought of these games as a not really serious attempt at modelling reality and just accepted that. However, this time around, I really feel let down. I feel like uninstalling this thing, getting my money back and going back to good old reliable FB+AEP.

RiesenSchnauzer
11-02-2004, 01:01 AM
Sapre,
By all means enlighten me. Maybe your copy is different from mine.

sapre
11-02-2004, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiesenSchnauzer:
Sapre,
By all means enlighten me. Maybe your copy is different from mine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry for being rude in my last post, but theres been a quite a big change in the FM of some of old aircraft.
P51 turn rate decreased, P38 much more stable now, P47 dive faster etc.etc

lazio5
11-02-2004, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LC34:
Everyone has their own opinion but when his opinion contradicts his OWN opinion then you just wonder what he was thinking writing that review.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From Author: Nick Haywood
Pros
Absolutely HUGE maps

Cons
Maps too large
Forgoes fun for authenticity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last con I quoted kind of puts his frame of mind in perspective if you ask me. Theres a reason its called a "Flight Simulation" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Like I said I dont care what he thinks we all have our opinion, but hes even arguing with himself! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not hard to see in the review that he is saying that the option to fly in big maps is a plus but that it can be an annoyance when you want to get to some action.

A little long but homerun review.

Old_Canuck
11-02-2004, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aminx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I bet this guy flew every sim that came out..... I bet he has an incredible reference point..... PF isnt perfect but it is, particularly when combined with FB2.04 the most awesome WW2 product on the market ever. For you new guys... you neednt worry bout some things..... 1C will deliver. Everyone wont be satisfied for sure but for a certainty the final version of this sim will be quality for sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thaaaaats....right keep em happy ,chuck a bone to the dogs.
aminx <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

aminx, what's up with you? By your registration date it appears you've been around for awhile but you don't remember (or you chose not to remember) the dedication of Oleg and his team. They won't leave this sim unfinished just as they haven't left the earlier versions unfinished.

It seems like we've been keeping company with sleeper trolls who wait for a moment like this to further a hidden agenda. Let's keep it in perspective. When all the patches are in, this sim will still be a hot item no matter what the reviewers say.

Do you listen movie reviewers too? There are a few posters on this forum who's opinions I respect because I've gotten to know them by reading through their ideas and by learning the quality of their characters. But who is this reviewer? Never heard of him ... or her.

Skii_
11-02-2004, 02:49 AM
Have a look at www.top100famousreviewers.com (http://www.top100famousreviewers.com)

This reviewer is a member of the community here, before reviewing his copy he aired a number of concerns about PF to the community here.

He was dismissed as a whiner (sorry 'Whinner') his post deleted and told by one of the moderators here if he had any criticisms of PF to 'go pen an editorial'

So, being a reviewer for the UKs largest hardware review site...

..he did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Athosd
11-02-2004, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skii_:
Have a look at http://www.top100famousreviewers.com

This reviewer is a member of the community here, before reviewing his copy he aired a number of concerns about PF to the community here.

He was dismissed as a whiner (sorry 'Whinner') his post deleted and told by one of the moderators here if he had any criticisms of PF to 'go pen an editorial'

So, being a reviewer for the UKs largest hardware review site...

..he did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To get his posts deleted he must have behaved like something of a ratbag.
So its a revenge review? How character building.

MA_Moby
11-02-2004, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LC34:
Everyone has their own opinion but when his opinion contradicts his OWN opinion then you just wonder what he was thinking writing that review.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From Author: Nick Haywood
Pros
Absolutely HUGE maps

Cons
Maps too large
Forgoes fun for authenticity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last con I quoted kind of puts his frame of mind in perspective if you ask me. Theres a reason its called a "Flight Simulation" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Like I said I dont care what he thinks we all have our opinion, but hes even arguing with himself! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez - don't you get that something can be both a pro AND a con?

Big maps! Yes, they're great, especially ones like the New Guinea map where there is so much to look at. They give more options for mission building and so on.

Big maps! Yes, they're bad. In some of the career missions you can be flying over featureless ocean for over an hour befopre getting ot the target (if you can find it in the featureless ocean) before spending another hour flying back.

It is possible to see both sides of the coin. This is what a good reviwer is supposed to do - to see both the pros and the cons. And that is why this is a very well written and balanced review.

Skii_
11-02-2004, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
To get his posts deleted he must have behaved like something of a ratbag.
So its a revenge review? How character building. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I guess we'll never know - we'll leave that to the mods unbiased and impartial discretion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Revenge review ? looked pretty factual to me.

Ruy Horta
11-02-2004, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
aminx, what's up with you? By your registration date it appears you've been around for awhile but you don't remember (or you chose not to remember) the dedication of Oleg and his team. They won't leave this sim unfinished just as they haven't left the earlier versions unfinished. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First you cannot write a review based upon a promise, at the time of release you have a product. You review that product as a standalone as is.

In the financial world there is a disclaimer.

Experiences in the past do not present any guarantees for the future.

In that regard PF is only as good as the latest available version.

Standalone PF is not perfect, some may think its far less than perfect.

Once the patch is available for download we can discuss if Maddox delivers what he promises.

Chances are much of what was promised for the orginal game will only see the light after 6-12 months and than in another paid add on.

But still FB+AEP+PF is great value for money, sure, and so will FB+AEP+PF+???

In the end a game is only as good as the latest patch.

Ruy Horta
11-02-2004, 03:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skii_:
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I guess we'll never know - we'll leave that to the mods unbiased and impartial discretion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Revenge review ? looked pretty factual to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Deckard71
11-02-2004, 03:29 AM
Time for a word from the guy who wrote the review, which would be me.

No, this isn't a revenge review.

Prior to writing the review, I had a long and detailed e-mail conversation with Ubisoft's Markerting team, not just in the UK but for Europe, such were my concerns over the game. I even returned to the shop and exchanged the game for a new copy to make sure I didn't have a duff disk!

If you care to check over on SimHQ forums, I've spent a great deal of time explaining why the score is as it is.

I didn't behave like a ratbag in my first post on thses forums, I broke no posting rules and merely asked some pertinent questions regarding my concerns over the game. I have a copy of the post saved, but as it was deleted first time around, I don't think that it would be polite or proper to re-post it.

lazio5 has seen my point about the map sizes being both a good and a bad point.

Now if people would just read the review with an open mind, you'll find that there is very little in there that is personal opinion and not based on facts.

Facts such as the limited planeset, the bugged campaigns, the lack of single missions... the list goes on.

I'm a long time flight sim pilot and IL2:FB+AEP is the ONLY game that stays on my drive and I fly it everyday, so I'm not some guy who was handed a copy having never flown a sim and gave up after ten minutes, ok?

To be fair, I have added a footnote that I WILL return and re-evaluate the game after it has been patched. How many reviewers offer to do that?

Does that not show that I am willing to give this game every chance of getting a good score? Don't forget, I reviewed a boxed, retail copy (a fact I made clear in the review) and the score reflects what is in the box, not what has been promised to be fixed later. No-one can write a review based on what is coming up, only on what they have.

Thank you.

MA_Moby
11-02-2004, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cafflier:
Maybe I can add a little first hand info here. I belong to the CAF in Southern California and we operate an A6M3 Model 22 and an F6F-5. The F6F will RUN AWAY from a Zero going downhill. It will out accelerate and outrun a Zero in level flight unless the Hellcat still has it's drop tank, in which case it's about even. At about 225kts if you drop the combat flaps it has a rate of turn that'll make your eyes water and will blur the scenery but will bleed energy rapidly. If you don't tag your Zeke in the first 180-270, you better have lots of sky beneath you. Roll into the inside of the turn and pull into a steep dive. Use the higher roll rate and keep rolling to the right until you're out of phase with the Zeke and begin a gradual pull and seperate out of gun range, which you can do easily. A friend of mine, James E. Duffy who flew with VF-15 off the Essex tried this at about a thousand feet one day and it almost got him killed. He got about 180 degrees around the circle, got his pipper just over the cowling of the Zero, which was pulling streamers off his wingtips, but could not get any deflection. Then the Zero started to slide ever more rapidly up the windshield, and back along the canopy and over Jim's shoulder. At this point, the Grumman was buffeting pretty good and he was really scared. He rolled wings level, lowered the nose and headed for the deck. Unfortunately, he didn't have any altitude so he had to level off just above the waves, slowly starting to pull away while the Zeke, now in his six, started chopping him to bits. John Strane, his element lead, shot the Zero off his tail.
The ability of a Hellcat to outrun any Zero is a very well known characteristic. Ten minutes spent in research would uncover this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's good that there are some people with first hand experience of these things out there to set the record straight, though as you say a quick scan of a few books on the subject would have told them this.

I know that veterens were consulted for the creation of both IL2 FB and AEP. Experts, and a professional pilot with an intimate knowledge of and understanding of WWII aircraft (whatever this means) were consulted for the creation of PF. So how this glaring flight modelling error could happen is a bit of a mystery.

I know that if I were making this kind of game I'd be talking to people who actually still operate these aeroplanes and lovingly keep them airworthy, such as CAF.

Thanks for the post. Very good and interesting reading.

CHDT
11-02-2004, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Hmm, I want to fly something I've not flown before, so lets jump in the F6F and go up against a Zero. Ok, so he's out-turning me, my best bet is to use my plane's superior weight against his light and underpowered plane. I'll dive away from him, pick up speed quicker and come back in for another pass. Oh, he's still right behind me. Ok, let's redline this baby in the vertical, then loop out at the bottom‚‚ā¨¬¶. Eh? He's STILL about 6 feet behind me?"

