Obviously, we should dismiss your remarks because you are just full of cheese and can't say anything nice about others or the BOB. You just need to write your own reviews and post them. It is darned easy to nitpick someone else when your own contributions are nil.

Serious, "Nitpick"??? Dude... see what i wrote, i think its very probable that this game reach the awesomeness of the il-2 1946 4.101, but i can't lie to people... in it current state its hard to recommend this game, maybe after the promised perrfomance patches, before the USA launch... But the "review" is like the OP is in debt with Oleg, like he didn't PAID for il-2 and now cliffs of dover...

Just let the review for the next month, after the patches... Probably then the game will deserve a 9.0 score.

Exactly. The users who reviewed the game should have had enough sense to wait for the patches before throwing the developer under the bus.

This is a bit of a side discussion, but IMO whenever sim people post stuff like "this is a real sim so if you just want to shoot stuff stay with your call of duty kiddyfest" it's a huge turnoff to a potential customer reading your review/post whatever. If your goal is to entice people to play the game it's completely counterproductive.

I play a lot of sims so I see it alot. It happens frequently in the ww2ol community. Often people are trying to be helpful but to a new player it just comes across as smug and superior and cliquish.

It is an utterly ridiculuous proposition to state that a game should not be reviewed until we "wait for the patches". By your logic Il2 would still not be reviewed since it has been patched repeatedly right up until 4.11 and there are still more to come. Or Arma II which is still getting patches, should it have been reviewed when it was released?

It is also a ridiculous notion that somehow it is "our fault" that Cliffs of Dover is not being universaly well received. Somehow the process got swapped on its head. Instead of the publishers and developers being gratefull that we purchased their software, WE the buying public must be gratefull that they ever released it in the first place, no matter what state it is in. We must also be patient and wait for the software to become usable, and while waiting we should lie to others and say it is a sim that deserves 90% as a score? Honestly if I were to recommend CoD to a friend and he tried it we wouldn't be friends very long. Would you be able to live with yourselve the way the OP can even though he is telling other people that CoD is worth 90%.

If someone were to ask you to recommend a good sim that will run well on his two year old PC could you in all conscience recommend Cliffs of Dover? Would you tell him to just fly over the water against three or four aircraft and hope that the developers will "make it better" over the next few years.

If the developers and publishers didn't want "thrown under a bus" for how Cliffs of Dover would be perceived by the "BUYING" public, then they shouldn't have released it in its current state.

P.S. There were plenty of promises made that were not delivered. Oleg and 1C stated many times in various interviews that the AI could not see though clouds... lo and behold, the AI can see through clouds. Right up until the week before the Russian release there were videos showing the SU26, it was cut without so much as a whisper from the devs/publishers. We were told by Luthier and many of his sychophantic fanboys that the sounds were just placeholders, guess what, those shit sounds from the pre-release videos made it into the final version. Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining.

The problem is that many (including myself) see this as another nail in the PC games coffin. I do not have the time to go through every thread and try to fix problems that should not be there in the first instance. reviews like this do the game (and PC games in general) no favours. Many people will buy the game on the strength of this very misleading review, play it for a few minutes, realise that it is not fit for purpose and bury it away in the cupboard, never to be played again, and never again will they buy a game from the same developer. (Regardless of whos fault it is..)

You will have the 'hardcore fanboys' on here telling others to 'stop whining'. That is absolutely fine. The truth is that when games like this are released and do not work properly on many capable machines, it kills ongoing sales, irrespective of future patches. First impressions etc.

The majority (NOT the hardcore few) want and expect a finished product when they (we) hand over £30 of our hard earned money - this is not the case with this game. Many will invest their money and time into games that work and do not frustrate - it really is that simple.

Reviews like this should not be allowed to be published - they do the developers no favours in the long run.

You think you are helping the game, but you totally miss the point. You are actually harming it more than you seem able to imagine.

All you are doing now, is abusing people about the state of the game, so after they buyed it, they will just try it and most probably never touch it again. Will they be waiting for patches? We can wait, for sure, but the newcomer to flightsim will just shelve it.

After reading your review and testing the game, what do they know? They know that the most advanced flight sim to date, as you say, is a worthless unplayable piece of crap. Will it entice them to stay in the genre and try other flight sims, like old IL2? I doubt it. Will they go and say to their friends to try and buy this amazing unworking piece of software? Well, they may recomend it to some people they don't like.

So, your contribution is actually most harmful to the game that the ones of the people that honestly state that in its current state, the game isn't worth buying.

The point is not to make people buy the game, this is the marketing job. Our job as fans, is to make people keep playing. For this, we need a fully fonctional game, in extenso, patched so it's at least playable on recommended rig. It may have some bugs, but anybody with the recommended hardware should be able to take the game out of the box, with default settings, and fly around and shoot things in quick missions.

Eurogamer Denmark will not give the game a bad review "out of respect for the talented team who created the game"

They just wont review it at all (at the moment) and firmly point the finger of blame at UBI.
http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/201...iffs-of-dover/

Really Ubi was messed up again releasing a product early.

But under other point of view I can enjoy playing this beta until gets patched, which it will.

When IL-2 Forgotten Battles went out was a mess too, but the development was never stoped, it did grow and grow until become to the Gran Turismo of the PC combat flight simulators.

Because this game is not those annual low level car games that you play a few hours and then throw to the garbage ... to wait for the next year version.

This is IL-2.

The team are now adressing the performance problems, next step is bug fixing and then ... the sky is the limit ;)

The only people responsible for driving people away from this game (if that happens) are the same people who made the ill judged decision to release this game in the condition that it is in at the moment.

Sure there are fun things about it, no doubt about that, but there are too many things wrong with it for the average gamer to just pick it up and say wow I must recommend this to my friends.

It's almost as if UBI or MG or 1C or whoever is responsible for this release said to themselves lets just release it anyway, we know the flight sim community trust us to patch the game to standards they expect.

Well that's all very well for the established community, but if they think that will bring new players into the genre then forget it.

People are entitled to review a game how they see it, ultimately the reviews wont lie, it's as simple as that.

p.s, personally I would rate this game at the moment a 6.5, after the next few patches it could well go up to 8 or 9, lets hope it does.


Bryan.