Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#3346178 - 07/20/11 05:24 AM SimHQ - A question about your impartiality  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
MACADEMIC Offline
Member
MACADEMIC  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
Malta
Hi all,

In the light of recent events on other another SimHQ forum, where protests of participants led to a complete change of policy, it must be allowed to ask some questions about the forum organizers' treatment of other sims, and their impartiality.

There was a very recent review of Wings of Prey by SimHQ which, while it may be amusing to read, in its overall negativity is suitable to prevent newcomers from giving this flight simulation game any chance at all. In fact it was so poignantly negative and devastating that it would have given some of the people on the other forum who have been called trolls for their negative commenting on another sim quite a run for their money.

It only turned out later that the reviewer had based his review on an older version 1.0.3.6 of the game which did not account for the many efforts by the game developers to improve the game in many areas. With the latest version 1.0.4.1, the flight models were vastly upgraded to reflect historical models much more accurately. The updating system was greatly improved to include a file checker at game start which automatically resolves issues now. The Multiplayer system was totally overhauled, leading to much greater game stability and populated servers. The reviewer overlooked the fact that the reason he could not find any multiplayer games was not because there were none going on, but because his game version was simply not compatible with the new overhauled MP versions since 1.0.3.6 (a series of Betas up to the full version 1.0.4.1).

Now, in fairness, it must be said that it is SimHQ's policy not to review Beta versions, and that the review was based on the latest available full version at the time, which was 1.0.3.6. However, it has been pointed out before that 1.0.4.1 as a full version was released within 24 hours of the review's publication as an independent event. The fact that the review was based on 1.0.3.6 is not immediately apparent as it was not mentioned in the review, and only became clear after some discussions with the reviewer. Following this I and others who like and support Wings of Prey respectfully asked SimHQ and the reviewer to take another look at the latest version and update the review, but time has passed and nothing has been heard of it. Here's a link to the Article Feedback discussion: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3329148/Review_Wings_of_Prey_Collector.html#Post3329148

Now, due to the fact that the review has not been updated to reflect the latest changes and improvements, and does not even contain a hint on the version it was based on, I cannot help but calling the review misleading and damaging to Wings of Prey. I wonder, is it in SimHQ's interest to negatively portray one flight simulation game while taking extra steps to protect the image of other sims? What is the benefit for SimHQ or anyone disregarding the serious efforts a game developer puts into improving their games? I can't see any. The reason for the existence of a site like SimHQ is the existence of simulation games, with emphasis on the plural form of the word.

I dare to imagine what the reaction of some followers of other flight sims would be if SimHQ would publish a review based on yesterday's game version which would trash their game in a similar fashion, and left it uncorrected. Do you think you'd keep them interested in your site for long? I don't think so.

MAC

P.S.: I must point out here that I am a forum moderator on Gaijin's own forum http://forum.gaijinent.com


EDIT 23/07/2011: The site admins of SimHQ have now included an Editorial note at the end of the review stating that the review was based on 1.0.3.6 and not on the latest full version 1.0.4.1, and a link leading to this discussion - thank you SimHQ.





Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3346362 - 07/20/11 12:59 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 451
GloDark7 Offline
Member
GloDark7  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 451
Pale Blue Dot
+1 Great post MAC

Originally Posted By: MACADEMIC
"...is it in SimHQ's interest to negatively portray one flight simulation game while taking extra steps to protect the image of other sims?"


Whatever spin SimHQ would like to put on it, it is very difficult not to regard blocking access to 4 months of posts about the Russian/European release of Cliffs of Dover without cynicism. Those posts fell within the guidelines of SimHQ's terms, were not removed but access to them has now been blocked (Access Denied). From the ashes has arisen a brand new, sanitized CoD forum with a new set of posting guidelines (2 days before the US release). Now only visible to registered forum users.

Wiping the slate clean or sweeping months of frustration under the carpet?

Cliffs of Dover was/is a broken mess and the discourse in the now 'historical' forum reflected this. People were not lying, just expressing their views. The patch to end all patches has not yet arrived and until it does you cannot silence negative criticism (although you can push it aside into a sub-forum out of the way).

SimHQ may be US based but it's audience is from all corners of the globe. It does not sit well that four months of history (posts) has been blocked. The timing is just a little suspicious.

