Ouch!

Free translation from the verdict:
"Take one of the best (and best balanced) flight sims of all times, grab an axe and cut out everything that looks like realism and voila, you have the perfect action flight sim?
Unfortunately, not. As a realistic flight sim ET disqualified itself, and as an action sim there is no fun in it either: a shabby presentation and spartan graphics. For me the new Eurofighter is the disappointment of the year."

Hey, that's too harsh, it deserves 65%! LOL

Typhoon review (in German)

[This message has been edited by Blaze (edited 05-06-2001).]

For me (and many others I bet) it's best thing I've seen in a year.

It does exactly what was stated of it, the campaign is even better than Falcon 4.0's in my opinion, and that's where it's strengths lie. You need time to play the campaign and get into it, a thing that most reviewers don't have time for.


------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Actually, the campaign is listed under the Pro category in the review. So despite your suggestions that the reviewer didn't take the time to test it thouroughly, he still liked the campaign.

Your turn.

Oh, and please don't make it look as if I myself said the thing with the disappointment. I'm not sure if I would have been so polite.

[This message has been edited by Blaze (edited 05-06-2001).]

Why do these reviewers keep talking out their arse???

How are they getting reviews about the game out so quickly anyways???
It just came out..did they all get review copies?

(and if so..where's Carigamer's review copy? heh heh).

Why the comparison to Eurofighter 2000? Which was a completely different game??
Shabby presentation and Spartan graphics???

Spartan Graphics!???
BULL****!



I say again..Spartan Graphics?
Bull****!
The graphics are very well done, the sim is beautiful!


I mean..the sim isn't perfect..and a lot of what was left out has me scratching my head as to WHY?
(the views, the keyboard remapping, the calibration of the throttle etc. in game)
But nothing so far that is adversely affecting my enjoyment of the game..

I can't understand these reviews at all...
The lowest I would give this game is an 80% unless I encounter some SERIOUS bugs further along in the campaign. But so far I think I've more or less experienced the gameplay such as it is....and that doesn't deserve a score in the 60s.

I'm going to try to translate it in Altavista and see if I can make sense of what they said.
*grumble*
*mutter*
Bashing on the flight sims again they are.
Wonder what they gave F18 or Flanker 2!
*humph*

-Gel
Editor-In-Chief
http://www.carigamer.com
Island Gaming At Its Best!(tm)
WARNING: The Surgeon General Recommends That Playing Violent Video Games is NOT Dangerous To Your Health!(Surgeon General's Report 2001)

[This message has been edited by Gel214th (edited 05-06-2001).]

And so it should be. Pity you didn't mention that in your original post. So double there



------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Blaze your getting paranoid. It's quite apparent that I'm quoting your review quote. What on earth makes you think I'm trying to say you said it???

However unlike you, I'm not going back and continually editing my posts in this thread.

Your turn

------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Well I wasn't going to translate the whole thing, I was assuming that everyone interested would at least take a look. That's why I also didn't list the Contra category.

Triple there!

And if you're quoting at all then please do it right!

Your turn!

Oops, I just edited my message, sorry!
LOL

[This message has been edited by Blaze (edited 05-06-2001).]

I am quoting the right way; i.e. the bit I'm responding to.

Most people don't want to see the whole thing repeated again and it also takes up space on SimHQ's forum server.

You've done exactly the same thing as I have done, by not quoting the entire interview in your original post. Tsk tsk.

Touche, or should I say Touchy? Quad there

Your turn

------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Ok..I read the article.
And..well.

*sigh*

Its fairly accurate. It is just perhaps this reviewer placed higher emphasis on certain aspects of the simulation than others.

But from the translation I can't say that anything I read was wrong.

I just think that the Pros outweigh the Cons for TYphoon, but if anyone truly compared this to the original Eurofighter there's no way it can match up..and that's what this reviewer did.

This game should be reviewed by itself, and not compared to the others in the line of DID games..because it IS different to the rest.

Yeah, I see how you're quoting the right way, especially with all those nice B-tags ...

Quincunx there.

I'm not saying you should do full quotes, but include the important parts, like the additional ". Not touchy, but picky.

Now please wait a second while I'm going to edit my message ...

Ok, done, your turn.

