CloDo review of a french video game mag...

[Oktoberfest]

I especially like the recommended specs...

http://www.canardpc.com/jeux-2121-il_2_sturmovik___cliffs_of_dover.html

[Russkly]

Hhhhmmm...tres drole.

[Kankkis]

Game is better and better after each patch, it's great allready, we are going better way all the time. Last patch was so good, get rid allmost all stutter. Great game and i see it become best sim out there.

Soon biggest problems is squashed away and we have worderful WW2 sim.
I'm pretty sure many big sites/magazines what reviews now game, gives it another try later and then there is positive reviews.

Kankkis

[Viper2000]

...une déception gigantesque

For some reason, I find this phrase hugely amusing, and will probably start randomly dropping it into conversation in my best OSS 117 voice.

My friends will be confused. But of course, that's the whole point of...une déception gigantesque!

[jibo]

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

[ubermachtig]

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

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

[C_G]

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

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

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

[TUCKIE_JG52]

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

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


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


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

[ICDP]

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

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


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


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

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

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

[bugmenot]

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

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

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

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

[TUCKIE_JG52]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BigC208]

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

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


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


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

If the guy got his hands on the unpatched release version I'm surprised he even gave it a 3 out of 10. It was a 0 out of 10 out of the box. Simple. Could not run it on my within minimum spec computer. With Fridays beta patch the game is up to 8 out of 10 on my 4 year old computer. There are still ctd's if I switch to outside target views so I stopped doing that. This morning I flew for an hour without any ctd. Did a few morning intercepts, got a few kills and returned to base. Very immersive. If 1C is smart they release a new patched up version of Il2Cod around Christmas with a few more planes and publicity gizmos and a new name ala RoF ICE. That way they have a fresh start and new buyers don't have to download 5 gb of patches in order to play the game.

[Viper2000]

Translation by C_G:
[...]

So déception = disappointment?

That's a shame. I rather liked the concept of the reviewer outing a huge deception by The Russians to drive some kind of super weapon powered by nerd-rage... *sigh* I guess I should have paid more attention in GCSE French...

[BigC208]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jt_medina]

Once it's patched all bugs will be gone. Something obvious but some people just don't get it.
IL2 1946 wasn't the sim it became out of the box in fact it's still being patched.

I guess the guy who made the review had no damn idea.

Just only for the new engine management system IL2 COD is worth the money.

[C_G]

So déception = disappointment?

That's a shame. I rather liked the concept of the reviewer outing a huge deception by The Russians to drive some kind of super weapon powered by nerd-rage... *sigh* I guess I should have paid more attention in GCSE French...

LOL... Who's to say that's not actually the case?

Their gigantesque déception may well be a Russian réussite fantastique! ;) :grin:

[meplay]

So did a simmer review this or just some1 else? just wondered :)

Oktober stop stabing it in the back..you will love it soon enough :)

[ICDP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kerdou]

Hummmm guys. You still don't seem to get one simple thing: If the writers give some 3/10, or 4/10 or even refuse to review CoD at the moment, it's just because the have to deal with what they have before them. There job is to review it now, not to review what they expect to see within the next 6 months after many patchs.

Facts are facts, even if CoD is getting better it's still full of bugs and need to be improved today.

[Baron]

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

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

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


I`ll wager 1 million bucks that the one who wrote this is someone with a nick in here or at SimHQ.

[bugmenot]

Well as a review, that is an awful piece of writing. Not much better than the average complaining thread you'll find on any game forum.

The writer gives no facts to back up his opinion. He gives no real technical information. In fact he gives nothing. All he's sone is state an unsupported opinion.

However when considering the original release, his score is right. He can't review what might be, he can only review what's in front of him. Considering this in the light of the 4/10 from Gamestop means the writing is very much on the wall. I can't help but wonder how long it will be until Ubi start to think they're on a loser here and force 1C to drop the project in a similar way they dropped SH5 very quickly when that emerged to less than stellar reviews.

However right or not, he should be fired for being so unproffessional to right such a badly considered "review." .... And his editor should be fired for being so incompetant as to publish it.

I guess you don't know the mag' and I can't blame you for that but... what you're complaining about is exactly what this mag' is about : not any so-called "professional objectivity bullshit and so on". They really give their opinion about the game they're testing, no matter if that seems strange, weird, crappy, or, especially, unprofessional...

And they have no editor, they're independent, they own their own mag'.

I know this mag' well. It's the best PC video games Mag' you can buy here in France. Period.

You should read my message too I've posted at the bottom of the first page too BTW. :)

[Baron]

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

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


U forgot BUGS bugs.

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

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


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

[ICDP]

U forgot BUGS bugs.

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

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


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

Thankfully the proper reviews are tearing this so called "sim" to shreds. Just because you think it isn't a bug doesn't mean the reviews that matter won't.

Oh and well done on your reading comprehension... tool.

[Baron]

Thankfully the proper reviews are tearing this so called "sim" to shreds. Just because you think it isn't a bug doesn't mean the reviews that matter won't.

Oh and well done on your reading comprehension... tool.


Im not talking about the reviewer, im talking about U announcing that everything has bugs ,witch is bollocks.

But i think u allredy know that, u just need to lash out because U cant get it to work like many can.

[rollnloop]

This is not a review per se, it's just a small sum up, the full review being published in the paper magazine. Should be at least 2 pages per their standards.

The reviewer has produced in depth reviews of many titles (including DCS A-10, Blackshark and so on), and i found him usually quite generous with sims. I am pretty sure that if/when the game gets really seriously working well with all features (comms, dynamic weather), one can ask for an up to date review and get it. Still, the game was what it was at release, review was most probably written before the two last patches (then it could have been rated 5/10 maybe, with what is still broken/not working as advertised).

3/10 would have been my rating too at release, 1/10 for game as released and 2/10 for hope of improvement. I'd give it a 5,5 now, improvements have been much faster than expected. Hope to give it a 9 six months from now :rolleyes:

[ICDP]

Im not talking about the reviewer, im talking about U announcing that everything has bugs ,witch is bollocks.

But i think u allredy know that, u just need to lash out because U cant get it to work like many can.


I have it working well on my PC thanks for your concern. Like it or not sunshine, this game has more bugs than a termite mound. you keep saying "IT ISN'T A BUG...WAH", who are you trying to convince, the rest uf us who have the sim and know it is bugged, or yourself?

Either way, I have decided to stop debating with you on this. Enjoy your bug free sim.