Not reviewing betas will be tricky for the SimHQ team as what else can CoD be considered with half of it's promised features missing or broken? It is not to be considered beta though. It is a retail game and is now published as such. Do SimHQ review it now as it stands through Steam or wait an indefinite amount of time for a patch that may or may not fix it satisfactorily?

Without bias it should be reviewed right now at it's current version number and the same consideration to an addendum should be given that other titles receive.

A question of impartiality indeed...


System
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 95W @ 3.5Ghz
8GB DDR3 1333MHz
ATI HD 4850 1GB
Windows 7 x64 Ultimate SP1 (on OCZ Agility SSD 60GB)

Flight Gear
Freetrack 6DoF (using TrackIR 3 cam)
Saitek Cyborg Evo Force (failed after 6 strong years of service)
Saitek X-52 Pro Flight System with Hall Sensor Magnet Mod (flying is good again)
#3346382 - 07/20/11 01:19 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
anon
Unregistered


Where on earth is it written that SimHQ is impartial?

#3346737 - 07/20/11 06:14 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
FearlessFrog Offline
Senior Member
FearlessFrog  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
Mac and GloDark,

What I am about to write in no way represents SimHQ. This is just my personal opinion and a response to your comments. In fact, this is such good and pertinent info that I think I'm going to say it twice. What I am about to write in no way represents SimHQ. smile guod and Pfunk I'm sure have their own opinions and replies, so what I say in doesn't represent them or this site.

I think you are being unfair, in that you are putting a series of events together that I don't necessarily think live together at all, i.e.

- The Wings of Prey Collectors Edition was a personal review from PFunk. He had both good things to say and bad things to say, e.g.

'Wings of Prey is one of the most beautiful and visually captivating flight-themed games I have ever played in my life, full stop'

..is a nice quote, but he had a hard time with the updates taking a long time and getting MP games. You yourself said in the article feedback that this was not ideal either. If there are factual errors then they could be corrected. If you or I had written the review then it might have been different, but it's a big step to make I think that claims anything more than someone expressing their opinion.

- A beta production patch came out for WoP just after this review was published. I read other sim articles here and also think they could do with addendums and re-reviews, i.e. many of DCS-A10's 'downsides' in the article here:

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_462a.html

..are now addressed, so is this review unfair? The Rise of Flight review here:

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_415a.html

..has aged a little too, in that things have moved on too? I am not saying it was not unfortunate timing for WoP but I think it's unfair to make the next step of claiming it was malicious or coordinated.

- The Cliffs of Dover forums are still being re-organized. They are some of the most traffic'd sub-forums here and I think we can all agree were, at best, chaotic and at worst hard to read. As a forum moderator yourself I would hope you can see that something had to be done. There are (and were) many strong emotions about that release, rightfully so.

The 'blocking of access' as I understood it was to allow content to be moved across and for posts that violate the SimHQ terms of service to be (hand-read, one-by-one) removed. That work and solution as I understand it are still in progress. For the people doing that work it's kind of upsetting to read that this is being perceived as 'sweeping under the carpet', but I can see your perspective.

My biggest objection to what you have written and what GloDark has continued with reply is that you see the Wings of Prey review and the Cliffs of Dover forums re-org as related issues - that's where we disagree most I think. The situation is still fluid (the new forums are open now to everybody, the old content is coming back) so I hope you re-consider such a strong accusation in the next couple of days.

- The Cliffs of Dover and Wings of Prey being 'betas' or not proper releases isn't a subjective decision, in that CoD got released in North, South and Central Americas yesterday. As I understand it SimHQ is preparing a review right now on this release, and if I'm wrong I'll gladly come back to apologize. You both seem to have made very early accusations and I'm asking you to perhaps at least wait more than a day for the review to come out.

Finally, I would just like to say that you both seem like intelligent gents and I hope you have no personal dispute with me, but that any implied rivalry between two flight sims is not what any of us are here to enjoy. I love both WW2 titles and admire people's enthusiasm and opinion, but I truly believe that there is no inappropriate editorial partiality going on, otherwise I wouldn't want to spend my free time helping this site and its members.

Cheers!

