View Full Version : Flight Journal magazine gives Pacific Fighters a GREAT review!

11-02-2004, 06:14 PM
I just got my Flight Journal magazine December 2004 issue (for all who might not know it is a top tier magazine regarding historical aviation).

Unlike gamespot and Hexuss, this reviewer understands the series completely. Finally a real reviewer that knows about patches and Oleg's commitment to his sims.

Here is the title of the article and an excerpt:


"With such a well established pedigree, one can be sure that the incredible flight modeling,damage modeling and stunning graphics that made FB/AEP the benchmark combat flight sim have been carried over to Pacific Fighters.

If Ubisoft follows its established practice, it's likely to continue to add more flyable aircraft with each succesive patch. Choice high quality and a beautiful Pacific island to strafe-what's not to like?"


11-02-2004, 06:22 PM
What can you expect when a game-site reveiws a sim?

Where's the instant action? The stirring soundtrack? The bevy of buxom beauties? The grimacing hero ducking his own spent shell casings while pulling the pin of his last hand grenade?

I'll get flamed for this, but read some comments on PF lately, even here:

"Missions are too long and boring!"

Well, duh! This ain't Rambo VI!

11-02-2004, 06:39 PM
i think he is talking about a paper printed aviation magazine not a games review site

11-02-2004, 06:43 PM
...I know flight journal is a periodical. I used to subscribe to it.

Gamespot, however, is a website. that is the review I am referring to when I say "what can you expect"

11-02-2004, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
i think he is talking about a paper printed aviation magazine not a games review site <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paper printed or not it sounds like the author has a more balanced viewpoint than we've been seeing lately from the gamesites.

11-02-2004, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
This ain't Rambo VI! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow wait, did I miss Rambo IV and V, OH NO! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

11-02-2004, 06:55 PM
Id put more stock in what Flight Journal has to say than a "gaming" mag.

11-03-2004, 10:14 AM

Funny - I've spent a considerable amount of time with this series of games, purchasing Il-2 just at the same time I took CFS3 back for being cr*p.

I pretty much play this only and have not much of an interest in other games unless it's a multiplayer session around an XBOX with plenty of beers on the go....and they are few and far between.

I don't pretend to the be 0.0001% cooler than anyone else by being the first to play Il-2 but my point is that I've been a fan of it (warts and all) for some time and not just some 'reviewer who spent five minutes with the game.'

And, after that, I'd say that the review at Gamespot was correct - if you compare PF standalone to CFS3 - and the one at Hexus was perhaps a little harsh with respect to the score but fair in some of the comments made.

I'd much rather see honest reviews where you're told of the downside of the actual title rather than someone heaping praise on something just because of it's history.

I'm not saying that FJ should not have given PF a great review, nor am I saying that people shouldn't be able to have their say if a review that isn't palatable to them but to dismiss reviews and reviewers just because they come from a 'games website' is a little weak.

For comparison, one of the UK PC gaming mags gave PF about 84% and said little (or nothing) of any problems to do with offline campaigns etc. Imagine being a new to 1C, offline player and going out to buy it on the strength of that review only to find all the problems..what would you think of the review then? Oh, then couple that with turning up here and being told that you are a 'whiner' or 'noob' because you are having real problems/are considering taking the game back...which we have seen. Not good.


11-03-2004, 10:36 AM
Well said Norris. In this case the gaming mag got it right IMHO. There is no ignoring all of the problems with PF, and it is unfair to newcomers to ignore/suggest otherwise. We who are familiar with 1C/Maddox are confident they will make things right, but others don't have that experience. When a review says "incredible flight modelling" when referring to PF I can't take it seriously. IMHO the flight models are terrible in PF and are a huge step backwards. You can load up a Dauntless with 1,500+.lbs of bombs and still turn on a dime with little stall, not to mention the Corsair and the global changes made overall. I would rather have someone shoot it to me straight and focus more on the negatives, after all the creators of a product will be sure to let you know about the positives and what to expect. I would rather read about what expectations were not met so I know what I am paying for.

Just my opinion though.

11-03-2004, 06:21 PM
Norris the problem with reviews like Gamespot is that they ignore reality. reality by the way that has exsisted since the early 90s.

Games need patches , certainly complex games such as PF.

Why do the reviewers rush to post a review like this without understanding that Oleg has a tremendous history of supporting his games.

In other words it was a 7.3 at game spot, yet if he only waits 10 more days it could of been a 9.3

do you see what i mean? Is he really doing his readers a service? he reviewed a game that was 3 days old in the states. if giving out the correct info is his business then he could of waited or at the very least explained that these bugs are relatively minor.

I mean c'mon the planes crashing in the hill is a waypoint change in a mission. This is minor , minor stuff that needed fixing. some things like the A6-M2 will be tweaked and fixed as well. In the end PF will be a legendary sim. it did not deserve these early bad reviews and we all know that.