Jump to content

Review of BoS on WT Game Hub Blog by Heinkill


Recommended Posts

 

 

In my experience it takes about ten successful missions of about 30 mins to 1 hour each to unlock the mods for a single aircraft. Assuming you never fail a mission, you will need to allocate 5-10 hours per aircraft.

If you are person who does not usually like playing against bots in single player mode, this is almost enough reason in itself to not buy this game.

 

It's pretty accurate yes. Particularly this one.

 

 

 

So what is left is a very very professionally executed piece of code without much emotional appeal.

 

Hope fair criticism like this is taken to heart by the devs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I found the game to be a very clinically nice piece of software, but lacking the immersion and emotion of other titles of the period." 

 

I thought it was a fair conclusion.

 

One thing I find strange, if not anachronistic, is that people still bring up what state the original IL2 was in when it came out. He relates, "We gamers have short memories and high expectations." I agree, yes, we have high expectations; but it's because in the decade plus since IL2 came out, if memory serves me, there's been expectation raising games coming out year after year in all genres. From particle effects to character customization to DM to world ambiance, it's not the original IL2 setting the bar anymore; its GTA V, Elite, NextCar, soon to be Star Wars BattleFront, The Division, Alien Isolation, etc.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
Heinkill as guest writer on BoBhub... Is it wrong thread to say I loved the "Gunner Fritz" AARs he(?) once posted there?

Great overall review, though I think some things have been overlooked...

 

 In 'normal' mode it is possible to sequentially remove various HUD prompts to get closer to the 'expert' experience without having to use full engine management, which is a nice touch

 

 

May be worth noting you can do it other ways around, full CEM in normal mode without having to strain your eyes looking for targets.
 


Also, as you complete missions successfully, you open up new airfields to operate from. While this might seem to be something that would offer you new options or experiences, it doesn't. Every airfield looks the same, and offers the same range of flyable missions.

 


More airfields give you more mission variety. If your one open airfield serves you train strafing mission for IL-2, you have or take it or change the plane / mission type, even if you'd prefer to raid an airfield. With five fields, you have more options to pick and choose your objective. Missions are functionally the same, though. 

Edited by Trupobaw
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the landscape was well-done... I think 1/10 for the landscape is a bit harsh. However, I think his conclusion is bang on, especially regarding the campaign. For me, multiplayer has always been the heart and soul of flight sims and the measures put in place at the moment seem to relegate MP to a "nice to have" rather than a "must have" feature of the game.

 

8k9t3Hs.jpgBT2aJCj.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been near Stalingrad in Winter, but considering the devs are Russian, I personally wouldn't doubt their portrayal of a winter-landscape. I think it looks great, with lots of little details that are usually overlooked (little rills and gullys in the riverbank, for instance). There's only so much you can do with a landscape covered in half a meter of snow. Seeing more ground activity would be nice though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't get too hung up on the scoring personally, rather just the message, which seems fair and balanced. The landscape is fine imho, just  needs more life and this is something ROF was always lacking too. I wish the software would benchmark the system its on, that way dynamically handle how many planes and objects it can handle before the flight model suffers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"May be worth noting you can do it other ways around, full CEM in normal mode without having to strain your eyes looking for targets."

 

Or NORMAL mode with CEM and without icons - the only differece for EXPERT became the external vision. Would be nice if it included a command to show only the icon (dot) on ground targets.

 

The statement about "suprise at finish line" with unlocks for Founders and MP is untrue, so this in early DD's, or one dont read, or read and dont understand, or read but did not believed.

Edited by Sokol1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is referring to the snowy landscape when he gives the scenery 1/10. I think that he means that it seems dead from a immersion point of view. Where are the tanks? The infantry? The boats crossing the Volga? Apart from the occasional fire there is very little evidence of a fierce battle going on below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair review.  The cons he mentioned do exist and it's unfortunate as they could have been avoided.