Last edited by FearlessFrog; 07/20/11 10:31 PM. Reason: not a beta patch change
#3346749 - 07/20/11 06:22 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,506
Magnum Offline
Lifer
Magnum  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,506
Naples, Florida
when you guys make 500 post, come talk to me. wink

damn rookies!

#3346950 - 07/20/11 10:18 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
MACADEMIC Offline
Member
MACADEMIC  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
Malta
Hi FearlessFrog,

I may correct you that the version which came out very shortly after the review's publication was not a Beta, but 1.0.4.1, a full version. So we have a review on the front page of SimHQ that's promoting not to buy the game while not disclosing that it was based on 1.0.3.6 and not the latest version of the game, making it impossible for newcomers to discern the review from the actual state of the game.

Quoting from the conclusion statement in the review:
Quote:
Anyone looking for something to tide them over until the North American release of IL-2: Sturmovik - Cliffs of Dover should continue to look, or just wait.


Now, I want to set something straight. I absolutely do not mind SimHQ reorganising the Cliffs of Dover forum to improve the quality of information presented therein for its audience. What I do mind is that a big effort is being undertaken here while the little effort of taking a significant patch for Wings of Prey into account isn't taken there, or at least the inclusion of a statement that the review was made prior to a significant patch release and may not be current. If SimHQ is honoring their responsibilty for presenting up to date quality information here, why shouldn't they there?

I'm not insinuating any bad motives. All I want is to draw attention to this imbalance, with the outlook of rectification.

MAC

#3346965 - 07/20/11 10:38 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
FearlessFrog Offline
Senior Member
FearlessFrog  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted By: MACADEMIC
Hi FearlessFrog,

I may correct you that the version which came out very shortly after the review's publication was not a Beta, but 1.0.4.1, a full version. So we have a review on the front page of SimHQ that's promoting not to buy the game while not disclosing that it was based on 1.0.3.6 and not the latest version of the game, making it impossible for newcomers to discern the review from the actual state of the game.

Quoting from the conclusion statement in the review:
Quote:
Anyone looking for something to tide them over until the North American release of IL-2: Sturmovik - Cliffs of Dover should continue to look, or just wait.


Now, I want to set something straight. I absolutely do not mind SimHQ reorganising the Cliffs of Dover forum to improve the quality of information presented therein for its audience. What I do mind is that a big effort is being undertaken here while the little effort of taking a significant patch for Wings of Prey into account isn't taken there, or at least the inclusion of a statement that the review was made prior to a significant patch release and may not be current. If SimHQ is honoring their responsibilty for presenting up to date quality information here, why shouldn't they there?

I'm not insinuating any bad motives. All I want is to draw attention to this imbalance, with the outlook of rectification.

MAC



I've corrected my post on the beta patch - thanks.

I see your point on noting the version number on the review, but I was trying to say that all other reviews don't have that updated retrospectively either. PFunk isn't currently moderating the CoD forum (that I know, never underestimate what I don't know) or working through the previous CoD content so I didn't see the connection between that effort and a review amendement.

As for not insinuating any bad motives, well the very thread topic was a question of SimHQ's impartiality, so you can understand me perhaps thinking that. If you wanted to get some sort of clarification up on the existing review then this might not be the most efficient way to get it done, as a PM to the author or guod might have been quicker or more direct.

#3347138 - 07/21/11 04:50 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: FearlessFrog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
MACADEMIC Offline
Member
MACADEMIC  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
Malta
Hi Fearless,

Well if you follow the Article feedback discussion this was respectfully asked for not only by me but others as well. PFunk agreed that the timing seemed very close and might warrant an addendum to reflect the changes. He said he'd ask the powers to be on SimHQ. I've also PM'd him later offering my help in case he has trouble with MP or would like to have a flying partner to explore what MP has to offer in the game, even if this was unrelated to testing, just for his personal benefit (in the review he mentioned he would have liked to like the game - and it makes a difference if you jump into a server with people who don't know you are just out to shoot down whatever moves, or if you can do some formation flying, for instance).

Since then there was absolutely nothing heard but the front page review remains. So, if others have publicly voiced their concerns and discontent over issues which resulted in significant changes in SimHQ's policy, why shouldn't I be allowed to voice mine and also ask to be heard?