[This message has been edited by Blaze (edited 05-06-2001).]

Well said Gel, I agree with you 100%



------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Posted by Gel214th:
It is just perhaps this reviewer placed higher emphasis on certain aspects of the simulation than others.

Exactly, and that's a good thing. No one's asking you to agree, just like I didn't agree with your light hearted comments on the rather weak air to ground aspects of Flanker2.5 ...

And in case you haven't seen on that site: F2.5 got 88%, F2.0 got 80% and Jane's F/A-18 got 87%, all tested by the same reviewer.

[This message has been edited by Blaze (edited 05-06-2001).]

Hey my quoting capabilities may not be pretty but they're efficient

And I don't have to go back and edit my posts in this thread, in some desperate attempt to justify my original posts. Why are you editing, because you know your being a triffle harsh?

Anyway, that's enough for this tit-for-tat for me. I replied in good faith and its now turned it into something else, You've implied I'm trying to say that you have said 'For me the new Eurofighter is the disappointment of the year' when I clearly didn't. However, you do say that you wouldn't be so polite about EFT, so why bother posting here at all if you don't like the game?

Consider your future posts to this thread well and truely plonked, cause I aint coming back to visit this thread again.

Take as many turns as you like. I'm going to go 'n play (and enjoy) Typhoon now.

All the best

------------------


Hengist.

Hengist's MiG Alley Site.
http://www.hengist.co.uk/MiGAlley

Geez, and you think I am touchy?
As for my editing, I just like to correct spelling errors and to make my point clearer if I happen to find better words afterwards. And since you are quoting my original messages, no information is lost, is it?

Anyway, I just replied to let you know that I did read your last post. Oh wait, you said you won't come back here ...

The problem with Gamesmania is that they are not entirely trustworthy when testing sims just like most other - online or print - game magazines. If they find something they dislike in a game they easily give it a low rating and if they find something they like it gets a dream rating. Don't get me wrong here- their reviews are normally better than in other Online Mags - but you shouldn't give too much on the rating it receives in the end.

Well I posted this here before...

I never agreed on flightsime reviews ever( ) as soon as I got the game...somehow all these mags fail to see the point of the sims in question...
One got to fly them yourself in order to be able to really judge...

For this flyable demo's are reccomended...

Metalhead

Hey dude..could you read my review on Flanker 2.5 on http://www.carigamer.com , and tell me how it stacks up in your estimation?

Was it fair? Biased...did I rate it because I found something I liked..or trash it because of something I disliked?

I'm a bit new at this and would like unbiased feedback so I can improve..like when I review Typhoon

------------------
-Gel214th
CO 214th Annihilators

http://www.214th.com/flanker2

Yep, I had a review copy It was a CD-R, but contained the final version of the game.



I think any good review should point out clearly that EFT is a different, more action-oriented game than EF 2000, and where it is different. Otherwise people who are familiar with EF 2000 might assume that they get a very similar type of game.

As for the graphics, it depends on what you expect and where you look. Surely, the EF and weapon effects look great. With the outside world, it's a matter of what you prefer: A world that looks good or a world that makes you feel like you're actually moving through it. EFT looks good, but there's almost nothing that gives you a sensation of speed, a sensation of flying low through a living world, across cities, power lines, roads etc.

However, the major reason for giving EFT a low graphics rating was the cockpit, which I consider one of the ugliest cockpits around.



I agree with you on most of your points. The campaign does indeed create an intense atmosphere of actually being there, taking part in the war effort. Unfortunately, the absence of a proper, functional cockpit pretty much kills the immersion factor for me. This has nothing to do with expecting a hardcore / button pushing sim (which I didn't expect from EFT), but IMO, any *game* that aims to make me believe I'm flying a fighter jet needs to have some sort of convincing cockpit. If you can live without a cockpit and fly in no-cockpit-view with the MFD overlays - fine, then EFT is a great game (and I pointed that out in the review). I'm just a bit puzzled why most of the reviews I read (print or online) don't even mention the cockpit issue.

Hence - apart from the realism vs. arcade discussion -, it comes down to what you want in your flightsim. If I had to rate EFT's core gameplay, I'd give it a 75%. Put a decent cockpit, some cities and power lines in there and that would be an 85%. It still wouldn't be a hardcore simmer's dream sim (and it's not trying to be), but it would be a good light sim.