 

I thought the actual war time descriptions of the Pitomnik airfield being a huge brown stain on the snow with all the wreckage was very interesting.  I wouldn't think it would be that hard to reproduce on the map.  Maybe we'll see this when the FME comes out, I think it had a destruction tool in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i must have better AI i unlocked everything in 17 hrs with just autopilotX2 it took 17 hrs even with all the game crashes

 

Petrosky

But you miss his central point. Why implement this unlocks/grinding model and then advise your customers to put on autopilot and 2x speed to get around it?

 

It's like admitting they made a mistake, but refuse to correct it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon I pointed out the things you mentioned to him @ SHQ and he will probably correct them since there was another error as far as time goes that I pointed out on SHQ and he promptly corrected that so this review will most like ly be revised over the next 24 hrs buit the gist of it will remain and I think it is a sound , fair and highly detailed review. In fact IMO it is the best one I have seen so far.

 

But you miss his central point. Why implement this unlocks/grinding model and then advise your customers to put on autopilot and 2x speed to get around it?
It's like admitting they made a mistake, but refuse to correct it.

 

I don't know if that was his point or not but based on this quoted post by Taleks.. one of the developers..

 

 

Well, I'm one of those Russians without dacha :)

 

As for mentioned thing, there were a lot of discussions in environment more suitable for work.

It is not like devs have played three wise monkeys anyway. There were some posts here and there, a discussion in polls sub-forum, etc.

However, that is only a tip of the iceberg, underwater part is not visible on forums, but it exists in noisy development environment.

 

As for situation itself and how I see it, let me introduce some fiction story about a brand new combat airplane. When it takes off, small movements of control surfaces are not so important, but as it gains speed any inaccurate, although slight, movement may lead to crush. And of course it is quite crazy idea to replace tail assembly with something more shiny/functional/aerodynamical, when you're flying at some altitude already. Engineers, even if pilots are frustrated during flight, can't just drop themselves on aircraft and change that assembly, they need to land plane first and consider adjustments to original blueprint. That aircraft is flying at pretty high altitude and gained speed already, meanwhile fierce warfare demands some time constrained decisions. It is not so easy to change anything dramatically, plane is only approaching landing zone on its second take-off. But engineers look to blueprints, pilots flight reports, control systems data, etc. However, what decisions and in which directions... all results of brainstorms on aircraft flight performance are kept in office desk till its landing and getting aircraft to construction hangar for major estimations. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental, of course.

 

It would seem to me that there is at least some consideration by the devs that perhaps this was not the best approach.. but there are things that we as end users have no idea about as far as the hows, where fors and possibilities in any of this so.. from where I sit it is best to just take the team on their track record.. and wait and see what happens.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.. I think it is a fair review.. The deficiencies he mentioned are some of what I would expect from a next Gen WWII sim..  More background stuff.. I think it is pretty fair all things considered. he mentioned the moving AI personell which I think s a great touch from the team...

 

 

I want the ground war to be fleshed out more than anything else. It's an air war sim, not a systems sim, and the next natural addition is to add to the element around which the entire genre, sim and the actual war revolved: the ground troops.

 

But that desire is tempered by reality. This is a niche market that has only gotten smaller while costs have only gotten much, much higher as expectations and standards rise. We're talking about a small Russian development studio, not 2K, Bethesda, Bioware or EA. There is no money(relatively speaking) . The fact that this sim even exists is astounding. If you want all those 'next gen' pie-in-the-sky bells and whistles so badly, then you and a few hundred thousand others are going to have to buy in for twice the price of BOS. Until then, as fanboy-ish as it sounds, you're going to have to put away your less realistic wants and some of your expectations and enjoy what you got.

 

Or not. But then don't expect more where that came from. The forces of capitalism are not on your side here.

Edited by Silas
Link to post
Share on other sites

He is entitled to his opinion and puts a fair steak on the stove.

 

I might be wrong on my take on this but the Sim games reviews always rely on their genre game history, perhaps way more than hardcore RPG for example.

