Gamespot Review for CoD - Score: 4.0

[addman]

As previous posters have said, I hate to say it but the reviewer is spot on. It's actually a very good and objective review and I agree with the reviewer, the game is unfit for regular consumers. I'm still playing and enjoying it though and with every patch it's improving but not having the radio comms fixed yet is just, well bad!

[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.

[TwistedAdonis]

Originally Posted by sfmadmax

It's just a number.. Honestly I am an active gamer and never read gamespot nor their reviews. It's just like movie critics, You can't judge a piece of software or a movie flick from what others experience.

Then what on earth do you use to make an informed choice? There is so much stuff out there that you need some way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Movie makers always say 'word of mouth' is what they really want to generate.

I buy certain items without reading reviews (like ClOD) or seeking the advice of friends because I have experience of the company/author/director's work. Ubisoft have killed that for their company I'm afraid with this release and the debacle that was Silent Hunter V. They used to be such a reliable brand.

Anyhoo, my point is that if we are unfamiliar with something we need reviews and critics, but clearly we need to use our own judgement as well.

[Wolf_Rider]

did anyone notice, in the video, the tree shadows weren't flickereing?

[Russkly]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

did anyone notice, in the video, the tree shadows weren't flickereing?

Fair review.

Love it or hate it (and I could grow to love it and will stick with it, incidentally), CoD was released in a parlous state.

Maybe we'll find out why sometime...

R