As an experienced FW-190 driver I can tell you how disgusting this is, offline and online. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The ability of a Hellcat to outrun any Zero is a very well known characteristic. Ten minutes spent in research would uncover this. The fact that you can't do that in this game makes me seriously doubt many of the other flight dynamics modelled here. By the way, an F6F will also turn with, but not outturn, a Zero at or above about 15000ft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And true again!

Gerfinkle
11-02-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takata_:
Different types of install aren't compatible with each other.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've gotta be kidding me. Please tell me this will be fixed with the addon, otherwise I guess I can forget playing it online.

As someone who only has the original IL-2 and thus is playing PF standalone, that review pretty much sums up my feelings about the campain etc. The game feels very much incomplete and I just can't comprehend the decision to release it without the 3rd cd of content. Haven't Ubi heard of DVD's?

That said, I am well aware of Olegs great support and expect much from the addon.

marmossel
11-02-2004, 04:59 AM
I keep hearing about this 3rd CD problem, and it's already a very annoying thing.

Forget about the 3rd CD!!! UBI didn't put it in there, and not because the package would have cost more (lol, the production price of a mass inscriptionated CD is like 10 cents, or even less), but because they did NOT had something to put on that CD.

It's simply the way UBI chose to tell us they released the game earlier and didn't had yet a part of the content they advertised PF will have.

It's just a plain and simple LIE!!!

Beware UBI, as some not so careing PF buyer can sue you because the product don't include everything it's advertised on the case (including the famous release-day-patch)!

ReenoKAH
11-02-2004, 06:05 AM
I have been playing il2 since its original release, I also have fb+aep and now pf. I have always been a big fan of the game and found it good value for money, very good fun and seems reasonably accurate as well. That said I have to agree with most of the review, hardly any suitable new aircraft to fly (No seaplanes ie Catalina etc to fly in the pacific), no missions to speak of, aaa and aircraft gunners with sniper like abilitys still the rule rather than the exception, some very dodgy ai and the real finishing touch for me NO CARRIER BORNE TORPEDO AIRCRAFT in a naval campaign based game. If you wish to fly a japanese aircraft you have no offensive capabilitys whatsoever.

I have no doubt that oleg maddox will address most of these problems eventualy and that the game will be developed to the same standards as il2+fb+aep but for the moment I for one feel ripped off and if I where new to the game would definatly not be encouraged to stay with the il2 range of products.

ps. A message for ubi soft. For pacific fighters 4/10 is about right as far as value for money is concerned.

aminx
11-02-2004, 07:09 AM
CAMPAIGNS and MISSIONS:
I am a european that has lived in the states my son was born there and i read an average of one soft or hardcover book about the pacific conflict per month (just received the blue devils)next month i start the first team and i finnished two months ago fire in the sky amongst other smaller specific battle soft cover booklets,what must be dismaying to you all is that not one campaign or mission resembles or gets anywhere close to what happened during the conflict.When i saw the list i could'nt believe it.It's plain not serious.
REKON:
This was a determining factor in decision making and outcome of battle in almost all the crucial battles so why do they give us reckon planes which dont communicate enemy postions to base and then on to us to attack?This feature existed 10 years ago with Microprose.
TORP BOMBERS:
Time and time again this subject was brought up,we were given all sorts of excuses but never directly from the developers,none were founded.This proves to us how out of touch the management is with reality, john wayne's green beret stile of entertainment for the ignorant masses.
i'm now going to switch on my tv "3pm right now in switzerland" here to see how the elections results are looking.
aminx

Ruy Horta
11-02-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aminx:
This proves to us how out of touch the management is with reality, john wayne's green beret stile of entertainment for the ignorant masses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I agree that PF just doesn't cut it as a standalone and is generally unfinished (or more specifically too rushed) its not as bad as portrayed here.

The FM is one of the best available and the general finish is on par with the previous series, that's also the main beef since its content is mainly the previous serie.

For an evolutionary development or spin off the general state of PF is under par.

But regardless of criticism I might have (and you know I am ready to type paragraph after paragraph filled with them) I think FB+AEP+PF is a great product.

As a stand alone its too rough to review positively.

I simply cannot accept PF on the promise of future developments, it is as good as it stands today or after the latest patch...

The eys are on Ubi and Maddox, lets see if they manage to keep both their word and live up to expectation (to a realistic extend...)

One of my benchmarks is the old list which they themselves released of campaigns, maps and objects.

If they deliver these with free patches, they were true to their word. If they only deliver up to that point within an paid add on, they only managed to do so under false pretenses.

If they fail altogether...their word isn't as worth as much as some think.

Lets see what the free patches bring, right?

Mezcal_Head
11-02-2004, 08:03 AM
Im not trying to change anyones mind just pointing out some of my thaughts on the subject

the aircraft count and other issues cocerning planes from variouse posts no need to quote:

A20, B-25, Beaufighter, Hellcat, Wildcat, F4U group, Val, Tony, and SBD's alone are worth the price to me, and are all brand new to the series.

There is a seaplane the A6M varient with the floats, and two more on the way in second addon the CAT being one of them

Only one plane is missing that is promised on the pakage thats the Betty, but you can climb into her shortly when first addon is released

No carrier born Torps is sad, but not a killer they should be on the way. For now dive bombing and dog fights are still realy fun in the Pacific as far as im cocerned.

All other poopoos about PF:

Crying (yes crying) over the combatibility of dif versions is just silly. (im being nice)You couldnt fly FB with IL2 or FB with FB+AEP so what would make you think that you could fly PF with anything other than PF. Also the fact that Most of us cried when PF was being developed to have it be able to install over FB+AEP. It must make Oleg well up and cry now when you complain about it. Its two different versions just like a patch. there is no game in the world that will let you play two different versions together. What a great feature this is i love it.

i had a lot more about XBOX/GAMECUBE type games vs PC make your own stuff like NWN FB PF and a slew of others but im to tired.

Yes it is incomplete but i can still enjoy it and i know others do too. Thats the bottom line that its still enjoyable bugs and all.

by the way RomeTW multiplayer is realy Fun another great game.

sapre
11-02-2004, 08:27 AM
This topic is getting out of control!

TX-WarHawk
11-02-2004, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
This topic is getting out of control! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second that!

il2rookie
11-02-2004, 09:33 AM
The review is right on the spot. I cannot help but feel bad for the 1C:Maddox dev team as they've put a gigantic effort in putting together the internals of the game (which I appreciate a lot being a developer myself, so props to them) only to fail miserably with the presentation side (or have been forced to release the game way before it was ready for it). The reviewer as he says is a time-tested IL2 series fan, and as one is very objective in his review. I've had very similarly disappointing experience with the PF so far as well.

Having mainly been playing offline without decent internet for the past couple months, I have invested money in several static campaigns for FB which were available in Russia. With installation of PF none of them are playable any more. That's fine as long as I can play new dynamic campaigns with features such as varying outcome of campaigns and the war itself, which I've been greatly looking forward to, right? No, wrong. The Pearl Harbob mission from an IJN dynamic campaign I've started had me spend 10 minutes flying to the location, only to shoot some ground targets and fly 10 more minutes home. Then spending another 10 mins flying around in the second mission without seeing any enemy; finally two Wildcats show up in the third mission which makes for a total of fourty minutes of staring at the black screen for the 2 minutes of fighting. Well I don't care much for this kind of historical realism, I shelled out $40 for the PF to enjoy the game not stare at the black screen.

Aside from single-player issues, there are some realism gimmicks which I don't remember seeing in FB. AI aces can now do an amazing U-turn at almost zero speed without stalling. Or how do they manage to instantly drop 50km/h right in front of you and make a maneuver you can't repeat in a more maneurable aircraft? (this is from zero vs AI aces in wildcats). It all sums up for me to reinstalling FB/AEP and playing that until PF is fixed. To me that's not a big deal, as I don't mind waiting for the fixes having spent the money for PF, but an average gamer will bring the game for the refund. It all doesn't make much sense; why spend such a huge effort on the game engine to only come up short in much more simple stuff?

PF_Coastie
11-02-2004, 09:44 AM
Ok, Now I realize that some people really need to stretch the dollar and must follow a budget to survive. But, we are talking about $40 here guys. There is already a patch out for the DGEN bugs and another to follow.

Lets do some comparisons here:

1. 4-6 hours golfing: $30-100 depending on course.

2. Dinner for 2 at average restaurant: $40-50

3. A 2 hour movie at the theater for 2: $20-30

4. Years of entertainment from PF with more FREE flyable planes, campaigns, missions and patches from the most dedicated game developers in history: Priceless!

Geeze guys, I would have paid 60 bucks for this game without hesitation because I know that any problems WILL be fixed by 1C Maddox. I just don't know where you can get a better dollar for dollar value for personal entertainment.

To base all this on One guys review is being quite naive.

My .02 worth.

clint-ruin
11-02-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by il2rookie:
The Pearl Harbob mission from an IJN dynamic campaign I've started had me spend 10 minutes flying to the location, only to shoot some ground targets and fly 10 more minutes home. Then spending another 10 mins flying around in the second mission without seeing any enemy; finally two Wildcats show up in the third mission which makes for a total of fourty minutes of staring at the black screen for the 2 minutes of fighting. Well I don't care much for this kind of historical realism, I shelled out $40 for the PF to enjoy the game not stare at the black screen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to say first off - I agree with everything you said.

That said..