 

Why is that ? I find it very hard to comprehend this stance on a review, sterile from any comparisons.

 

A remark here or there is acceptable but making a review shoving a product up to the shoulder of another one is... odd.

 

But even then if we look back at grandfather IL-2 FB and 1946 what did we have ?

 

Dynamic campaign with mission generated on the go. Design missions. Multiplayer. Them through the years came all the community work. DONE. It is still played today by unknown thousands.

 

Look at Il-2 Cliffs.

 

Designed Campaigns, Mission Generator, Multiplayer. Nothing we don't have now. Thing is on the very release, and having a rig that quite surpassed the requirements it would give me headaches, to the point of giving up and getting back to good ol' 1946.

 

Look at RoF.

 

Yes, launch was there with generator, campaigns and MP. Alas the flight could be felt. Only issue was, and is, the interest for WW1 is limited, still it was named one of the best games in history, not one of the best sims in history read again, one of the best 100 games in history.

 

Now, IL-2 BoS.

 

Has generated missions, dynamic campaign with generated missions and MP. I see nothing different apart from the excellent performance  that BoS presents both in SP and MP ( very sorry for the fellows with problems on their end but it takes both ends to search for the origin of the problems... not only the game is faulty! ).

 

And yes the unlocks were a poor decision but that doesn't defile the game.

 

So, again, the reviewer ( and I must thank him above else for the excellent Malta mod! ) should look into the product as it is with as little shoulder bash with CloD as possible.

 

History in gaming is easily forgotten it seems.

 

Glad we don't all like the same games or the servers wouldn't take us all...

 

S! 

Edited by =LD=Hethwill_Khan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is going to be compared to Cliffs of Dover, IL-2 1946, and to some extent ROF due to obvious reasons.

 

It is billed as the continuation of the legendary IL-2 Series. How could not it be compared to previous IL-2 Sims?

 

Imho, Heinkill gave a very fair review, probably more generous than I would have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when ever a new version of a game is released there are natural comparisons to previous versions in all contexts i.e whats new, whats been fixed, what was removed, what was added,...etc and being that CLoD is the predecessor to BoS of which both bear the IL2 tag it makes perfect sense and is not biased or ignorant.

 

for all of you getting your knickers in a twist just be happy we have choices like CloD and BoS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He edited the review again... which was a good thing. I thought it was a decent review before.. and from my perspective any rating between 6.5 and 8.5 is a fair one for BoS in it's current state adjusted for individual tastes of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always found Heinkill's write ups to be top notch. There was also a review in PC Pilot but it is an older review .. It was written when thye sim was at about 90% I believe.. give or take..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bos is a good game...it works well...you can enjoy it. I am sure it will be growing and improving little by little (more scenarios, different aircrafts, etc), but right now, it is a good game already. It runs well in my laptop, which is not powerful for graphics. I played today in the servers...I really enjoyed it. The only thing I do not like is the locked stuff...as everybody. I hope devs. will change the unlocking. 

All in all, good game. I am happy with it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
In my experience it takes about ten successful missions of about 30 mins to 1 hour each to unlock the mods for a single aircraft. Assuming you never fail a mission, you will need to allocate 5-10 hours per aircraft. If you are person who does not usually like playing against bots in single player mode, this is almost enough reason in itself to not buy this game.

come on, i don't know what he did in all that time, but that is absolute nonsense. Beside the 111, i got every only "halfway" useful historical unlock in 8 hours, for every plane! (37mm for the Il2 is not "historical" in my opinion, they had only a few prototyp-like ones in Stalingrad), i also don't need desert camo for my 109. Fact is, after 8 hours of singleplayer, i don't miss any unlock, which could possibly enhance my multiplayer experience. And three-quarter of those 8 hours, i was in autopilot, and cleaned up my home, or watched a movie. No need to exaggerate here. 