Thanks,

MAC

#3347144 - 07/21/11 05:02 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
FearlessFrog Offline
Senior Member
FearlessFrog  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted By: MACADEMIC
Hi Fearless,

Well if you follow the Article feedback discussion this was respectfully asked for not only by me but others as well. PFunk agreed that the timing seemed very close and might warrant an addendum to reflect the changes. He said he'd ask the powers to be on SimHQ. I've also PM'd him later offering my help in case he has trouble with MP or would like to have a flying partner to explore what MP has to offer in the game, even if this was unrelated to testing, just for his personal benefit (in the review he mentioned he would have liked to like the game - and it makes a difference if you jump into a server with people who don't know you are just out to shoot down whatever moves, or if you can do some formation flying, for instance).

Since then there was absolutely nothing heard but the front page review remains. So, if others have publicly voiced their concerns and discontent over issues which resulted in significant changes in SimHQ's policy, why shouldn't I be allowed to voice mine and also ask to be heard?

Thanks,

MAC


I don't think anyone has implied you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion, but my advice to you was that making accusations wasn't an efficient way to achieve your goal, plus the construction of your rationale that you based those accusations on was flawed from my point of view. After 15 years married to a lawyer I can't help but discuss like that purely as a survival mechanism smile

I personally hope you get a release note on the review, but still wanted to say what I felt about the approach to get one could be better.

Btw, where abouts in Malta are you - my father had a villa there (Gozo) and I've visited many times (about 20 years ago mind)? A beautiful place, especially the snorkeling around Comino.

#3347239 - 07/21/11 09:41 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: FearlessFrog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
MACADEMIC Offline
Member
MACADEMIC  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
Malta
Hi again FearlessFrog,

I'm no lawyer although I'm married with one too smile Anyway, if you carefully read my post you will see that I'm raising questions and am not making accusations. I'm saying that the present situation is misleading and should be changed, as changes have been effected elsewhere too. Not having done anything visible about valid concerns indeed raises the question of impartiality and will be answered by SimHQs future actions. I hope, in a good way.

On your Malta question, it's nice to hear that you've visited often. I live in Xaghra in Gozo, a wonderful place. And I can confirm that Comino is still there and remains to be a fantastic snorkeling spot. smile

MAC

#3347765 - 07/21/11 09:53 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 22,095
citizen guod Offline
Lifer
citizen guod  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 22,095
First chance I've had to join the party, so apologies for my lateness. Thanks to FearlessFrog for his comments and to MACADEMIC and GloDark7 for posting their thoughts.

Some background history, then I'll comment on current questions.

SimHQ was one of the first sites to cover Wings of Prey and that included some exclusive screenshots, a screenshot contest, and a preview and review of its console sister title, Birds of Prey.

Originally we were going to review the title, but the reviewer who had the job became ill, and had to drop it. A second reviewer was contacted and he started on it, then became jammed with life and was unable to finish it. By then it had been an extended period of time so our review would have been of little value (IMO), so I dropped the pursuit of the review.

Instead, I'd planned for us to do a Second Look series feature article on Wings of Prey. The series of articles have been extremely popular and I thought it would be a good way to show how the title had evolved. Other Second Look articles are here: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air.html#secondlook

A second contest was planned when Gaijin switched efforts to Apache: Air Assault. SimHQ reviewed Apache: Air Assault and gave it a good review. http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_459a.html

I asked PFunk to produce the Second Look feature on Wings of Prey. He agreed. That went sour when he had big problems getting the DVD version updated and dealing with gaijinnet's interface. We could have reported on that, but the problems were already documented and that isn't the purpose of the Second Look series: to enlighten the reader on titles that he may have though were dormant, or present them with titles that they might have missed.

Then he tried the Collector's Edition and encountered the problems documented in the review. Since we clearly stated it was the DVD version, I did not believe the version number was necessary since we had the Collector's Edition DVD, not a digital download. He asked me should he install the beta 1.0.4.1. (correction: 1.0.4.0). I told him to just go with the Collector's Edition as it was received.

It was no plan to get the review out the day before 1.0.4.1 arrived. We didn't know it was coming out the next day. Chalk it up to Murphy's Law and not some scheme to avoid it.

