CloDo review of a french video game mag...
 

I especially like the recommended specs...

http://www.canardpc.com/jeux-2121-il..._of_dover.html

Hhhhmmm...tres drole.

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

Lol
 

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!

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

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.

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'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.

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.

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.