Are we waiting for a US release of CoD before we get to hear SimHQ's views on it? I'm looking forward to it!

Can't speak for SimHQ, but in its current, unmodded, state, I'd call the game pretty much unreviewable. At least if you're choosing the logical approach of reviewing it on a system with recommended specs and without 3rd-party-mods installed.





S.

S! Dozer, let's say it's like the curate's egg and like an old friend at the same time. It's good in parts, hard to criticise, a bit deep. It's like you then

Plus question two, did you get it yet? Good innit

Ming

I'm guessing that SimHQ will take the sensible route of waiting until the promised patches make the sim reviewable.

Any review at the moment would be debatable as to it's integrity either pro or con...

I hope not, or it could be years before Cliffs of Dover ever gets reviewed!

Strange how a game or sim! is good enough to be released and sold but then its deemed unfit to be reviewed by so many reputable review sites/mags.....oh no we cant review COD just yet it wouldn't be a fair review and the game is still very much unplayable....yet teh game or sim if you prefer is still very much available for sale!....i just hope the patches keep making the game better and the mods keep coming....

Of one thing i can say the skirmishes over the channel are just amazing..the attention to teh water is awesome ..as is the sky and distance fogging etc...this along with the photographic quality of the flyable aircraft makes for some very jaw dropping moments...yes this sim has what it takes under the hood..if it can just be tweaked and patched to present some sort of enjoyable experience...right now the irritations far exceed the enjoyable moments for me..

That is not how it should be. The game HAS to be reviewed in it's release state, with whatever patches are currently available. Waiting a number of months for a potential patch before a site held in such esteem in the sim world such as SimHQ reviews it, is just plain wrong.

SimHQ should review the game as it is - warts and all. By all means, revisit the sim in a few months, years, decades and then re-review it, but they can't hold back just because it's not what we all wanted.

Oh, and that includes reviewing it WITHOUT any mods.

Dave: Unreviewable doesn't have to mean "we won't review it because we don't want to be forced to give it a bad score". It can also mean: "This game is not playable even on our most high-end-rig at the office, thus we can't make any valid comments about its features, on its general behaviour or on the fun you could have with it."

If a car-mag was given a new car which had its engine missing, they couldn't review it either. They could comment on its looks, maybe on the comfort of its seat, but they wouldn't be able to actually use the car on the road or collect any meaningful data (mpg, top speed, braking, etc), thus making a professional review impossible.

One could argue of course that if a game is boxed and readily available on the shelf, a review should be mandatory. But if you can't actually play the darn thing as it was supposed to be played, what's the point? If I had to make that decision, I guess I'd include a short one-pager on the game with all the standards (shots, technical specs, etc) but I wouldn't give it a score/rating. I'd rather include a warning about the state the game is in, mention the fact that it *might* get fixed in the near future and, at least for the time being, would strongly discourage my readers from buying.


The bottom line is this: Not reviewing a game because of its bugged state and telling people just that is probably even worse than reviewing a game and giving it a bad score. There's nothing like a first impression, and most casual gamers will remember CoD for its troubled release and "unreviewable" status. And they'll still remember that even 12 months from now when it may be completely fixed.


S.

Used to be (starting back in the day of the hard-copy PC magazines and as the internet got rolling), flight sims were nearly all released with bugs.

They would be immediately reviewed and scored low.

Then, they would be fixed.

However, the damage was done and they lost money. Some very good sim developers went out of business. That was a loss for the sim community (a niche market with few developers).

Considering the health of the sim industry (only fair health), giving the developer time to release a couple patches (or at least a USA version) before review is responsible. The lack of review IS a warning to potential early buyers. But, the final reviews will be more indicative of the long term possibilities of the sim -- and, hopefully the truth at that time will not kill a product many would like to see continue forward.

+1

SimHQ should do a 'preview' article now with some caveats - just to give fair info either way. There's a responsibility to the buyer as well as considering the health of the sim market. Knowing what you are getting is a useful service to provide and might actually help set people's expectations, which ultimately may help 1C.

Also, they should let me write it. I could currently fill five pages of jokes found through bitter experience and tear-filled eyes through hours of struggling to play - once the litigation and court case has been settled, I'm sure we'd all have a good laugh about it.

Oh crap I only agree with 2005AD (hangs head in shame lol)

Every man and his dog knows it was released too early but I think it should be reviewed at the time of the US version release.
Later than that and it would be fair for other players in the market.
Hopefully they are working on a half decent patch for then so that it can be reviewed without the 3rd party fixes.

SimHQ will review the shipping North American version which will be released at the end of April.

We haven't received review copies yet. I am not going to go out and purchase the game until the US version comes out. If we don't get review copies then we will purchase and review the game.

It will be done.

You could write a very quick First Impressions review. "Il-2 CoD is unplayable on our present systems. We'll review it after the first dozen patches. See you soon!"

I haven't got CoD yet. My PC is a single-core 3ghz Pentium 4 with an AGP nVidia 7300GT. I don't have the cash to replace the motherboard, processor and graphics card at the same time. Or separately come to think of it. It was a bad decision to move to a house with 20% higher rent last year, with housemates who are very slow to pay me their share of the bills...

What would be the point of that? Anyone that's going to read a Sim HQ review will have the where with all to go to the CoD forum and read more detailed versions of the same thing you just said Sim HQ should post.

Not really worth Tom's time is it?


(I didn't smell sarcasm, but it case you were being that.... well then, nevermind. LOL)

No game is "unreviewable" if it has been released and being sold to the public. Having said that, I have never heard of any

law that says a game has to be reviewed as soon as it has been released. Having said that, is a SimHQ review really that big

an influence on the buying market? I dont mean any disrespect asking that, I honestly dont know. Of course I will read the SimHQ

review because I read these forums. I am confident SimHQ will give a fair and balanced review whenever they are ready.

A quick SimHQ review/first look on the US release date (not long now) would be better that scouring this forum for real info.

Forums are not really a great representation of a sim, in that you just get extreme views from both sides when feelings run strong. There are so many people bubbling with anger about IL2 or what they wanted SoW to be that I'd imagine most 'middle of the road' opinions would stay way away from here in fear of shrapnel.

The banana forum is tiresome because it's full of sycophantic gibberish and a draconian ban hammer, which makes this SimHQ COD forum a nicer place for people that have an axe to grind to hang out. You're more likely to see a negative COD bias here, basically because people like to moan and this is one place to do it unfettered. I'm sure people have genuine grievances, but people who don't probably can't be bothered to say 'meh, it's actually ok' as the same passion isn't there.

A review would give a fairer assessment.

Lol , that's a laugh and naked reality in one sentence ;

If the site or person that reviews CoD takes care of customers rights and has honesty held high then they would do a review of stock CoD...

Waiting to review or to deliberatly not review because it's in a state of crap is very disturbing and even more fishy ...






The end doesn't justify the means...

The responsibility to the buyer should be given maximum priority, and you can't get that with lies and shambled products.

The only way to obtain that priority and show at least some repect to potential customers is to do a stock CoD review without holding back because it might become good, or they are the last WW2 devs, or whatever...

Why would they do that, and as you havent got CoD yet what makes you think it is unplayable, there are a lot of bugs and features that require implementing but it is certainly playable.