Gamespot Review for CoD - Score: 4.0

[Cpt.Badger]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I read the review this morning and I get the feeling that the reviewer just doesn't understand the technical hurdles a hard core sim has to go through, especially a flight sim.

It's a fair review. You can't rate a game high if it runs like crap, just because it's supposed to be a flight sim. I used the word 'supposed' because you can't SIMULATE anything with 10 fps on your screen.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Utu, if you read what I wrote carefully. Oleg & Team were not building a flight sim for the first time. They had already made IL-2 that has been a huge success. In many interviews they said that everything learned from making IL-2 will be used to make CoD better and the next step.

What I am saying is that they have the knowledge and tools + experience in making a flight sim. This alone helps as they do not need to start from scratch. Combine this with good planning and resource management and production time is less.

Let's take Rise Of Flight, different product but a flight sim nevertheless and good in what it is portraying. No competition or comparing. It started off with a relatively small group and was released with a few planes only. But it since then has steadily grown, more planes and features have been added along the way in a pace that suits them. In other words they know how to manage resources available and to prioritize what and when to add. Also a lot of bugs have been fixed too ad the graphics improved yet runs smoothly. Good example how a small team can pull off something like this when building on a solid core which you can expand later, when applicable. I think you agree, Utu.

Even a small team can do wonders when they know what they can handle or not and plan/prioritize accordingly. Not taking a task too much to deal with. So this is why it makes wonder that with all the experience it took 6 years and release was not one of the most smooth ones. Sure things did change along the way, but still the core of the sim was here. The goal to be achieved.

We got a sim that has all the potential built in. But it is still a bit unpolished. Eventually patching will make it as supposed, but you can not deny the importance of the first impressions on release. Hordes of gamers form their opinion based on reviews and if it is not very favourable, no matter how good the game itself might be or the potential it would possess, the sales will be hurt. Cold fact. Most of them never look back, some might after a while IF the game gets support and is patched. Same applies to CoD.

[jibo]

Considering the big sites are mainstream gamers oriented they usually overrate and easily give away nines for dumb games, this silly 4.0 is a really bad note, adding to this Gamespot is a CBS/US game site and the game is not even released there. None of them will play the russian state version and 90% of those reviews will be out dated by Monday, the patched game already deserve a 7.
Warning the kiddies by saying it's not your casual pop corn game is ok, but ultimately trashing the game with a fubar rating while tons of people are already enjoying it, is ridiculous.
European critics were right the game was indeed unplayable, now this ugly picture is fading out and a stunning CoD at high resolution is revealed.
The European point of view has to stop because it is no longer relevant or the US release will be another fiasco only based on false rumors this time.

[utu]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Utu, if you read what I wrote carefully. Oleg & Team were not building a flight sim for the first time. They had already made IL-2 that has been a huge success.

Yours is not a valid argument from my point of view. Microsoft after 10 (ten) years made Vista, one of the crappiest operative systems ever, but they had experience on XP, Millennium, 98 and 95. But Seven works good. The problem with Cod is not a supposed lack of experience from the devs, because now it is showing all its potential, in 15 days (yes, the classical 2 weeks), they made 2 patches and the sim can run on older machines without problems at a very acceptable visual candies. Do you know A2A Simulations and their Accusim for fsx? They made a P47 Razorback, a B17 and recently a Spitfire mk1 and mk2, all "accusim" technology. You know that fsx is not a combat flight simulator, well, every one of those "accusimmed" planes required a huge amount of time to be finished. And our Cod planes are working with a concept very close to the concept of an "accurate flight simulator", and in Cod there so many planes to make accurate and precise. In my opinion the responsibility of this bad picture is only Ubisoft: bad marketing, bad logic, bad customer care, bad dev's care, etc.

[Cpt.Badger]

Originally Posted by utu

Yours is not a valid argument from my point of view. Microsoft after 10 (ten) years made Vista, one of the crappiest operative systems ever,

Microsoft isn't really the best example. What went wrong with Vista is a case study for many software team managers.

[ParaB]

I think it's a fair and honest review. If I'd have to rate CoD in its current state I'd probably give it a 6.5 (after ~38 hrs played, according to Steam), which already includes a hefty flightsim fan bonus.