We have not replied back on a look at 1.0.4.1 because I've been trying to identify where we could fit it in with the available staff and their assignments. PFunk is (and has been) working on another set of articles for a completely different sim, and all the other reviewers on SimHQ are jammed-up with prior commitments. We will take another look at WoP and the Collector's Edition in the future, but it will not be immediately.

I will be happy to add a reference to the version, 1.0.3.6, and add a link to this discussion at the end of the review if it will aid clarification.

----

Cliffs of Dover forums were brought back for registered members so we would have time to populate the two forums and not have an empty shell when the drive by reader saw the forum. Because of the work of the mods, we were able to bring back both forums and open them up to everyone to view them after a day or two. The "old" forum posts are alive in well in the archived area. Threads that contain important information and yes, the fiasco of the European release, will come back online hopefully soon. But in each good thread there is a series of personal mini flame fests that really have little to do with the sim itself. We are trying to pull those out. In other threads, two or more viable topics are mixed together with the reader having little hope of obtaining continuity. As an example, I spent over 3 hours going through the 100+ page screenshot thread and trying to sort what was screenshots from all the other topics thrown in that had little to do with screenshots.

Last edited by guod; 07/24/11 02:55 PM. Reason: beta version corrected

Wisdom is knowing what's enough
#3347777 - 07/21/11 10:09 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
PFunk Offline
SimHQ Redneck
PFunk  Offline
SimHQ Redneck
Veteran

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
N. Central Texas
Words don't express how much I appreciate Frog trying to ameliorate the situation, but the review was mine, the opinion was mine. The allegations of bias and impropriety are leveled at me, not him, so I feel it is necessary to answer them.

When the Collector's Edition was shipped to me and installed on my computer, the version number that appeared was 1.0.3.6. When yuPlay prompted me to download the latest patch, it said in very large letters (Beta).

SimHQ reviews games. We are not beta testers. Now, to your accusation that we somehow rushed the review out the door before the 1.0.4.1 patch became a production update seems a bit odd. The game is over a year old. I don't see how waiting for another a day would have been helpful. If it takes a year since the game's release to release an update that completely changes the entire landscape of how the game functions, I'd say the game in it's original state had some development problems.

I think we're going to witness this again with Cliffs of Dover. Now, I have no idea how the review of Cliffs of Dover will turn out (I'm not the one doing it), but I think it can be safely argued that the EU release was not all that it could have been. I don't know how much differently the NA release will work, but we're going to see as soon as the review comes out.

One thing that cannot be changed is that the Collector's Edition just flat didn't work. When you ship out a game with all kinds of DLC (namely the Wings of the Luftwaffe Expansion Pack) make sure the customer can actually access it instead of what I saw, which was a prompt for me to buy it, even after I thought I already had it. That's a bad marketing scheme no matter how you slice it.

I wish Gaijin well on future releases. I really do. I hope they can get it together for the next aviation-themed MMO title they're working on, but this one just didn't cut it for me.

Now, I know people suggested I do a second look using the latest patch. That'd be great, but I simply haven't got the time right now. I am dedicated to a new series of articles on another sim series and a few other irons in the fire, including being a parent to two small kids and holding down a job. I cordially invite you to possibly create your own article as a rebuttal to my review and submit it for proofreading. We always welcome new content from members.

But to suggest I am somehow in the pocket of a publisher is an accusation I cannot allow to stand. If you have evidence to suggest that I am colluding with other parties to publicly run down Wings of Prey I respectfully suggest that you submit it to my supervisor and site owner so that the proceedings for my dismissal from the staff can begin.


"A little luck & a little government is necessary to get by, but only a fool places his complete trust in either one." - PJ O'Rourke

www.sixmanfootball.com
#3347783 - 07/21/11 10:24 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
PFunk Offline
SimHQ Redneck
PFunk  Offline
SimHQ Redneck
Veteran

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,786
N. Central Texas
To add, my sims of choice are LOMAC: FC2 and the Strike Fighters 2 series. I am in no way affiliated, or even interested in, Cliffs of Dover. This is why I am not reviewing it.


