![]() |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The reviewers comments are accurate IMHO.
I myself am now after several evenings of tweaking, enjoying a reasonably satisfying gaming experience particularly with the dramatic increase of quality with the damage modelling. Even though overall performance with CoD for me at this time is poor, I have now seen enough to know that this will be significantly superior to the original IL2 given time. Cheers, CS. ![]() |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
With the beta patch, I actually have smoother game-play than Il-2 1946. It's like a dream, to see a low level airfield attack, with flak bursts and huge fountains of earth erupting, and cars driving around, without any stutters at all. A year from now, we will be hearing about 1,000s of people having their lives ruined from becoming addicted to CloD. I'd be addicted now if we had some more maps like Malta and Libya.
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You CANT expect customers to have the opinion that 'oh it'll mature like a bottle of wine' esp now days, they already got my money but it doesn't mean Im gonna play it, there's not much there to play even if it was running perfectly which it isn't. I hope the U.S. release goes better but they have their work cut out for them in a critical way, we'll see how much more patience Ubi has because this can't go on for ever..we're talking YEARS of more dev time to fix this at the current rate! Good luck.
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Yes, the sim should have been flawless (or at least had less bugs than it currently has) when it was launched. Well, it is what it is, and we all accepted that when we bought the sim. I, however, AM a firm believer that a good sim is like a good bottle of wine, and just by the look of the two last patches that 1C has given out, the performance has leaped ahead. I'm confident that the sim will be more than playable by the majority of customers within one to two months, and I for one am fully willing to wait for that time to come. Years to fix the issues? I think not. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ROF was optimised after a year of tweaking, beta testers sweating etc....a year (althugh it was looking good right after the start)...lets hope CLOD will need less or at least not more than that....
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
well the time will tell how many damage is done...If it fails I will be sorry as I was looking for this title...then again with new HSFX and upcoming UP3.0 for "old" IL2 - I will be ok....
Last edited by Tvrdi; 04-18-2011 at 09:26 AM. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello,
just to say that I've found the review pretty fair. And for all the fanboys that think that these guys at Gamespot are biased, they still have their reviews for the previous IL2 series. Here are the grades and first line of comments : IL2 Sturmovik : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...-review&page=2 Grade : 9.2/10. IL-2 Sturmovik is destined to be a classic. This is one of those simulations that reminds you why you love the genre. Forgotten Battles : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...lt%3Btitle%3B5 Grade : 8.6 Forgotten Battles doesn't make the sort of huge impact that the original game did, but it's generally a very worthy successor. Ace Expansion Pack : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...%3Bread-review Grade : 8.5 The list of minor flaws could go on and on, but its total length is minuscule compared to the massive number of excellent additions this expansion serves up. IL2 1946 : http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/il2st...lt%3Btitle%3B2 Grade : 8.5 A combination of all the former IL-2 Sturmovik games and expansions, as well as new 1946 combat from an alternated ending to World War II. Yeah, they sound like biaised reviewers, sure. They absolutely loved IL2 original and gave good grades and good reviews to the sequels even if the grade shrunk because of aging graphics. What they said on CloDo is just as fair and as accurate as to what the software deserves. And, BTW, they also conclude by : You better leave the plane in the hangar for maintenance AT THE MOMENT. The reviewer is expecting the game to become a decent software at the end. I wouldn't call that a biased review. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Indeed, a sad story. Please point out the new WW2 flight sim produced by amateurs that is better than CoD. I'd like to buy it. Thanks!
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A pretty fair review, IMO, the key phrase being ‘at the moment’. If it was to be reviewed today (post Friday’s beta patch, and before today’s Steam update), I’m sure it would have been entirely different.
I don’t think that this review would put off a dedicated sim fan, maybe (hopefully) just delay a decision to purchase. As mentioned, there are too few of this genre available at any rate, but I would also not categorise a flight sim fan as a ‘casual gamer’, the kind likely to be most influenced by this review. Today the game’s major flaw would have probably been the AI’s improbable aerobatics, judging by current posts ![]()
__________________
I'd rather be flying ... Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 | AMD FX-8350 | MSI HD7970 TFOC-BE | 8GB Corsair DDR-III 1866 | Win8.1 Pro 64-bit
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
It is also relatively "easy" to make a comeback - just put out another COD product - meaning an expansion pack. We have two pros here : 1 - they get additional money from the hardcore crowd (me 100% I buy it); 2 - they will trigger additional reviews which then will have to review not only the exp. pack, but take into account the full product aswell ; 3 - CoD can remind other users of its existence. With that said, more such reviews will cause a catastrophe to CoD. Me, I damn KNOW that if back in 2001 I saw a bad review of IL2, I wouldn`t even touch it hence I would never know my #1 game ever. |
![]() |
|
|