If real pacific combat was months - even years of flying for some units without any major action of any kind - and missions were endless patrols over open sea - and the sim is supposed to be a realistic simulation of the PTO...

What else is there going to be except flying around? I think there is this kind of tension between wanting instant action fun, and wanting absolute uncompromising realism here on the forums. If people here hold one or the other view - fine for us. If you have to develop a game to cater to both mindsets - what do you do?

I think there should have been a -lot- more time invested in shipping single missions - major actions in the PTO are pretty well documented down to the last aircraft from the last unit, at least on the US side. But they're not in the game. While the FMB is far from the most advanced tool available, it's really not that hard to throw a set number of aircraft at a target and then have them RTB. Doesn't take much time at all, beats me why they didn't assign some of these off to internet people [even ones without PF betas - just change the names in the .mis file to the right units] and just get them on the shipping CD.

T_O_A_D
11-02-2004, 10:11 AM
Within a month we will have so many downlods for missions third party it won't be funny. Sit back relax if you can't make your own they are coming be sure!

clint-ruin
11-02-2004, 10:16 AM
Yup yup, I've been having a lot of fun with some of the new FMB toys [just found that they finally added "5 cargo" as a loadout for the C-47]. But I've been playing this game for years, I know the FMB, I know the dynamic campaigns are going to be utterly terrible and don't bother with them. Some kid who gets PF in his christmas stocking is going to be a different story though.

VFA-195 Snacky
11-02-2004, 10:38 AM
It's got some good things and it has some bad things. PF is buggy and needs more work.
Some may not like to hear that and feel they need to stroke the developers so they stay motivated, but this review is not totally off the wall. The reviewers past sims owned makes no difference, he has every right to say what he thinks. Anyone here can write a review with no more experience than this guy.

Baron_99th
11-02-2004, 01:13 PM
Well, after reading through some of these posts, it got me thinking...

For me personally, a measure of a sim's success has less to do with omissions, inaccuracies and more to do with how much fun I'm having playing it.

Obviously, everyone's idea of fun is different, but after reading some of the posts in this thread, I couldn't help thinking, rather than dwell so much on what this sim has not got, or does not do, look at what it does do.

At the end of the day, if what is left gives you hours of fun and enjoyment, then...just enjoy yourself!

If on the other hand, you do not get any kind of enjoyment out of it, then no one can argue against you...it's all down to personal preference...IMHO;O)

Baron out!

CRSutton
11-02-2004, 01:28 PM
Most of us are pretty loyal to Oleg and his efforts. We know the bugs will be fixed and that there will be plenty of torpedo planes soon enough. We know that there is quality work to come. But the reviewer's point is right on the money. Any new player is bound to be disapointed because they can't fly on line and there is not enough to the game as it comes in teh box. We all know there will be torpedo bombers soon enough and constant fixes, but the general buying public, who do not as a rule follow this forum or regularly patch up, will be in the dark. In the end, UBI runs the risk of alienating new pilots and that would be a tremendous disaster for a flight sim that has such a small (if loyal) fan base. You can't afford to screw the pooch and lose new players.

-HH-Quazi
11-02-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aminx:
i have the sim since one weeck and i agree entirely with what the reviewer stated,it's all true.Worse even the game is unplayable without a top of the line pc with a 650usd graphic card which apparently will anyway not work correctly.I personally felt something was seriously wrong when the forum first opened,i immediately asked wether we would be getting all the torp bombers present at the begining of the conflict and i got rude and abnoxious replies from one of the new developers on the team who never gave a straight reply to anyones questions, then he dissapeared from the forum.With time i realised that we were going to be decepted and now we have to think about another 600-650usd more for a graphic card which we are not even sure will work properly with the sim ,great!!!!!!
aminx <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Plays fine on a 9800Pro 128MB 256-bit, less than $200 US.

-HH-Quazi
11-02-2004, 01:57 PM
I am sure it's already been said. I haven't read every post. But I would like to reiterate that no flight sim in the world recieves the support that this bunch gives. If you are new to the community, just chill for a while. If you have bought PF just as a stand-alone, consider picking up the Gold pack of FB/AEP. PF will be taken care of and in the end, PF will be in the same ranks as FB/AEP. Released early? Nah. Buggy or not, it's worth having now imo.

rugame
11-02-2004, 02:02 PM
I pretty much agree with that review. The only reason I dont rubbish PF is I have il2 etc and I know 1C support is top shelf http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But, A new player would put this on and more then likely boot it very shortly after. Its not a very good advertisment for what the company can do, and would ward of potential BOB buyers, IF they did not know the history of the IL2 product.

With all that said however, there are people in this country that think a Leyland P76 is a good car. ( For those that dont know, Company with a good history, car with impressive design/engineering for is time, won a few awards, but ultimatly has gone down in Aussie history as the biggest dog of them all) - read this, follow links-- The Leyland P76 has been described as an automotive failure, in fact the term P76 has become synonymous with failure Read(http://myphlip.pearsoncmg.com/cw/mpviewce.cfm?vceid=682&vbcid=2491) The car won Wheels Magazine Car of the year in 1973, (for more information read.http://www.tripnet.se/rcos/p76e.html) so other factors influenced its "failure", e.g. marketing, build quality, a parent company desperate for a sales recovery.

Sounds a bit like PF?

*Puts on Flame proof suit*

clint-ruin
11-02-2004, 02:10 PM
How bad can pressure from a publisher get?

Let me just put a few words together here and see who remembers:

Strike Fighters.

Walmart.

rugame
11-02-2004, 02:16 PM
LOL

True, true

Luftcaca
11-02-2004, 02:18 PM
muhuahahaahaha look at em all bunch of fanboys who cannot accept that this game is not what it could have been http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

4/10

nah it deserves at least 6/10...at least if installed as an ADD ON over FB + PF

as a stand alone...I dont even think it is worth considering....after the stadards established by FB and Ace emselves, not to mention the original IL2

lets face it everyone
the game WAS rushed

it is not worth 50 bucks yet, lets hope the patch will fix that

oFZo
11-02-2004, 02:36 PM
I'm enjoying myself immensely already and I'm sure things will only get better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Luftcaca
11-02-2004, 02:42 PM
yes!
it is so fun to look at friends crashing into mountains! or to fly these uneventful 30 minutes mission in a Wildcat were you have to find a ditched pilot!

or to use the early Corsairs as if they were good turning planes! or to look at the AI climb up to 10000 meters in a P-39D while it was reknown to totally suck over 5000 m!

(I admit it, FB + ACE + PF is cool)

50 bucks? nah....

sapre
11-02-2004, 02:52 PM
I would LOVE to see Oleg's comment about this review!
Please give some comment Oleg!

StudUK
11-02-2004, 04:03 PM
Sorry but I totally agree with Takata's comments

First of I'm a great fan of the iL-2 series but UTTERLY disappointed @ PF for a full wack ‚£34.99 standalone title. In fact I say its a bloody CONhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

It's no more than a ‚£19.99 addon IMHO.

I feel totally ripped off!!!!!!!!

kozhe
11-02-2004, 04:10 PM
4/10 is just idiot. Sorry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

sapre
11-02-2004, 08:58 PM
It seems a war is raged on between Oleg worshipers and Anti PFnists http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

KeenFox
11-02-2004, 09:43 PM
Think of the poor chap who buys this game to play offline as a standalone product..

Even My cold evil hearth bleeds for him..

oFZo
11-03-2004, 02:01 AM
My take on it:
PF as released is not finished.
I guess this is because of Ubi‚‚ā¨ôs commercial concerns (still not a wise decision then IMnsHO), which is sad. Very.
It‚‚ā¨ôs rather unpleasant to pay $60 (I‚‚ā¨ôm a Yurpean) for a game only to receive a beta and having to wait for a patch, of course.
I‚‚ā¨ôm trying to enjoy what I got so far. Practicing carrierlandings, creating missions (I can always change planes later on), making some movies, etc. I‚‚ā¨ôm having a ball.
I won‚‚ā¨ôt get too used to planes I know the performance is too far from reality.
I have absolute trust in Oleg&Co to deliver the rest of the game & then some.
I know past performance doesn‚‚ā¨ôt guarantee **** in general but somehow I think it does here.
This is not a bank but seemingly very dedicated warplanefreaks and a large talented community providing excellent models and whatnot.

I‚‚ā¨ôm going to fly another mission in my crappy dynamic campaign, with my √ľberschniedelwutzedCorsair and be happy. It‚‚ā¨ôs the best out there I think. (the game experience, not the √ľberschniedelwutzedCorsair which seems disappointingly undermodeled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

NIGHTBARON
11-03-2004, 08:44 AM
Oh, well... Like it or not, We have to admit that in the current version PF seems more like unfinished work, Dont get me wrong... I think actually the reason of all this dissapointment over PF is becoz the Dev team make FB/AEP such an enjoyable experience... and ofcourse the people will feel dissapointed if PF quality cant (in time of release) atleast stand in par with all the previous release.

AWL_Spinner
11-03-2004, 09:01 AM
Very true.

I mean we're all fairly spoilt coming from FB/AEP and this would look like a spartan release as a stand alone to any FB'er IF you don't count future freebie addons (which have ALWAYS been mentioned).

However, to the non-FB'er, is it really bad value? What's the competition, honestly? Even if I didn't have FB/AEP I'd still look at what's IN the BOXED Pacific Fighters as far better value than, say.... CFS3!

Cheers, Spinner

Deckard71
11-03-2004, 01:08 PM
Spinner,

Competition for PF?