"A little luck & a little government is necessary to get by, but only a fool places his complete trust in either one." - PJ O'Rourke

www.sixmanfootball.com
#3347920 - 07/22/11 02:23 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: PFunk]  
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 17,733
Joe Offline
Veteran
Joe  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 17,733
Bridgewater, NJ
Originally Posted By: PFunk
If you have evidence to suggest that I am colluding with other parties to publicly run down Wings of Prey I respectfully suggest that you submit it to my supervisor and site owner so that the proceedings for my dismissal from the staff can begin.
If you get fired I want to have Donald Trump do the honors. smile

Also, more pay for me... exitstageleft

#3347932 - 07/22/11 02:48 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,506
Magnum Offline
Lifer
Magnum  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,506
Naples, Florida
Quote:
After 15 years married to a lawyer
ah damn... I no longer like you! lol jk wink

#3347944 - 07/22/11 03:01 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: Magnum]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
FearlessFrog Offline
Senior Member
FearlessFrog  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted By: Magnum
Quote:
After 15 years married to a lawyer
ah damn... I no longer like you! lol jk wink



The happiest 15 years of my life, and besides a divorce would probably put me in jail for 10-15, she's good. smile

#3348094 - 07/22/11 09:58 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
MACADEMIC Offline
Member
MACADEMIC  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
Malta
Thanks all for your replies.

__________________________

Guod,

Thank you for listening to this part of your community and taking the time to respond. I appreciate your in depth explanation and am satisified with the solutions you're suggesting.

Quote:
It was no plan to get the review out the day before 1.0.4.1 arrived. We didn't know it was coming out the next day. Chalk it up to Murphy's Law and not some scheme to avoid it.


I haven't and am not suggesting this - it would be really paranoid to suggest otherwise, and I hope I'm not. It's really a case of unfortunate timing.

Quote:
I will be happy to add a reference to the version, 1.0.3.6, and add a link to this discussion at the end of the review if it will aid clarification.


Yes please.

Quote:
We will take another look at WoP and the Collector's Edition in the future, but it will not be immediately.


Thank you.

___________

PFunk,

I'd like to make clear that my complaint was not with your review itself - you are absolutley entitled to your opinion, and like I said before, I found your review well written and amusing to read. My concern was entirely with the review being based on a game version that is no longer current, and therefore does not reflect on the many changes that have since been implemented which in many ways address the issues you have found in your review. Since the review also did not include a clear reference on the game version it was based on, it was in my opinion suitable to mislead newcomers to thinking that this is the present state of the game and not give it a try.

So again, my issue was not so much with your review, but more with SimHQ leaving the review on the front page and neither updating it to reflect the current state of the game nor making a reference to its not current game version, as was requested by me and others.

Quote:
SimHQ reviews games. We are not beta testers. Now, to your accusation that we somehow rushed the review out the door before the 1.0.4.1 patch became a production update seems a bit odd. The game is over a year old. I don't see how waiting for another a day would have been helpful. If it takes a year since the game's release to release an update that completely changes the entire landscape of how the game functions, I'd say the game in it's original state had some development problems.


I've said before that I understand SimHQ's policy not to review Betas and even agree with that. Again, I haven't made any accusation about the timing of the release and put it down to unfortunate timing. It's true that the game when you reviewed it was already over a year old and one way of seeing it is that it should have worked better than you experienced. However another way of seeing it is that it's remarkable that the developer has made a big effort to improve the game after such a long time, and certainly has with 1.0.4.1.

Quote:
One thing that cannot be changed is that the Collector's Edition just flat didn't work. When you ship out a game with all kinds of DLC (namely the Wings of the Luftwaffe Expansion Pack) make sure the customer can actually access it instead of what I saw, which was a prompt for me to buy it, even after I thought I already had it. That's a bad marketing scheme no matter how you slice it.


This is true, it should have worked out of the box and the patching was messy. Ironically 1.0.4.1 has taken care of that and the updating now happens automatically from inside the launcher, including a file checker. So in this instance the review is a look into the game's past.

Quote:
But to suggest I am somehow in the pocket of a publisher is an accusation I cannot allow to stand. If you have evidence to suggest that I am colluding with other parties to publicly run down Wings of Prey I respectfully suggest that you submit it to my supervisor and site owner so that the proceedings for my dismissal from the staff can begin.


No such thing is suggested. I'd like to repeat my invitation to fly together in the updated version of Wings of Prey, just for the fun of it.

