Gamespot Review for CoD - Score: 4.0

[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.

[maclean525]

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]

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

[Heliocon]

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amazing cockpit lighting but poor glass effects like the white crap that is in atm when you fly through a cloud, or the outdated looking oil spash patterns?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.

[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.

As the game has progressed I am another that has come to appreciate the game. Yes when it first released it was rather gloomy. However a few patches later its making a rather speedy recovery.

I'm looking forward to the future of IL2!

[smink1701]

It's not how you start...but how you finish. Team Maddox/Luthier, time to finish strong

[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

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Your proof for this is?

The screenshots speak for his self, how fair can be a review if it dont review the graphics possibilities that the game offers.

He even complain about low quality textures ... that he put there.

here is the Crysis review in the same site :

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/cr...%3Bread-review

And the screenshots section :

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/cry...most.&cvr=3Y50

You will not find graphics tuned down there, and the reviewer even quit importance to the lack of DX11 support.

I call that Biased BS.