FB+AEP! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NIGHTBARON
11-03-2004, 01:12 PM
CFs3... well, atleast the graphic is as nice as the reviewer in every game review mags says http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
too bad...you feel like throwing bricks instead of shooting in that game.

RocketDog
11-03-2004, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deckard71:
Spinner,

Competition for PF?

FB+AEP! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which I seem to remember you rate as 5/10.

Man, you're a hard marker http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Deckard71
11-03-2004, 02:33 PM
lol, yes, I did say that but you're deliberately taking it out of context!

I said that you need to have a game to benchmark against. The most obvious benchmark to use is whatever is currently the best game in the genre.

To then decide if the game you're reviewing is better or worse than your benchmark game, you IMAGINE the benchmark game to be the new average and thus it would score 5.

You then compare the game you are reviewing to that and decided if it is better or worse, and how mush better or worse it is.

Once you've decided that you then go back to the actual score of the benchmakr game and rate you new game higher or lower, depending on how it did.

All of this is a thought process, nothing more than that.

What many people may not realise is that I use the full 1-10 scale, A shoddy game doesn't get a 3/10 as it would most anywhere else, it gets a 1.

5 is the average on a 1-10 scale, so the 4 that PF got shows that I feel it is below average.

However, once the patch is out, I will re-review, WITH an unbiased set of fresh eyes and an open mind and we'll see how it does.

and RocketDog, I reckon that you're just trybing to wind me up and give me even bigger blisters on my fingers! :P

Bearcat99
11-04-2004, 07:43 PM
I didnt wade through all the pages of this thread... but I have noticed a few people quoted me and made some statement or other.... The bottom line for me is this..........


To me 1C has proven time and time again that what you see is not what you get. That what you get is going to always be better -overall and pound for pound- than what you see on the initial release. PF is no exception. To those who spout on and on about "promised patches" and how bad the sim is I say what I always say..... I challenge anyone ANYONE to find a better more well rounded WW2 combat sim on the market. I look at this as one 5 CD sim. Three fronts.... over 200 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">individually modelled aircraft</span>..... with each one even down to variants within models flying differently. 1C has delivered.. again and again..... I have no doubt that they will do it again. Will the sim please everybody? Hardly.... some people are just too hard to please.. but will it raise the bar? You bet again as usual. People can say what they want to about PF.... to me the fact that it can be played as a standalone or an add on alone makes it special. Incomplete? If they had put it out on 3 CDs and charged us $10 more then you would have a new round of crying and whining... PUHHHLEASE. Some of you older members should know better... The FMs, DMs and graphics alone make it as usual a cut above the standard fare. Why oh why pray tell arent those same yahoos who have so much to complain about not flying the better product out? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm they cry and gripe... miraculously some of them even get banned and they keep coming back with the same old tired tripe..... BS if you ask me. If PF and FB and the AEP are soooooo baaaad then why dont you clowns GO AWAY!!!!! AND STAY AWAY..... I'll tell you why...... because there is no better WW2 sim out. YOU CANT STAY AWAY. As bad and wrong-incomplete-and my all time favorite.... arcadeish... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif as some of you say it is.... you just keep coming back here some of you for years. Why is that? For those new flyers who dont have any kind of inkling what you are getting..... shut up yer yappin and moaning and do yourselves a BIG favor... if you have any love of flight sims or warbirds at all.... and go on.... buy the FB GOLD pack. Dont look at the money.... most of you will spend more than that on a night out... so what. Buy the d@mn sim and GIVE IT TIME. I can almost gaurantee you that if you give it time and CHECK IT OUT... you will find that you have a jewel. It isnt perfect..... it is a frickin piece of software for cryin out loud. But I challenge all of you... ALL OF YOU WITH SO MUCH NEGATIVITY AND BS COMING OUT OF YOUR TRAPS TO FIND A BETTER SIM. DO IT. You all know so much... you are all so knowlegeable about what a good sim should be. Show me a better one. Incomplete.... yeah....and you know what... Oleg said so too.... but we will get what we paid for in the end. its so funny.. I wonder if this were a Microsoft product an d there was no IL2 to go to would you all be so vocal?

Old_Canuck
11-05-2004, 02:09 AM
Bearcat99, would you stop beating around the bush and just say what's on your mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

The 1-10 scale that was mentioned earlier got me to thinkin' Is everyone having fun: 1-10?

Some of you are having a great time griping and stirring the old flame pot because that's what you like to do. Some are having fun defending their favorite flight sim. Some are having fun speculating about addons and patches. My point is simple. Everyone must be having fun in their own way or they wouldn't keep coming back for more. Makes you wonder where anyone gets time to actually fly the sim. So we're all getting our money's worth one way or another.

DarthBane_
11-05-2004, 07:13 AM
I always felt that il2 series games are somehow unfinished and some serious lack of makeup is present BUT, this (il2,fb,aep,pf) is the best ww2 flight sim in the world, and price for pf is ok just for landing and takeoff from carrier. Would be nice to have Shiden, Raiden and b29 with A-bomb mission.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-05-2004, 07:31 AM
Hi,

Bearcat - not particularly good commercial sense for someone who amounts to being a representative of UBI rantint at people who are voicing their legitimate concerns that they should be happy with what they're given and that they are clowns and should write their own sim if they don't like the incomplete product they've paid their money for.

Yes, we all are pinning our hopes on the patch being the panacea and that everything will be alright. Trouble is, it shouldn't have really been like that in the first place.

I flicked through a UK games mag the other day and every other game seemed to revolve around the pacific war...this, I would wager, is the reason why UBI rushed it out so as not to miss the party regarding this theatre.

Why can't someone from UBI/1C just officially admit that it's all been a balls up and that they will be making amends in the patch...rather than making jokes about it being out in two weeks when it should have been released at the same time as it was in the shops...because this kind of thing really does stretch any kind of loyalty as you've been seeing on these boards.

Cheers,
Norris

macd1102
11-05-2004, 07:49 AM
if i may, i would like to say that i for one enjoy the game i have the whole series, pf fills in the one void the series had, the pacific theater, im a history buff and it is know secret that the missions where on most occasions boring, yet just having the pleasure of launching and being caught by arresting gear makes the game worthwhile, i serve in the us navy currently for the 21 years and even know deploying, there is a lot of boredom during deployments, so why would people expect to launch from the carrier and instantly engage in a fight, the job of a carrier task for is not to be found. oleg great job, im enjoying every moment. thankyou for your previous efforts and the current ones you work on.

Fresshness
11-05-2004, 08:30 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Takata_:
_Hexus.net PF review_

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD05MDAmdXJsX3BhZ2U9MQ= =

Product: Pacific Fighters
Author: Nick Haywood
Date Of Review: 1st November 2004
[/QOUTE]

I agree with this review! the boxed-released version of PF is an abomination! not for Oleg and 1C, but for UBI$OFT.

Ruy Horta
11-05-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I didnt wade through all the pages of this thread... but I have noticed a few people quoted me and made some statement or other.... The bottom line for me is this.......... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its about time Ubi ends your moderating career, you don't seem to handle it very well lately.

horseback
11-05-2004, 02:29 PM
Gee, maybe having to wade through so much b!tching and moaning may tend to color one's attitude after a while...

Bear is right. It's the best sim out there, and that is because Oleg and crew put so much effort into paying attention to your gripes and fixing verifiable bugs and errors, and then going the proverbial extra mile and throwing in a few new flyable aircraft with almost every patch.

And guess what? It's not because we're such a great bunch of fellow aviation enthusiasts who have been properly grateful for the fine product we've been provided, it's because Oleg and his people have a personal commitment to making the best possible World War II flight simulation, and making it in "the former Soviet Union."

Given the amount of piracy and grief they deal with, they could have easily found something more lucrative in a FPS genre and moved the operation to the wealthier and more comfortable parts of the world. Instead, they've stayed and made a go of it in their homeland, knowing that their success would not translate into the kind of comfort and security we enjoy here in the west, but also knowing that every little bit helps the transition to a market economy, and hopefully into that comfort and safety for all their countrymen.

Pacific Fighters is a bit premature, but it may well be that the venture needed the capital from hitting the market early to finish the FB/AEP/PF project and obtain backing for the BoB project to reach the market. Economic pressure is always a factor in every private venture and business decision.

As consumers, we can afford to be patient, especially geven the track record of 1C. The free stuff is on its way, and much of it will be here in time for your Christmas breaks.

cheers

horseback

CHDT
11-05-2004, 02:50 PM
Never heard "the customer is always right" (even if he's wrong)? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jester_159th
11-05-2004, 02:52 PM
Just out of interest, those of you who are climbing into Bearcat for speaking his mind, please show me where it says that just "because he's a moderator" he's no longer entitled to either have his own opinion, or voice his own opinion? He's a volunteer. Ubi don't pay him a salary.

If you disagree with what he says, fine. Debate it. I think you're taking the easy way out and trying to sucker punch him because you know **** well you can't argue with a man that speaks the truth!

Bearcat. I think you're talking sense. Don't give up m8. Stick to your principles. Sure, others will stick to theirs, and they'll differ. That's what makes being human and living in a democracy such a wonderful thing. Pity most of us forget that from time to time.

TAW_BlueDevil
11-05-2004, 03:12 PM
Hear hear Bearcat. I dont blame you one bit with speaking your mind especially with some of the characters we have here.