This is what happens when you release an unfinished product, simple as that.

And no "but it's sooo complex and stuff!!!" moaning will change the fact that besides the obvious technical problems a lot of content simply is less than satisfying. The campaigns IMO are an embarrassment considering what large parts of the community have been asking for many years.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Utu, I would not compare MS and Maddox Games on the same day, not even an OS to a game. Say Oleg and Luthier had same resources as MS then we would talk about a totally different ballpark

You seemed to miss the point that even Oleg's team for sure has the knowledge and experience on simulators how could same things come as legacy from IL-2 to CoD(towns causing heavy performance loss etc)? I for sure appreciate the patches as they do improve the gaming experience, but how come was the system or core of the game not optimized from the beginning?

Publisher has propably nothing or VERY little to do with how Oleg/Luthier manages his team/resources. They are interested when the game is out and how well the contract is fulfilled. Sure they will press devs if release dates begin to slip and problems arise. There is money at stake, cold business and bean counting. It is the dev's responsibility to use given timeframe effectively to deliver a product that should in most cases work out of the box. CoD is not one of them, even it is good with lot of potential.

Developer has to monitor the progress and how things keep shaping up. A constant watch for things that might cause problems/delays and act accordingly if such occasions arise. This calls for resource allocation. If a feature proves to be hard to implement or riddled with problems then decision making steps in. To keep it or add on a later date, how high this troubled feature is prioritized etc. Experience makes a difference here as you should know from previous products which areas require most work. Get the pic?

Now this goes all the way back when devs decide to create a new product. The goal must be clear from the start, within the limits of your resources and timeframe. Hard to explain as english not my native tongue.

In short seems CoD dev team has propably made some mistakes along the way, suffered from lack of resources and what not. Passion and ambition is sure there, but result leaves something to desire for. Rough start, but I am sure the near future patches will remedy a lot of the issues. It is just that the rough start and bad reviews can hurt sales of CoD to the wider audience. And once a game has got a low score on a big site it is hard to turn the tide.

The big pic is much more than we see here. What we can do is to provide data on bugs and such to developer so they can fix them ASAP. That way a lot can be saved and future development of CoD continue.

So..thumbs up and support the devs

[utu]

Originally Posted by ParaB

I think it's a fair and honest review. If I'd have to rate CoD in its current state I'd probably give it a 6.5 (after ~38 hrs played, according to Steam), which already includes a hefty flightsim fan bonus.

This is what happens when you release an unfinished product, simple as that.

And no "but it's sooo complex and stuff!!!" moaning will change the fact that besides the obvious technical problems a lot of content simply is less than satisfying. The campaigns IMO are an embarrassment considering what large parts of the community have been asking for many years.

The RoF's campaign after 2 years from the date of the release is poor and the people is waiting for a new one. Cod is not released yet in the US and some people is moaning that "the campaigns are an embarrassment". Then, stop to download patches and stop to play this game, but I bet that you the next monday will be waiting for the new patch.

[snwkill]

I will tell you this. I saw the problems that IL2 had, I read the forums, but I also read the outline post as well. I am new to IL-2 but I love flight sims. I went ahead and bought it from Just Flight, so I could get my hands on it before release here state-side. I am glad I did, because this is obviously a company that cares, they put out something that isn't ready yet, but unlike some other titles they will be here in the long run. I know this won't be a FSX, "see you later" fiasco.

I was very disappointed by the single player campaign, but the more I read on here the more I realize that this game is developed more for the online community and that the online community tries to develop the campaign side. Single player is more of a practice. Over-all I think this will be a very good game over the next few months. Just the latest beta patch did wonders.

[el0375]

I don't care about the number( + usually Gamespot's mark number is somedays not so fair), but what they wrote seems quite fair, although i cant say about sounds as i havent lived sounds of cannons. When i more than few players will start gettign good FPS( which will increase i hope) the online will be a true blast. for now i just tried at my friend's pc( which his speakers are 6+ years old), but hopefully another mate of mines is available for bying the cd
Keep it up 1C !