Gamespot Review for CoD - Score: 4.0

Devastat · #1 04-16-2011, 11:44 PM

It is actually really sad to read this as actually CoD is a really good game, they just reviewed it way too early :/
Edit: I should have wrote, they released it way too early.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il-2-...er/review.html

Ze-Jamz · #2 04-16-2011, 11:53 PM

As much as id like to agree i cant...

Game gets released..ie retailed, they do a review..

Whoever the haters, and the ones that wanna just go on about this and that and everyone has a choice blah blah this game wasnt finished OR so we dont start ww3 again should of had more testing from beta testers OR were told/warned about how it would be..

I appreciate all the work they are doing now but then...they should be doing that work, they released it so im not going to suk rear ends saying how great they are...if it were free and it wasnt working and they were fixing it for me then id be truly appreciative but its not like that..

Im afraid even though that review may be too early as you say it does reflect what 75% people here feel im sure.

PaulWF · #3 04-16-2011, 11:54 PM

A fair review.

Chivas · #4 04-17-2011, 12:07 AM

its very unfortunate that another nail was hammered into the combat flight sim genre coffin. There is probably plenty of blame to go around for UBI/IC/Maddox games inregards to releasing IL-2 COD a few months too soon.

I'm sure IL-2 COD will evolve into a great sim sooner than later,and it better be soon, before the Western release. I can see why they delayed the US/Canada release for another month. The last two patches have made considerable headway, now they have to fix a massive amount of bugs and add missing features.

doghous3 · #5 04-17-2011, 12:16 AM

The best review's will be word of mouth. But really, he wasn't being too unfair. Number is a number.

It's still not at a point where I'll nod and say, yeah, go buy it! But it's getting there.

Jotaele · #6 04-17-2011, 12:28 AM

Clod is not a 10 min play game.You start to apreciate it over the time, and it will be much good over the time.Not justice!

bw_wolverine · #7 04-17-2011, 12:37 AM

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.

I wish major sims could have graphics like Crysis or even Wings of Prey. I know it's not going to happen in 2011 though.

maclean525 · #8 04-17-2011, 12:55 AM

Quote:

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.

I wish major sims could have graphics like crysis or even wings of prey. I know it's not going to happen in 2011 though.

dcs a-10???

Buchon · #9 04-17-2011, 12:56 AM

Just watch out those screens, he is reviewing the game in XP, under DX9.

Heliocon · #10 04-17-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon

Just watch out those screens, he is reviewing the game in XP, under DX9.

Your proof for this is?

Also it was a fair review tbh, might even be too easy on the game. What I would like them to do is another review 6months - 1 year from now and hopefully then if improved give the game a great score in a re-review.

I dont know if it was even a release time issue, I think it was a issue with the devs having absolutely no idea on how to plan, program and release this product. Go back and look at those great bail out animations, where are they? Oh, you can have them in because they kill the game performance even when you are not looking at them? Why in the world did they create all these great tank and vehicle models when they are not going to be used currently? Why not get the game so it renders buildings that dont look like they are 5+ years old because of their low polygon count and horrible textures? Why use ground textures that are really low res and ugly, but have grass effects that no one will ever see except for on takeoff because they only display a few meters away? Why integrate a strenuous physics model but no weather/wind effects? Why having amazing cockpit lighting but poor glass effects like the white crap that is in atm when you fly through a cloud, or the outdated looking oil spash patterns? So many rescources wasted.

That shows very bad planning and communication. Same thing for the absurd bottlenecks, the fact that you cant fly over london because in the distance there is no london because the game cant/wont load the buildings. I mean, these are basic requirments... No tree hit boxes? Really? The excuse being is that there are too many trees and they would have to claculate it for eacgh plane anywhere on the map in SP? Why the hell would you program a game that does that? Thats insane, these are things that should not be an issue now, or even a few years ago.

It just smacks of bad managment unfortunetly, but hopefully it will pull through and not stall.