Common guys, the CFS series give me a break dont insult anyone in flight sims, or Oleg sayoing that the CFS series had its act together. Thats the worst level of insult. If the CFS series was so great, why then did most of the people who bought it return to their original sims? Why because the CFS series was an insult to the Genre. The was no quality control, no way of flying on a level field, no way to stop the cheaters. I had high hopes for cfs2 got it the day it came out, played for 2 weeks and relaized i had wasted my money and time. I even tried it again when the 3rd party Fm's were released. Still was a sorry attempt at a game in this Genre.

Ok sure you got to fly all sorts of planes, but none of them matched the quality or overall accuracy of the planes we have here. Ok so some things might be slightly off, you know what, thats going to happen from time to time. Its a programable sim. The only way to have 100% accuracy is to fly the actual planes themselves. And even then the performance of the aircraft varried somewhat from pilot to pilot. IE the range of the P-38, people couldnt get the range out of it, until Lindburg was out in the pacific and showed them hwo to do it. Suddenly the range increased tremendously.

Guys stop all the attacking. Stop the whining. Simply enjoy the wonderful game that we have and look at the quality of it. Sure some planes arent there that we want, but given the level of support since before Il2 was even released (yes I remember oleg coming around to the communities, asking what we would like to see, and in fact including online squadrons insignias IN THE GAME to use. All this was done before IL2 was even released and was simply a project) Now tell me, is there any better support and involvement from a developer, espcially in this Genre. I know you would be hard pressed to find one.

Lets enjoy the best release for this Genre yet to date. Show me where I can find a better quality pacific theatre flight sim that has as much support and involvement from its developer, and I will go buy it right now. You know what, my money is safe because you cant, no matter how much you complain or cry the simple fact is there is no other better game.

Will it be more fun when more torpedo and other aircraft are released? Surely. I am looking forward to the avenger among others. Until then, I am going to enjoy flying this wonderful game, and loving flying in my favorite theatre.

initjust
11-05-2004, 03:30 PM
Well, for my part PF doesn't really get it done.

Still lacking some very critical elements that would begin qualify it as the "best PTO sim".

It has been fun figuring out the tricks to getting the F6F on deck with it's incorrect tail hook and all but when I look at the on-line maps it starts to fall apart pretty quickly for me.

I consider it a fun "game" but it is not the best PTO sim in my opinion. I have all the IL2 games but have never been really impressed with them to the point of feeling the need to join the fan club. They do a good job for what they are but they are not the be all end all.

I will continue to dabble with PF and will wait for the patches that are sure to come but I certainly won't be losing any sleep over the flaws and defects nor will I put the box in a gold frame and set it in a prominent place in my home to be looked on for inspiration.

It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

Deckard71
11-05-2004, 04:27 PM
I can see both sides of the argument here, which I think many people will probably doubt, but I can.

I think that Bearcat does make some pertinent points and, being a moderator on another forum myself, it can be hard at times to BE moderate.

The review points out the many flaws in the game and judges it against it's peers (FB+AEP). Saying that judging it is unfair to judge PF in its un-patched state when FB+AEP have had plenty of patch support to get them to the standard today is an invalid argument. I reviewed what was delivered to the consumer, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, there are flaws in the game and I highlighted them. My point was that the game is not as good as FB+AEP and a consumers money would be better spent on that than PF as PF stands at this time.

BUT!!!

Knowing what excellent support Oleg and 1C give to their games, I decided it was well worth re-reviewing the game post-patch but there was still a valid reason to review the boxed copy as is.

Everyone can argue as much as they want over which type of plane should fly in what way, whether this detail is right or that island should be included. No-one will ever be able to satisfy everyone with anything they do. Ever.

Any game will have its avid fans and taunting detractors. People all have different tastes and opinions and no matter what, they will always believe that their opinion is just as valid, if not more so, than the next man's.

People have different expectations too. Some may be ahppy to wait for a patch, please that the game is out. Some may not appreciate the whole thing about not being able to squeeze it all on 2 discs. Yet others might not even by the game as they aren't interested in the Pacific campaign at all, and perhaps may even be bitter about having to buy it just to stay compatible with the online servers.

Who knows?

Some may say that this a pure out and out sim, not something for first time pilots. Other may disagree, pointing out various 'easy fly' options.

People love the water. People think that water is low on the list of things that should be improved for a full price sequel. Again, who knows?

What we DO know is that what we've got is what we've got. You may love it to pieces, or you may think you've been diddled.

You might report the bugs. Or you might post on here, annoyed about the bugs.

You might enjoy what you have got, or wish that it was better, or hate that it isn't as good as you'd hoped.

Everyone reacts differently.

All we do know is that the game is like it is.

Attacking each other over differences of opinion is silly. It does nothing to solve the problem, not does it create a good atmosphere on the boards.

I'm new here, but I'm pretty sure that the boards are for advice and discussion.

What we all need, as someone has already said, is patience. Not just with Oleg and 1C, but with each other. And not just now, but always.

Sure, everyday a 'n00b' (I'm sooo starting to hate that term) will come on and ask what may seem to you to be a bonehead dumb question. But the boards will get more community support and a larger community if that innocent n00b is shown where he can find the answers rather than be told to "RTFM and RTFRM n00b!".

Now my review has sparked off some mightily intense discussion here and the vast majority think its unfair and just plain wrong.

That's erfectly alright for them to think that. You may think I'm a complete berk without a clue of how to fly a plane. Again, that's perfectly alright for you to think that. Just like you may think that a n00b is a PITA, or someone else is an idiot because they don't like the Corsair or are asking why there's no torpedo bombers. It's perfectly alright for you to think that.

But I did say 'think'. Not say... think.

Reasoned discussion is the only way that this game and future games will ever improve and continue to be developed.

Going off half-cocked in a rage about some minor point in detail or another person refusal to change their minds is pointless, invairably fruitless and, most importantly, detremental to the game itself.

If I was Oleg and I saw all this bickering, I'd wonder why the hell I bothered. Wouldn't you?

I'm a fan of the series. I only fly IL2 FB+AEP nowadays. My views differ from many aboth this latest release, that doesn't mean my views are right anymore than it means someone's opposite views are right. They are, after all, just opinions.

I say that we all calm down and take five minutes out doing something else before posting,as things are getting far too anxious around here. A lot of the posts I read seem to have some form of apology in them, just in case they annoy anyone and a vehement attack ensues. That hardly makes for a constructive forum, does it?

I've put up with a fair amount of abuse over this review, ranging from being aligned with the Taliban to being an idiot or young boy. I just let all that slide.

You could say I brought it upon myslef by writing a review that you feel is overly harsh. It's up to you if you think it's too harsh, but surely people can speak their minds in a reasonable manner without having names slung at them?

Yes, the rview did upset the avid fans, so much so that on one forum they were even criticising the graphic depicting the score! Now in any sane person's book, that takes petiness to a new level, does it not.

But, more seriously, it undermines the credibility and maturity of the person writing that post. So much so that I felt that the discussion was just going round in circles and not actually progressing at all and in the end I withdrew from further comment.

I'm heartened to say that here the discussion has remained more constructive and open, but I do think that we've taken it as far as it can go until the game is patched. All we're doing now is talking round in circles.

I think that everyone involved has clearly expressed hwo they feel, whether they love the game to bits or wished they'd never bought it and all the other opinions in-between.

I think that for now, the best thing we can do is help the new guys get to grips with what can be a tricky game to learn, be tolerant and calm with those whose views differ from our own and be patient and wait for the patch.

All the best to you all!

S!

Nick
(Deckard71)

clint-ruin
11-05-2004, 07:55 PM
Welcome to the wonderful world of 1c sims, where the customer is always right even when they're completely ****ing bat**** insane.

Luftwaffe_109
11-05-2004, 09:34 PM
Firstly, let me say that, in my opinion, IC Maddox's sims are by far the best in the business.

However, the reviewer made some valid points. This game is unfinished. To see evidence of this one need only look as far as the fact that all japanese carrier aircraft have serious glitches in their folded wings (ie. they are suspended in the air) and certain aircraft such as the Betty are missing. This simply should not be.

Regrading the flight models I have no problems whatsoever, Oleg's interpretations of how they flew are good enough for me. However the limit of flyable aircraft, graphical glitches and problems with the campaign (looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong flights) are indeed valid concerns and shouldn't just be shouted down.

I have no doubt that this game will be patched and become by far the best simulation ever. For now, I'll just keep playing my IJN missions (trying to ignore the anti-gravity wing tips, lol) and wait patiently.

regards

plumps_
11-06-2004, 12:40 AM
It seems that I'm one of the persons Deckard took some sideswipes against in his last post. The reason probably is that I had taken part in the discussion at another forum and pointed out some of the not so obvious mistakes in his review. As it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread I feel the need to add some information that should not be lost.

