Gamespot Review for CoD - Score: 4.0

[meplay]

I think they really need some more documentation, printable maps Keys list and more tutorials...ive been with il2 for around 9 years and got to know the game quit well....gave me a headache though because i didnt have the internet back then, got it a couple of years after, and thats when i really started to learn the game, so can you imagine what a newcomer to Cliffs would feel like!.

But i love the game! It needs work but i love it already

[addman]

Originally Posted by meplay

I think they really need some more documentation, printable maps Keys list and more tutorials...ive been with il2 for around 9 years and got to know the game quit well....gave me a headache though because i didnt have the internet back then, got it a couple of years after, and thats when i really started to learn the game, so can you imagine what a newcomer to Cliffs would feel like!.

But i love the game! It needs work but i love it already

Amen brother! More documentation, especially on the FMB.

[Redroach]

yes, the score is well deserved, I agree. There's not only the performance issues, but also the countless bugs with essential things not working. To add to this, there's the "campaign" feature which is little more than a few missions put together. There is no briefing, no debriefing (aside from scripted text, of course), no ranks, no awards. And a little video in-between would have worked wonders, too.
I have to admit that I'm slowly gravitating back to Il2-1946, too. The state of CoD is just too sad right now. And the other sad thing is that nothing is fundamentally wrong with the sim... its just the unfinished state.

[Fjordmonkey]

As others have said, I think the score is fair. I've found all the issues the review takes up, and more, and it's sad to see that many in the flightsim-community have left the game behind due to the bugs and issues, or won't pick it up because of the bad rep the sim now reaps.

That being said, I hold the game in the regard that it's a bottle of wine. Namely that it WILL be better with time. Having been a long-time MMO-player, I know that many games won't be ready when they launch. But through the dedication and insanely hard work of the developer (and nobody can claim that 1C isn't dedicated AND works hard to fix the sim) it will get gradually better and better as time passes. IL2:CoD isn't any different there. We've already seen leaps in terms of performance in the two latest patches (at least I have), and I for one have full confidence in 1C's ability to turn CoD into a quality product rivaling the original IL2.

Looking forward to a re-review at a later date, and I think it will be a very different score at that time.

[Bricks]

Originally Posted by Redroach

yes, the score is well deserved, I agree. There's not only the performance issues, but also the countless bugs with essential things not working. To add to this, there's the "campaign" feature which is little more than a few missions put together. There is no briefing, no debriefing (aside from scripted text, of course), no ranks, no awards. And a little video in-between would have worked wonders, too.
I have to admit that I'm slowly gravitating back to Il2-1946, too. The state of CoD is just too sad right now. And the other sad thing is that nothing is fundamentally wrong with the sim... its just the unfinished state.

+ most of us also see what this sim is capable of. New users or especially new-comers to the simming sector don't. For them, this is anti-advertising for the simulation market: Non-accessible even in the menus and only for pro's who can fly a plane without instructions or feedback. They don't care about details possible through modification, changing ini-settings or changing ammo-belts.

IMHO the 4.0 score is with a good portion of the IL2-renown-bonus. Several comments also show this.

Personally, I've removed it from my HDD. I will give it a try in another 6 months or so.

[michcich]

Bad management sounds like something Oleg Maddox has been fired for.