The main reason why I lowered the rating to 64% were the technical problems, the lack of joystick setup etc.

Apart from that - what really matters for me is the information in the article, not just the percentage at the end. IMO, a good review should give you the information and pros / cons that you need to decide on your own if the game suits your taste or not. The conclusions and ratings you draw from that are a matter of personal preference.

Jan


[This message has been edited by Jan Mandler (edited 05-08-2001).]

Hello Gel214th,
I've read your review of Flanker 2.5, unfortunately I don't have the game so I can't really make a comment on its contents or on the rating of 88%. All in all, it's quite detailed so everyone interested in the game gets a good picture what it is like. Therefore, I think that an overall rating at the end is not that important. SimHQ for example does at summary at the end of the review but there is no rating which I think is a good approach. Ratings normally just start pointless discussions (WHAT??? 85%!!! How dare they!!! It should have received 86%!!!). You did a summary as well so IMHO you could have left out the rating. Besides this, I've never been a great jet sim fan and prefer prop-, helo- and subsims. Therefore it might be somewhat unfair if I made comments on a "hardcore" jet sim. Falcon 4 is already setting dust on my shelf but since Typhoon seems to be quite easy to learn I think I'll give it a try. It's not available in Germany so far but I hope to have by the end of the week. If you write a review on Typhoon, I'll be happy to blow it into small pieces once it is done heh, heh - sorry just joking.

Hmm..not so for me. I've had no trouble playing titles such as Fighter's Anthology or Crimson Skies, and usually with a Full Screen view with no cockpit. So for me the graphics score doesn't suffer unduly because of an 'ugly' cockpit. And I don't agree that the texture mapping on the cockpit is that bad either.

That's probably why the few reviews that have come out so far (do you know of any more beside yours and SIM HQ?) don't really make an issue of it save for mentioning the lack of functional MFDs.



Again..I think that EFT's strength is its gameplay. Which rates above 75 on the strength of the Dynamic Campaign alone. Having to manage the pilots adds to this in my view.

The 'sense of speed' is more subjective than anything else..and is again a graphic issue. I do miss the immersion of Flanker 2 where every single building was modelled, but I didn't expect that from EFT.

Do I get a sense of speed? When I'm flying Multiplayer in a Race you BET I do!




That lowers the score for me as well..but certainly not to 64%, because it does not interfere with, nor negate the strongpoints of the sim.

To me the score should only be lowered if the sim was unduly affected by these issues.

I haven't had technical problems so far.

The only acknowledged problem- which is being fixed- is the 3DFX graphics issue.



Unfortunately the final score is what stands out to people looking to purchase the simulation.

If it didn't matter unduly, we wouldn't bother rating games at all.

Look at the title of this message..it wasn't Gamesmanie reviews game chekc it out..it was
Games mania gives game 64%...

To me the final rating isn't subjective..its based on everything that has been said in the body of the review. So any game etc. that gets below 65%..I probably won't buy if I am going on that particular review to determine whether I buy or not.

And I'm sure its the same thing with most people. That final score DOES matter, and it counts in people's minds more than the words that came before.

The only sure way of going with the philosophy that the final score does not matter, is to not put one and allow the reader to judge the game on the merit of what was said.

I hear what you are saying, but I have to strongly disagree that in light of what you said, Eurofighter Typhoon is a 65% rated game.

The innovation shown in that dynamic campaign alone and the system of pilot management puts it in the 70% and up range..for me.

ciao!
*waves*
-Gel
E-i-C
http://www.carigamer.com
Island Gaming At Its Best!(tm)

WARNING: The Surgeon General Recommends That Playing Violent Computer Games Is NOT Harmful To Your Health!

Flying BAboon:

I am seriously considering doing away with the final rating as well. BUt its good to have ratings if you want to put a list of best games no?

Also, I notice that most of the official game sites like to put you as a link if they are able to say:"Carigamer's Review: 88% for [insert game here]" or "5 stars on ZDNET Reviews" etc.
so if it's a good game, and deserves the score..I'm thinking why not


[This message has been edited by Gel214th (edited 05-08-2001).]