The headline says "it's so true" but I'd like to point out a few things in that review that are not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At the time of writing, out of 70 or so servers, only ONE is running pure stand alone PF with the others being a mix of FB+PF or FB+AEP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He was looking for PF standalone servers in the Hyperlobby a few days after PF was released -- but Hyperlobby doesn't even support PF yet! What does he expect? And what about the PF lobby at Ubi.com and other game browsers?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So the point here is that if you're thinking of getting into the game and taking part in the big online wars that they fly, you're still going to have to go out and buy Forgotten Battles and Aces anyway, and that's after having paid for PF as a full price game too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
PF has all it takes to turn this into a new beginning and start a PF-only online war, unless you see things only from the perspective of the old adepts of the series. It's even better: If PF had not been sold as a stand-alone version, everybody who wants to fly in the Pacific would be really forced into buying FB + AEP. 1C:Maddox and Ubi were kind enough to offer new players an alternative to that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, according to the box, we've got all the major types here, everything that played even the tiniest part in the Pacific and Far East campaigns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know the box they sell in Britain, but I strongly doubt that it says "all the major types here, everything that played even the tiniest part in the Pacific and Far East campaigns". What's the point of this exaggeration?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It says here that I've got 93 different planes in the game, which is certainly impressive and of those 93, 43 are flyable, which is equally as impressive. It all seems good, doesn't it? But on closer inspection, this is slightly misleading. Those 43 flyable planes include the different sub-types for each plane. So what you actually have, once you exclude the variations is 19 different planes, and that's being generous and counting types like Seafire and Spitfire as different planes, though they were virtually identical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, I don't know what the British box says. The German Box says "more than 40 flyable aircraft". Now Deckard tries to minimize that number by mentioning the sub-types. That could be all right if he'd also tell his readers that there are really more flyable planes than the box claims. There are actually 63 flyable types, not 43. A honest review would have mentioned this fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Look even closer and you'll find that some of the types that are listed as flyable on the box actually aren't but will be in a near future patch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He says some types are missing. Another exaggeration at the game's disadvantage. There's exactly one type missing that was mentioned on the box.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ok, another gripe. Looking at the plane set for PF, let's also take off those types that were released in the AEP add-on pack‚‚ā¨¬¶. And that leaves us with something like 8 or so actual new aircraft, never flown before types‚‚ā¨¬¶. So the guff on the box, is just that‚‚ā¨¬¶ guff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here it's getting really ugly. He implies that the AEP planes need to be subtracted from the total of 43 types he had mentioned previously. Once more, the true number is 63 flyable types, 20 of which were already in FB or AEP. Which leaves us with 43 new types for AEP owners, not 8. Even if you don't count all the sub-types it's still 12 new airframes. But a good review would also mention the differences between sub-types instead of indiscriminately subsuming them all under their airframes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That means you'll sometimes be flying for 40 minutes before anything even reasonably exciting happens. Then you face a 40 minute flight home. Sorry, but if I wanted to do over an hour of flying and not shoot anything, wouldn't I have plumped for MS Flight Sim 2004 instead? This is supposed to be a game about shooting other people down within a historical setting, but it is a game and as such, it's just not fun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's your point? You had already mentioned the Quick Mission Builder that offers fun to those who are looking for instant action. What do you expect from the Pacific? Why don't you allow those who want to fly missions in a historical way to get what they are looking for?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ground attack doesn't fair much better, with an old gripe, which has been levelled at the series for a long time and still hasn't been corrected. The gunners, whether on the ground, defending ships or in the back of enemy planes all have a supernatural sniper-like ability to kill you in just a few shots. Get too close to them and you'll soon regret it, in fact you'll very rapidly regret it. Three rounds of tracer fly out the back of a bomber, one round killing your engine, the next round taking out your aileron controls and the last round killing your pilot‚‚ā¨¬¶. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have shot down too many bombers to accept this. That's the point where I was asking myself if you were reviewing the current combat flight sim -- or rather collecting old forum whines from the history of Forgotten Battles. What would be wrong with being killed by a gunner you're getting too close to? This has been improved in the past, and once again you're exaggerating.

Then there's the conclusion which is another recollection of all your exaggerations and half-truths.

Finally we have this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FOOTNOTE: Throughout the history of the IL2 series, one thing that has always been obvious is the support the games continue to receive from the developers after release. This review is of the boxed copy, retail copy and as such, reflects what you get in that box, NOT what is promised but as yet undelivered. I will re-visit the review after the game has been patched, and if necessary, I will adjust the score. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once more, the review does not reflect what you get in the box as you're not telling the facts about what's there.

Then, after 8 pages of unfairness, there is one fair sentence. It's like beating someone up, and when he lies on the ground you tell him: The next time I see you I'll be nicer, maybe.

Cippacometa
11-06-2004, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...The snag is that the vast majority of online players already have FB+AEP and will use the install over option to give them access to all the planes. So if you go out and buy this as your first flight sim, you can't fly against anyone other than those who have done a PF only install‚‚ā¨¬¶... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...Those 43 flyable planes include the different sub-types for each plane. So what you actually have, once you exclude the variations is 19 different planes, and that's being generous and counting types like Seafire and Spitfire as different planes, though they were virtually identical. Look even closer and you'll find that some of the types that are listed as flyable on the box actually aren't but will be in a near future patch.
...Looking at the plane set for PF, let's also take off those types that were released in the AEP add-on pack‚‚ā¨¬¶. And that leaves us with something like 8 or so actual new aircraft, never flown before types‚‚ā¨¬¶. So the guff on the box, is just that‚‚ā¨¬¶ guff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For the vast majority of planes, there are no missions, and for what planes do have missions, most of those are 'carrier take off' or 'carrier landing'. In total, for all the planes you have there are a grand total of 11 missions. Of those 11 there are only 4 actual missions with the rest of that 11 being flying different planes or sides in the same 4 missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just so we're clear, this IS a stand alone, full price game, ok? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...the autopilot flew me into a hill. But not just me, the AI flew themselves into the hill too‚‚ā¨¬¶ all of them. Reload, crash, reload, boom.. etc etc.
...Now you could argue that I should not use autopilot and just fly 'hands on' using the time skip. Which is fine, except that with everything happening 8 times faster, the slightest jiggle on the stick is amplified into a massive yank causing you to crash‚‚ā¨¬¶ plus the screen jerking along soon gives you a blistering case of eye strain.
...Unbelievably, there are no carrier based torpedo carrying planes for either side. How can this be? Try the Pearl Harbour mission as a Japanese pilot and you get some tiny 60lb bombs to scratch the ship's paintwork with but not one single torpedo. Even in the Battle of Midway missions, the first and largest carrier battle where aircraft played a massive part in a long range war, you don't get a torpedo bomber. For a game that is based on the Pacific war, this is an almost unforgivable omission. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...Hmm, I want to fly something I've not flown before, so lets jump in the F6F and go up against a Zero. Ok, so he's out-turning me, my best bet is to use my plane's superior weight against his light and underpowered plane. I'll dive away from him, pick up speed quicker and come back in for another pass. Oh, he's still right behind me. Ok, let's redline this baby in the vertical, then loop out at the bottom‚‚ā¨¬¶. Eh? He's STILL about 6 feet behind me?
Now I'm no expert and don't claim to be, but from all the biographies and technical data that I've read in the past, this just isn't right. Zeros just can not do high speed dives and stay as manoeuvrable as this game seems to think they can. Sure, they can out turn just about anything in the sky, as US pilots found to their cost early on in the war, but the Zero is relatively slow and suffers from overly light controls which lock up at high speed. So there is something seriously wrong with the flight dynamics there... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...But it isn't just the flight model that is flawed. All the AI planes, whether in your own flight or opposing you, are capable of performing moves that just aren't possible... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The gunners, whether on the ground, defending ships or in the back of enemy planes all have a supernatural sniper-like ability to kill you in just a few shots. Get too close to them and you'll soon regret it, in fact you'll very rapidly regret it. Three rounds of tracer fly out the back of a bomber, one round killing your engine, the next round taking out your aileron controls and the last round killing your pilot‚‚ā¨¬¶. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>_Conclusion:_

So in summing up, what have we got here?

Well, as a stand alone game we've got 20 or so actual different planes to fly with a handful of missions across different maps which all look the same because there's lots of sea involved. We've not got some of the planes that are advertised as being in the game and will have to wait for the patch to fly them. We have career modes that are boring at best and, more usually, bugged so badly as to be unplayable. We've got sniper like AI with amazing flying abilities that defy the laws of physics making dog fighting a question of getting a good hit on the first pass or face getting out-flown by a guy with a kite compared to your uber-machine. All in all we've got a bugged and badly executed piece of software, which, if I was new to the genre or series, I'd take back for a refund and buy something else.

Looking at PF from the viewpoint of already owning FB and AEP, you get even less. You still get the same bugged mission and dreadful AI but this time, you get even less in the plane set as most of the varieties of aircraft are already available to you through FB and AEP. All you get here are some more maps and some unenjoyable missions, unplayable careers and the chance to land on or attack carriers, though torpedoing them is out of the question unless you cheat and use a ground based plane off a carrier.

Now don't forget that this is being sold as a full priced game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Although I'm a great fan of the IL-2FB series, I have to agree with this guy on all these points on PF.
- All old bugs on AI and sniper-gunners and so on have not been addressed nor solved.
- Flyable (new or different) aircraft are really few.
- Missions and Campaigns are horribly bugged.
- Maps are flawed (example: Stanley mountains are just little green hills).
- Autopilot and "skip" are useless.
- AI aircraft perform science-fiction manoeuvres.

... not to mention that Corsairs overheat immediately at low altitude, are slow and don't climb, while at 9000 m the run at 730 km/h... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

After an initial enthusiasm, I am now being more objective on PF and I have to agree on these points mentioned by the guy.
And please realize that the main point is: PF is being sold as a full priced game.
49.99 euros for a piece of unfinished bugged software is a bit too much.