________________

Thanks again all.

MAC

#3348115 - 07/22/11 10:46 AM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
MACADEMIC Offline
Member
MACADEMIC  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 322
Malta
Guod,

I saw that you included this statement in the Installation section on page 1 of the review:

Quote:
[Comment added July 20th, 2011 - Editor's note: There has been some discussion about SimHQ releasing the 1.0.3.6 DVD review when the "final" of 1.0.4.0 was released the day after the review was published. You can read comments and a discussion of further details here.]


Just a small correction and request: the 'final' version is 1.0.4.1, not 1.0.4.0. And I think it would be more fair to put your editor's note including the link at the end of the review, as you have suggested yourself in your post - readers will hardly interrupt their reading to follow a link in the middle of a review.

Thanks,

MAC

#3348188 - 07/22/11 12:49 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 451
GloDark7 Offline
Member
GloDark7  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 451
Pale Blue Dot
Reality check: they are just games and things may have gone a bit far wink

The issue with WoP, particularly for fans of it, is that we always seem to be on the defence with it. We'll speak of it's shortcomings, remind people it's a first foray for this developer into WWII flight simming, it's a great first effort, there is continued support, issues are being addressed/looked at and then... ..."but It has postage-stamp maps!" duh

Then we're reminded about the 'real' sims that are IL-2 and CoD and that WoP is for console kiddies. Then follows a domino effect of ridicule from 'serious' simmers, including one of your Mods on occasion which doesn't help.

I thought it clear that the timing was unlucky, not planned, with the 1036 review as the 1041 version was available as a downloadable update or full game download the very next day. No one is accusing SimHQ of a crystal ball conspiracy!

Forgive my suggestion about the questionable timing of the older CoD forum lock, but you cannot blame me, nor am I the only poster here to be suspicious of the timing (lock and key thread). I understand the forum was a bit of a mess, but this only reflected the state of Cliffs of Dover prior to it's US release. If the sim was not in the state it is, nor would the forum be. The banana forums have not archived or locked their history, but they are handing out bans like candy and many posts have simply... disappeared.

I have flown IL-2 since it's inception but have now moved onto greener pastures (pastures with a green tint). I have once again discovered the joys of virtual flying. I will continue flying and enjoying WoP. I will continue with the frustrating, endless cycle of trying to squeeze acceptable performance out of CoD. I will also, but with less frequency (life outside the forums), continue to defend WoP from the snobbery it suffers.

Glo out.


System
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 95W @ 3.5Ghz
8GB DDR3 1333MHz
ATI HD 4850 1GB
Windows 7 x64 Ultimate SP1 (on OCZ Agility SSD 60GB)

Flight Gear
Freetrack 6DoF (using TrackIR 3 cam)
Saitek Cyborg Evo Force (failed after 6 strong years of service)
Saitek X-52 Pro Flight System with Hall Sensor Magnet Mod (flying is good again)
#3348220 - 07/22/11 01:31 PM Re: SimHQ - A question about your impartiality [Re: MACADEMIC]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,506
Magnum Offline
Lifer
Magnum  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,506
Naples, Florida
Quote:
P.S.: I must point out here that I am a forum moderator on Gaijin's own forum http://forum.gaijinent.com


Glad you finally edited this in MAC... I could tell you had something to do with the game by all your rant post about the review and stuff, not just here. And now I know why. wink

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Autographs
by F4UDash4. 05/18/24 06:34 PM
Boxing fans
by RossUK. 05/18/24 03:11 PM
Bud Anderson was 102
by F4UDash4. 05/18/24 01:14 PM
The guy in War Games passes at 92
by NoFlyBoy. 05/18/24 02:28 AM
V-22 (all variants) wings clipped.
by Blade_RJ. 05/17/24 11:33 PM
Unusual climate conditions during WWI.
by RedToo. 05/17/24 04:52 PM
WW2 allied railroad effort after D-Day
by oldgrognard. 05/16/24 12:06 AM
New Viper Demo team livery
by RossUK. 05/15/24 03:48 PM
Beate Uhse-Rotermund.
by RedToo. 05/14/24 03:47 PM
South Africa’s C-47 Dakotas Set For Retirement
by F4UDash4. 05/11/24 07:09 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0