 

enez747s.jpg

Edited by Celestiale
Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaining about the unlocks is proof that people spend more time bickering about this sim than they do playing it. The unlocks come very fast. Especially if you fly YOURSELF and not use the AI. Seriously I can fly better than the AI and get points faster.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaining about the unlocks is proof that people spend more time bickering about this sim than they do playing it. The unlocks come very fast. Especially if you fly YOURSELF and not use the AI. Seriously I can fly better than the AI and get points faster.

Dude - it takes 20 hours or so to get the unlocks.

 

If you are a half way normal person and have a job/life, you have no time or patience to do the tick the box rubbish.

 

We just want to get online with some semblance of historical accuracy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude - it takes 20 hours or so to get the unlocks.

 

If you are a half way normal person and have a job/life, you have no time or patience to do the tick the box rubbish.

 

We just want to get online with some semblance of historical accuracy.

 

Fully agree, but do you need every unlock for every aircraft to be able to go online with some semblance of historical accuracy...I don't feel the need to get a Desert skin for online, the very people who have the biggest problem with the principle seem to also fall into the "got to get them all" mentality...or at least use this as an argument

 

Cheers Dakpiot

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it would have been beneficial not to remove info. about the Russian version:

 

"Two free planes" (Loft speech) version:

 

The DVD version will cost ~12,00$ in Russia (and only there), have two planes (LaGG-3, Bf 109F) "free" - unlocked - for the player unlock - these free of payment - the other 6 Standard planes by playing the "Unlock Campaign", designed for this version.

 

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

 

 

That would at least offer another option for new players to purchase? For some reason it seems to be being treated like a dirty secret? No idea why?

Edited by Mysticpuma
Link to post
Share on other sites
Current multiplayer mode offers nothing really new in online gaming though, but it is to be commended for how smooth the process of finding a server and getting airborne is, and the lack of lag or warping.

 

 

I have to disagree. Framerates take a server hit, despite the GPU and CPU not being fully used. On the BOS EU Expert server yesterday, this was especially bad for me. I must have been down to 30fps or lower. The server later disappeared from the list, I guess it was having trouble. The question is why should a dying server cause framerate drops on the client? In a properly implemented netcode, this should not happen. I hope it's a side effect of the work the devs are doing on optimizing online play.

 

I also encountered a warping player yesterday. He was the only one warping so noticeably, the problem might have been somewhere between him and the server. Not much one can do if the internet is dropping packets. What I don't understand is why he was warping back and forth, 50m at a time, when he was flying level at a constant speed. The game should be able to extrapolate his position based on his last known position and speed when packets are dropped.

 

There's also the problem of servers that drop you back to the server list without explanations when you finish loading the map.

 

The technical aspect of multiplayer still need some work, I would say. There are days when it works well, but also days when it doesn't. I find it better to approach that part of the game as beta-testing, not really playing to have fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long it takes is unimportant.

 

Is the person doing it having fun? That is the fundamental question that a lot of multiplayer-only guys seem to be answering "no!"

 

So, "get on with it and stop moaning" isn't really solving anything.

This.

It blows my mind how the "happy" people always ignore this.

 

And no, it's not entitlement, if it's completely detrimental to the enjoyment of the product for a significant amount of people it's a genuine issue.

Besides, up to this day no one - no dev, no mod no user - has come up with a single good reason why they should be there in the first place, that only makes it worse. So much worse...

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also completely unrealistic and naive when asking for ground action that rivals current action movies. This is a flight sim, not a first person ground action game.

 

Not a fair review.

Seriously... Let me spell it out for you IL2 is named after one of the most famous of all ground attack planes of WW2. One would expect the ground to be a target rich environment.. Boats transporting troops across the Volga. Something on the other side of the Volga would be nice. In fact the Volga is frozen over in game making it somewhat unrealistic for the early campaign. You take an iconic ground battle, place an air battle over the top of it supposedly to support it. And then dumb down the ground stuff to almost nothing. It is like the developers took a still shot in time of the battle and froze it.

Edited by =69.GIAP=Shvak
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...