Too bad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Now Ubi has to make us happy with a nice patch with flyable Tempest and F4U-4s!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Deckard71
11-06-2004, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
It seems that I'm one of the persons Deckard took some sideswipes against in his last post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, no, I wasn't aimng that post at any one person at all. I was talking to EVERYONE on the boards. I thought the gist of the post made that clear, but these things can be misunderstood. (btw, I don't do sidewipes)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
The headline says "it's so true" but I'd like to point out a few things in that review that are _not true_.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At the time of writing, out of 70 or so servers, only ONE is running pure stand alone PF with the others being a mix of FB+PF or FB+AEP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's true. At the time of writing, about 8-9 days after PF was released in the UK, there WAS only one PF only server. Nothing un-true in that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
PF has all it takes to turn this into a new beginning and start a PF-only online war, unless you see things only from the perspective of the old adepts of the series. It's even better: If PF had _not_ been sold as a stand-alone version, everybody who wants to fly in the Pacific would be _really forced_ into buying FB + AEP. 1C:Maddox and Ubi were kind enough to offer new players an alternative to that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, but check on HL right now finds few PF only servers, a fair amount of FB+AEP servers and plenty of FB+AEP+PF servers, so I think that it's fair to say that pretty much everyone who already flies FB+AEP will have to buy PF to stay current, meaning that the vast majoirty of servers will run FB+AEP+PF, meaning that to get a game, regardless of what you have bought, you'll need FB+AEP AND PF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
I don't know the box they sell in Britain, but I strongly doubt that it says "all the major types here, everything that played even the tiniest part in the Pacific and Far East campaigns". What's the point of this exaggeration? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're complaining about an 'exageration' in FAVOUR of the game? And as generalisations go, which this is, its perfectly fair. I wasn't quoting the box, hence the lack of quote marks, so to argue that I'm not being specific enough is pedantic.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
The German Box says "more than 40 flyable aircraft". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hang on, Ubisoft can generalise and be vague and thta's ok by you, but when I do it its a crime for not being specific? Hmmmmm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
Now Deckard tries to minimize that number by mentioning the sub-types. That could be all right if he'd also tell his readers that there are really _more flyable planes than the box claims_. There are actually _63_ flyable types, not 43. A honest review would have mentioned this fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I took my info from an e-mail sent to me by Ubi Marketing Europe after I voice ALL of my concerns to them BEFORE I published, or had indeed finished, the review. If Ubi can't get it right in response to a query, have a pop at them too.
Disregarding sub-tyes is perfectly valid. You can either choose to take the view of thinking lots of sub-types is for you or you can decide that l you're not interested in 4 different varieties of plane, you just want to fly. That summing up shows that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
He says _some_ types are missing. Another exaggeration at the game's disadvantage. There's exactly _one_ type missing that was mentioned on the box. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So it's still ok to NOT put stuff in the game but say it's there, which is the ACTUAL point being made... and an indicator that the game has been rushed, so a valid point to mention.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That means you'll sometimes be flying for 40 minutes before anything even reasonably exciting happens. Then you face a 40 minute flight home. Sorry, but if I wanted to do over an hour of flying and not shoot anything, wouldn't I have plumped for MS Flight Sim 2004 instead? This is supposed to be a game about shooting other people down within a historical setting, but it is a game and as such, it's just not fun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's your point? You had already mentioned the Quick Mission Builder that offers fun to those who are looking for instant action. What do you expect from the Pacific? Why don't you allow those who want to fly missions in a historical way to get what _they_ are looking for? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because the majority of players, whether purists like it or not, are not going to be happy with the long flight times. New players will find them hard to deal with too. There is a middle gorund here of people who want to fly historical missions, not just QMB, but don't want to sit around for ages first. Instead of just considering this game from your point of view, try and look at it from a majority, average gamers view. A lot of my points become even MORE valid then.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
I have shot down too many bombers to accept this. That's the point where I was asking myself if you were reviewing the current combat flight sim -- or rather collecting old forum whines from the history of Forgotten Battles. What would be wrong with being killed by a gunner you're getting too close to? This has been improved in the past, and once again you're exaggerating. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, I'm dredging up someone else's gripes about a game that has been out for 9 days in the UK? That's laughable to even suggest. Even if I had, they'd be valid points as they're talking about the current game. If you think that I'm refering to FB+AEP and the sniper AI, you're wrong, the review deosn't even hint at that. Considering the game is built on the same engine as FB+AEP, wouldn't some of the 'old gripes' re-surface here too? If so, they deserve a mention, not be swept under the carpet as being 'old hat' or 'known issues'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
Then there's the conclusion which is another recollection of all your exaggerations and half-truths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But surprisingly you've chosen NOT to quote it. Now, you've spanked ME over not proving my sources, so now its your turn and I'll dismiss that comment as an untruth purely on the basis that you haven't backed it up with any evidence (just so we're both playing by your rules).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
Finally we have this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FOOTNOTE: Throughout the history of the IL2 series, one thing that has always been obvious is the support the games continue to receive from the developers after release. This review is of the boxed copy, retail copy and as such, reflects what you get in that box, NOT what is promised but as yet undelivered. I will re-visit the review after the game has been patched, and if necessary, I will adjust the score. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once more, the review does not reflect what you get in the box as you're not telling the facts about what's there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And whats wrong with that statement of promising to review the game again after patching? And it DOES reflect what's in the box. If you want FACTS about what's there, well its two cds, a key card and a manual. If you want OPINIONS about what's there, well, it's an unfinished, buggy, rushed release that unfairly cashes in on consumer loyalty and fails to live up to the standards of previously releases.

BUT.... There is a history of superb support and patching, hence the promise to re-review.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
Then, after 8 pages of unfairness, there is one fair sentence. It's like beating someone up, and when he lies on the ground you tell him: The next time I see you I'll be nicer, maybe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfair for the whoe 8 pages? I thought the first page was very nice, spouting off about how Ubi and 1C Maddox are renowned for their flight sims, how great they are and how dedicated they are. That's unfair?

Or do you mean unfair like taking ‚£35 pounds off of someone and not giving them something as good in return as they could have done?

Snootles
11-06-2004, 10:39 AM
I'm not sure where the idea of "sniper gunners" comes from. If you're going to fly into an indiscriminate curtain of flak like the kind that a battery of AAA tends to throw up, expect some hits. That's how it should be.

In fact, some of the gunners need some big improvements. Intercept a Superfortress and you'll know what I mean.

The_Red_Spoon
11-06-2004, 11:24 AM
I found the original review via Google; it's somewhat harsh, but I agree that PF doesn't stand alone as a single-player game (neither were FB + AEP for me, IL2 has always been about online play).

I just hope that PF delivers enough money into the coffers to get BoB finished; I'd hate to see the evolution of IL2 stop because of publisher pressure or lack of funds.

plumps_
11-06-2004, 12:02 PM
Deckard, you're still taking Hyperlobby as a standard for PF online activity. Seemingly you don't know how Hyperlobby works. HL has lobbies for various games, one of them is IL-2, another is Forgotten Battles. There is no lobby yet for PF. When you're playing in the FB lobby, HL will look in your FB folder for the il2fb.exe to start the game. PF stand-alone doesn't have that file, as it is initiated by a file called pf.exe. The only way to play PF stand-alone in the Hyperlobby currently is to rename your pf.exe to il2fb.exe.

Now this is a trick that no new user will find on his own. What does this tell you about the relevance the current version of Hyperlobby has to the number of PF stand-alone players? Counting PF players in the Hyperlobby is like doing a census of the African population by counting all the Africans in an Australian asylum camp.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-06-2004, 01:07 PM
Hi,

Deckard: Thanks for trying to explain your reasons regarding the review, but I wouldn't bother TBH.

A review is an opinion of a game and your opinion is matched by a lot of people around here. It's also not matched by a lot of people around there but an opinion is an opinion and I don't think yours was based on incorrect information or in bad faith.

You've no need to justify yourself to anyone, IMO.

Cheers,
Norris

plumps_
11-06-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deckard71:
I took my info from an e-mail sent to me by Ubi Marketing Europe after I voice ALL of my concerns to them BEFORE I published, or had indeed finished, the review. If Ubi can't get it right in response to a query, have a pop at them too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can see the pattern there: If Ubi praise their product, which is actually their job, you will point out and exaggerate every single of their errors. If Ubi commit an error at their own disadvantage, you will believe them everything and spread the word.

If there was any further proof needed to show that it was not your intention to write a fair review you've just delivered it yourself.

initjust
11-06-2004, 03:11 PM
There must be some history between Plumps and Deckard.

No other valid reason that I can think of for Plumps jumping on deckard for expressing his opinion. It is after all, his opinion. How can it be incorrect? You may not like it. You may not agree with it but attacking it and labeling it as incorrect is just pure arrogance or ignorance.

Seems like Plumps is trying to settle an old score.

Deckard71
11-06-2004, 03:36 PM
Ah, I see the pattern.

And you're right, initjust, there IS a history here, one that I've only just become aware of having now seen plumps sig.

plumps, you are in fact Shots over on SimHQ, aren't you?

Now we've discussed this whole review at great length on SimHQ forums. Even down to your petty niggling at the way the graphic for the score is designed.

(btw, if the design is so bad, how come manufacturers are sticking it on their boxes when a product gets a good rating? That act alone says volumes about the Hexus' reputation and integrit AND their graphic design. If it was so awful, how come people are slapping it on hardware boxes?)

That thread at SimHQ has been closed because the mods decided, quite rightly, that it had gone as far as it could, and if people couldn't find anything better to comment on other than petty details such as graphics used on the webpage, then it wasn't worth bothering with.

The fact of the matter is that although I recognise that you are pefectly entitled to your opinion, and I have no right to try and cahnge it, you do not acknowledge this for others.

The review is up on the web for all to see. It's as simple as that, and you can't change it.

