View Full Version : Gamespot Review

10-29-2004, 06:43 PM
A little harsh but they point out trhe obvious flaws like the Kamikazi wingmen AI and the missing planes.

10-29-2004, 06:43 PM
A little harsh but they point out trhe obvious flaws like the Kamikazi wingmen AI and the missing planes.

10-29-2004, 07:13 PM
Learning curve (2 hour)

Well put a dunce cap on me.
Been at it acouple of year and still tyying to sort it all out

10-29-2004, 07:43 PM
Indeed that was a bit harsh. But you know if the shoe fits wear it. I've got faith that they can fix it in a couple of patches

10-29-2004, 08:37 PM
7.0 for CFS3 and 7.3 for PF (different reviewers) - that is a little harsh. There are certainly a number of things to fix - but its been a long time (if ever) since any complex sim was released without some big warts.



10-29-2004, 08:43 PM
That about right considering that the freaking idiot big-wigs over at UBI wouldn't let Oleg finish it and made him work over time to get it as it is. They don't even give a rip about the game. Oleg should ditch them and get some one else to market the game.

Still, Gamespot underestimates Oleg's dedication to the series, and I'm sure that he will be able to patch this thing up.

10-29-2004, 09:02 PM
I thought EA and Activision were the nazis of game publishing... Ubisoft are now a title contender.

Also I generally agree with Gamespots reviews. They review that game as it is. Not everyone that buys it has internet access.

10-29-2004, 10:13 PM
I picked up the game yesterday and whilst I like it, it does look very rushed. The new planes seem to have very easy flight models, AI aircraft crash into mountains and the printed manual thats in the box is absolutely full of errors and printing mistakes.

10-30-2004, 01:38 AM
That was an excellent review and told exactly the way it is.

10-30-2004, 03:09 AM
Never trust such gen pop sites nd mags for a fair sim review. They don't get it.

10-30-2004, 03:31 AM
I was surprised at such a detailed and knowledgeable review. For mainstream site, you normally expect complaints FM is too hard/realistic...this was the opposite. The review seemed to come from a keen sim player. I am really pleased with PF, but the review seemed very fair nonetheless.

10-30-2004, 05:14 AM

Irrespective of finger pointing, the review does not appear particularly harsh.

The obvious problems are not glossed over and they do state that the developer support for the game should bring it through - that's entirely fair.

In many respects, it should share a similar (but higher) score to CFS3 as it was released; both games have omissions, both have dodgy flight models for certain aircraft and both have AI which do very stupid things.


Ruy Horta
10-30-2004, 06:05 AM
This points to the risk taken by Ubi.

The general crowd will look at PF as it is marketed a stand alone in the box on first release. And unfortunately that means buggy single player action with a number of general bugs and gaps.

That fact that the IL2 / FB+AEP fan knows better is completely overshadowed by this far more important (saleswise) short term experience of the casual player.

Of course the fans have long term commitment and attract other more dedicated players to the product, but you need the quick fund generating potential of the casual gamer to cover the main cost.

Ubi made a big mistake to rush PF, they can make up for it by really rushing a number of fixes and filling the promised gaps in maps and objects (incl. a/c).

The Dgen patch was a step in the right direction and appears to proof that they are aware of the need for quick damage control, which is promising.

They may be silent on the board, but it looks like they understand the market. Some of us may whine, but we buy the game...the casual gamer might do something far worse and leave PF on the shelves.

Think about that.

Ruy Horta
10-30-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to change that sig of your's its behind the times, look at the muzzleflashes after PF!

10-30-2004, 06:19 AM
When it comes to getting games such as PF out into the market it is always going to be difficult to do it to some time table. That the product was released early says nothing of its quality, only it's development state. Like the review and others on this thread have said, Oleg will fix this with patches and then elverything will be okay.

Just look at it as an unintended commercial beta release with a free final version.

10-30-2004, 08:56 AM

You're right - I changed the sig.


PS: I'm sure a lot of people will be pacified in thinking that they've shelled out 30 quid for a beta release http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

10-30-2004, 09:37 AM
I don't really pay much attention to reviews....

for movies, books, anything.

H&D2 got fairly poor reviews and I just love that game. Many complaints were made about low res graphics in spots and problems with the AI. I never really noticedmuch until I read the reviews, which I did after playing the game. Call if Duty got great reviews, but I didn't like it all that much.

I don't think the review of PF was unfair. I thought it was pretty objective. It's just that I don't really care. I enjoy this sim immensely and that's what counts. Besides, I have seen the dedication this developer has for fixing things and giving away free aircraft. They're first class. I have faith that they will fix what can be fixed within the limits of the game's engine.

No one' review will diminish my enjoyment of this sim.