Review by Heinkill

[planespotter]

Heinkill now did a review on his bobgamehub blog.

review here

http://www.freewebs.com/heinkill/cliffsofdoverreview.htm

or PDF

http://www.box.net/shared/ndc29azgxqm060gqzeal

i think he undervalues online game which has now been fixed with beta patch.

[Rattlehead]

Probably the best review of Clod I've yet read. Very balanced and fair.

[JG5_emil]

Great review and very honest!

[sigintwarrior]

I like the ending. "Patience will be rewarded" Good review.

[335th_GRAthos]

Great review!


(The first thing you will want to do is turn off the Cliffs of Dover menu theme music! It sounds like it was recorded by a manic Russian organist on his Nintendo Wii DJ program.)

How true! ;)



CONCLUSION

Buy Cliffs of Dover.

Like a good wine, it can be played now, but it will be better with age. Patience will be rewarded.

Also true... as long as I will not turn to alchoholism with all this testing while waiting ;)

~S~

[planespotter]

I think is harsh on mp and soft on sp, but some good lines...

' Where BOBII creates the impression the player is flying against an almost human (and not superhuman) opponent, Cliffs of Dover makes the player feel he is playing against a monkey.'

Why i have always preferred online because no ai pilot can match human.

Good one!

[csThor]

Different people have different ideas about gameplay. HeinKill and I share an interest in historical campaigns - simply for the fact that only they can manage to recreate the atmosphere of the real operation (within the constraints of the engine). Online, on the other hand, will never be that "realistic" since realism and people having fun don't go along well. Most are not interested in the details that make or break a campaign for me and I am not interested in the never-ending dogfights which many players consider the heart of a flight sim while I try to look at the bigger picture and try to put the aerial ops into a framework which allows me to see their role as it really was.
So IMO the review is spot on, although I disagree on the german campaign which I also consider a bad joke. But that's just me. :mrgreen:

[smink1701]

Spot on.

[lancerr]

+100

I totally agree with this point of view - the sim is more than just the dogfight, which is why I hope and pray that at some point, maddox will release a BOB type strategic layer on top of COD.

Different people have different ideas about gameplay. HeinKill and I share an interest in historical campaigns - simply for the fact that only they can manage to recreate the atmosphere of the real operation (within the constraints of the engine). Online, on the other hand, will never be that "realistic" since realism and people having fun don't go along well. Most are not interested in the details that make or break a campaign for me and I am not interested in the never-ending dogfights which many players consider the heart of a flight sim while I try to look at the bigger picture and try to put the aerial ops into a framework which allows me to see their role as it really was.
So IMO the review is spot on, although I disagree on the german campaign which I also consider a bad joke. But that's just me. :mrgreen:

[csThor]

+100

I totally agree with this point of view - the sim is more than just the dogfight, which is why I hope and pray that at some point, maddox will release a BOB type strategic layer on top of COD.

Good god - please Noooooooooooooo! :shock: Please do not ask Maddox Games to create yet another shizophrenic campaign engine for a flight sim. If I want to play a strategy game I fire up Gary Grigsby's Battle of Britain. Why do people insist on being General while flying? :roll:

[grunge]

Just read it, and it's a very good review. Like this comparison with a good vine. Let's taste it later :)

[Blackdog_kt]

Good god - please Noooooooooooooo! :shock: Please do not ask Maddox Games to create yet another shizophrenic campaign engine for a flight sim. If I want to play a strategy game I fire up Gary Grigsby's Battle of Britain. Why do people insist on being General while flying? :roll:

To be honest, i'd be ok with it if it was optional.

A properly done dynamic campaign engine would have to automatically do all that work anyway , so letting the player change a few settings here and there or move waypoints around wouldn't need extra coding work apart from providing an interface for it. In other words, coding time needs to be spent anyway on a dynamic campaign engine so it's not like having the ability to intervene as a player would delay things much.

I don't see myself using such a feature much but i wouldn't ignore it completely either. What i would probably do is let the campaign engine decide on the wider goals and missions but i would certainly take a look at the map and reroute/customize my sortie to get better results if i had sufficient rank in the campaign, taking a bit more fuel to skirt around known flak concentrations or changing the cruising altitude if i wanted to do a surprise low level attack, etc.

Others might ignore it completely and let the mission generator do all the work and some will probably scrap all computer generated missions and issue their own.

However, since the dynamic campaign layer will already need to be there in the first place, it gives us the ability to keep everyone happy with one single feature (not to mention it would be highly useful for dynamic online wars so it covers both single and multiplayer), so i'm not exactly negative towards it.

[planespotter]

On this I like what was in Falcon series of dynamic persistent world, moving front campaign. Also in BOBWOV I liked taking the armchair fieldmarschall job and deciding to try to change history and not make the Hitler/Goering mistakes and see what would happen (Luftwaffe victory!)

But every game does not have to have every single element of every single sim that ever was included in it for it to be a good game does it?

You want a dynamic strategic campaign? I agree, buy another game!

[planespotter]

Sorry if that was considered rude.