Now, to use a phrase that I've heard very frequently since the review was published, quit whining and moaning.

Your last post has drifted well into the realms of fantasy and all it does is undermine any credibility for any future arguments you wish to raise. How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you insist on twisting words so seriously out of kilter just to try and justify an argument that has already been done to death elsewhere?

If you didn't get the answers you were looking for on SimHQ before the thread was closed, what makes you think you'll get them here?

My points AND my stance remain unchanged, and will do so, regardless of what you say. In that respect, I suspect we're the same, as your opinions will remain unchanged, regardless of what I say.

The difference is, I can recognise a futile effort, which is what any discussion with you will be.

What do you think you would achieve? For me to change the score? Stop reviewing? Re-think how I review? Who do you think you are to presume that?

The score stays as it is.

A completely new review will be written after the game is patched.

The original review will remain on the web, with a link added to the new review.

That is what will happen.

To paraphrase the detractors of those who complain about the game "If you don't like, don't bother reading it".

Oh, and about the Ubi e-mail... believe what you want, you will anyway. Suffice to say you're wrong in the conlcusion you've spectacularly leapted too.

Anyway, its a minor point and certainly one that makes a negligible impact on the game as whole. Regardless of the numbe of planes, there are far bigger and more worrying faults to be dealt with.

If you have any other questions or comments, re-read this thread or the one at SimHQ, I've already answered any arguments you may have.... twice.

Thanks.

plumps_
11-06-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you didn't get the answers you were looking for on SimHQ before the thread was closed, what makes you think you'll get them here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What makes you believe that I was hoping for answers from you? I was rather hoping that people stop wasting their time on this. As I stated above I was posting in this thread to inform the public of all the errors and exaggerations in your review, which most people seemed to swallow too easily. I was doing a review of your review. What's your problem with people doing critical reviews? For me the purpose of a review is to enlighten, not to propagate someone's opinion. That means that it needs to be based on facts, first of all.

I'm not asking anybody to change their opinion, all I ask you is to accept that your opinion was based on incorrect information. This in itself wouldn't be a problem as long as one doesn't publish it. But you were writing a review for the public which loads you with a certain responsibility, which you don't seem to live up to, as you keep spreading those horribly low aircraft numbers although you have known they're wrong for several days now, and you keep blaming Ubi for your own lack of attention, which is nothing but lame.

Also I'm pointing out a communication problem. On this page of the Hexus site (http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD00MTM=) I found a sentence that puts a rating of 4 or 5 into a perspective:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(About the Gaming Hexus rating system: The score system is inspired by Edge magazine. Basically, we're bastards. Since 5/10 is halfway between perfect and ****e, it's the rating given to average games. By definition, 6 or above is "above average", and probably worth owning. And we really don't hesitate to award low scores for bad games.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why can't I find that sentence below your review?

The reason I'm asking is that most of the turmoil your review has created was caused by the low rating of 4 out of 10. If I understood you correctly a 4 in your system is just slightly below average. If all readers had understood that you're rating PF 'slightly below average' you'd have had a lot less angry postings to answer. Remember the thread title at SimHQ? Another PF review. 4.0 :-( So the rating does matter.

http://img.hexus.net/hexus_v2/images/global/reviews/review4.gif

And that's where the graphic symbol comes into play, although this may sound strange and petty to someone who has never dealt with graphic design or the psychology of perception, and may not seem much more than a side note.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even down to your petty niggling at the way the graphic for the score is designed.

(btw, if the design is so bad, how come manufacturers are sticking it on their boxes when a product gets a good rating? That act alone says volumes about the Hexus' reputation and integrit AND their graphic design. If it was so awful, how come people are slapping it on hardware boxes?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't criticize the symbol for being awful, but for not communicating the correct message. People are slapping it on hardware boxes because a picture 'says more than a thousand words', which again shows how important it is. As long as it says the message they want to hear that's all right to them and they don't care what you intended to say.

According to what you told us your rating system is not a linear 1-10 system with 10 being the benchmark but rather centred around the average of 5. The problem with that symbol is that it doesn't tell us where your benchmark is, and therefore the observer will guess that 10 is the benchmark, as that regular line of ten stars has no outstanding signs. The impression the graphic creates is that of "60% below the benchmark", while you were really rating it 20% below the benchmark.

clint-ruin
11-06-2004, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deckard71:
Your last post has drifted well into the realms of fantasy and all it does is undermine any credibility for any future arguments you wish to raise. How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you insist on twisting words so seriously out of kilter just to try and justify an argument that has already been done to death elsewhere? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's strange, I was about to ask you exactly the same thing.

I like where this is going.

I like it that you can't handle someone casting a critical eye over your critical review.

Can you get your neck to do the whole 360 spinning thing again? That ruled.

Freycinet
11-06-2004, 09:06 PM
I just reviewed PF for a (paper) magazine. Gave it good marks, while telling people about the patching and the minor issues as well. There are so many great things that nitpicking about the details is akin to not communicating a true representation of the sim, IMHO. If three-quarters of a review is spent listing the problematic issues, then readers will automatically assume that the sim is 75% bad, which is not the case.

I think many people in here are a bit jaded, after knowing Il-2-FB-AEP for years. Some just cannot accept that PF is based on the same engine and will therefore not be a completely new experience. Il-2 was revolutionary and engendered so much enthusiasm because it had never been seen before. No new game built on the same engine will provoke the same emotions. That doesn't mean it is much worse though. It's just not new & hitherto unseen.

sapre
11-06-2004, 09:29 PM
I can see Deckard is really desparate trying to defend himself! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Snootles
11-06-2004, 09:47 PM
IBTL!!!!

Boy, I really am turning into a post-***** when it comes to these kinda threads http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif .

killer2359
11-06-2004, 11:16 PM
I bought PF afew days ago and I wish I'd seen this review first.

I don't have any other of the IL games but have tried demos and been impressed (lack of interest in European Theatre is the reason for not purchasing).

As it stands I cannot get into PF any further as I've mastered carrier ops but the lack of single missions and AWFUL campaign really means the whole thing has ground to a halt for me (just "mucking about" is really not an option either because of badly flawed Flight Models - and don't kid yourselves they are B-A-D).

I've gained from this thread that the development team has a great history of ongoing improvement and support - for this I will wait then and meantime park my joystick.

As a customer (not fanboy) who bought this game in good faith I must say that the review in question is spot on. I will be REAL careful about purchasing future 1C:Maddox games until several months after release - so I can then hopefully end up with a game I can actually use!!

And BTW - I am SEVERELY pissed right now because I have a limited tho generous budget for buying games (can generally get one every 2 months) - and in this instance when faced with the choice of PF or Half Life 2 I BLEW IT! Now I'll have to wait till the new year to get HL2 - by then hopefully patches will have made PF worth playing also - so now I sit on my hands for a couple of months when I could at least have been playing one decent game by the end of this month!!!!

- hmmm, maybe I should explore the money back or exchanges policy of the store I got PF from - with luck I can swap it for HL2 - ALL MAY NOT BE LOST!

sapre
11-07-2004, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killer2359:
I bought PF afew days ago and I wish I'd seen this review first.

I don't have any other of the IL games but have tried demos and been impressed (lack of interest in European Theatre is the reason for not purchasing).

As it stands I cannot get into PF any further as I've mastered carrier ops but the lack of single missions and AWFUL campaign really means the whole thing has ground to a halt for me (just "mucking about" is really not an option either because of badly flawed Flight Models - and don't kid yourselves they are B-A-D).

I've gained from this thread that the development team has a great history of ongoing improvement and support - for this I will wait then and meantime park my joystick.

As a customer (not fanboy) who bought this game in good faith I must say that the review in question is spot on. I will be REAL careful about purchasing future 1C:Maddox games until several months after release - so I can then hopefully end up with a game I can actually use!!

And BTW - I am SEVERELY pissed right now because I have a limited tho generous budget for buying games (can generally get one every 2 months) - and in this instance when faced with the choice of PF or Half Life 2 I BLEW IT! Now I'll have to wait till the new year to get HL2 - by then hopefully patches will have made PF worth playing also - so now I sit on my hands for a couple of months when I could at least have been playing one decent game by the end of this month!!!!

- hmmm, maybe I should explore the money back or exchanges policy of the store I got PF from - with luck I can swap it for HL2 - ALL MAY NOT BE LOST! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too bad you coudn't enjoy it.
Period.

killer2359
11-07-2004, 01:09 AM
I never said I didn't/don't enjoy PF - what I've said is that in it's current (incomplete) form my enjoyment has been very limited in both scope and duration and my currently available dollars could have been more usefully spent elsewhere - and in the context of this thread, my experience is very much in line with that review.

I'm actually dying to get into PF - a couple of weeks ago someone said to me "what games are you waiting for" - I replied "Pacific Fighters and Half Life 2 in that order". If asked the same question tomorrow I'd have to answer EXACTLY THE SAME!

Make no mistake - I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for Oleg and his people and their work. UbiSoft I'm not so keen on right now...

Ruy Horta
11-07-2004, 02:46 AM
So when are they going to kill this thread?

Apart from a review that has arguably some valid points, but an equally crappy score system and an endless debate about the the quality of PF, what can it further contribute?

Fanboy = PF is manna from heaven
Fanboy in denial = wait for the patch

Whiner in denial = hope for the patch
Whiner = PF is flawed

Axegrinder = PF is ****

Moderator = Fanboy in denial

Skii_
11-07-2004, 05:37 AM
The argument is going in circles, and the ardent fanboys want the last word

knock yourselves out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif