SimHQ Review...

[Pringliano]

  http://www.simhq.com/air-combat/il-2-sturmovik-battle-stalingrad-review.html

 

Oops, sorry - Dejá  Vue...

Edited November 11, 2014 by jcomm

[89-]

The review is spot on! Superb planes and physics, poor campaign, empty clean world that looks "like a Swiss ski resort", cardboard graphics Stalingrad city. For single player I would also rank it 6 or 7 out of 10. Meta critic 6.7/10 http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/il-2-sturmovik-battle-of-stalingrad

Edited November 11, 2014 by 89-

[Pringliano]

Yeap!

 

it's growing, it'll eventually reach the level of immersion I am now getting with RoF and CoD + TF, so I hope, with those great scenery areas fully of remarkably designed land and city scapes, dynamic Campaign MP and SP, aircraft, living World allover the place... but already very good...

 

I'm rather new to Combat Flight Simulation, but I think these 3 sims have a lot in common IMO. Dedication from small dev teams, almost a work of Love!!! Attention to detail. After all, aren't there roots more or less the same / common in terms of devs?

Edited November 11, 2014 by jcomm

[IRRE_Belmont]

Good review, i also agree that the SP is plain boring, and that the FMB should have been released at the game launch,

Even the first IL2 had it 

[Mastermariner]

Well described IMHO, but Anthony Beevor is not a reliable writer to describe history or to lean on.

Master

[Feathered_IV]

Well described IMHO, but Anthony Beevor is not a reliable writer to describe history or to lean on.

Master

 

Oh?  Do tell.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

AB is indeed overrated... OT though..

 

5/10 on landscape? Can't really agree with that though.... I find the map stunning..and very representative

[Sparrer]

A pretty fair review

IMO the GAME DESIGN is responsible of drained down the game evaluation.

Also there is a big of a lack of content, but they were comprehensive IF the dev's demonstrate the wish of improvements. I just saw some

What i feel about the poor design: No skins (like il2), campaign design, no allow own server, XPs, unlocks, Gamey HUD, no Start Procedures (even if they were simplified), the single aircraft selling design (which will ruin multiplayer further), no COOP, etc


Thats why i would rate BOS with a 6.

For comparison:

Old il2: 9,5
BOS: 6
Actual Clod: 8
DCS: 7

BOS is a rough diamond. But i can't see dev's intention of polishing it because of the game design decisions. They just want to sell it as it is charging the price of a polished one and telling us that polishing is unnecessary.

[Finkeren]

True.

 

The sim itself is a high 8 close to 9/10. The game design is a 5 at best.

 

Fortunately it's far easier to change and enhance the framework than the sim itself. As Dr. Strangelove would say: "Ze technology required is easily within the means of even ze smallest software developer. It requires only ze will to do so."

 

Edited November 11, 2014 by Finkeren

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Old il2: 9,5

BOS: 6

Actual Clod: 8

DCS: 7

.

What is "Actual" CloD?

[Yakdriver]

so lets read...

 

i do not like  how he says "flight game genre", a s i think BoS aims a bit higher than GTA or such.

 

mentions Tante ju... nice!

 

also nice selfreflection on our memory and expectations. man tries to be honest and keep his feet on the ground.

 

short briefings, no drama, little background and quite steril... accurate.

little depth beyond the storyline, no "pilot" existing, a bit too much freedom to do what you want...

I find him overall not a100% accurate that there are no "buts" - because he spends quite a lot of time on the "IT that can not be named"

 

But he put a lot of effort into it, has clearly been using the SIM for a while, and is not selling any hate or unnecessaury praise.

His conclusion is a bit hard... but it's his honest and quite balanced opinion.

well done.

[Bearcat]

I gave it a 8 on Metacritic. I think anything between 6.5 and 8.5 is fair. I gave it an 8 because despite it's current deficiencies I have no bout it will be improved and the current overall game play is stiill immersive and fun for me.

[Sparrer]

S!

 

I agree with you Finkeren. I would rate the core game as a 8 close to 9.

S!

 

What is "Actual" CloD?

 

CloD+ TF patches

[Yakdriver]

"updated CloD" ?

[Potenz]

Old il2: 9,5

BOS: 6

Actual Clod: 8

DCS: 7

Actual CloD 8??? mate be sincere CloD is a flat 5 in all aspects even with TF patches

[Finkeren]

ClOD is still problematic in many aspects despite the awesome work by TF. I don't think it'll ever climb above an '8' in my book. BoS has the posibility to become a straight '10' in time, if there's a will to do what's necessary.

[Sparrer]

Some more words:

Clod on release was a disaster. Could give it more than 3. Bos is doing much better

Then the TF team did an AMAZING JOB polishing it. They discovered the awesome potential features programed but not implemented on the release. They saved clod from hell. But we need to remember that CLOD is actually an big ALPHA on release and if i'm correct, the TF didn't has acess to all game core codes. So is hard to do things faster and with more quality. Still some bug's in but is incomparable to his release. And they do it for free.

The DCS.....well. Is a flight simulator with combat planes, not a combat flight simulator. It can be an CFS if future, yes....maybe...ergh...we'll see. It's not clear for me what they want.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Guys lets keep this a discussion about the review itself. One thread about this review already got derailed, not in this one.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Hmm sorry for bringing it up again.. i was just curious about what u meant... Again.. This is a thread about BoS.. Not yet another one about C..... Been there.. Done that....

[SYN_Haashashin]

This topic is about a BoS review. Nothing to do with Clod so its has no place in this topic. Use other topic in the relevant subforum if you will, to say how good it is or how bad, but not in this one.

[Mastermariner]

Oh?  Do tell.

Beevor is what is described as, at its best, a "popular historian" and at its worst an ex British Guards officer with an agenda.

 

But let's focus on what is available and good. Professor John Ericsons excellent but (very!) dry " The Road to Stalingrad" and part two " The Road to Berlin" will fulfil most (all!IMHO) of our needs for history and detail. A third writer, Walsh, popped up today but I have ,ordered but, yet to read him.

Master

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

Beevor is what is described as, at its best, a "popular historian" and at its worst an ex British Guards officer with an agenda.

 

What kind of agenda? not this old chestnut of 'the winners write history' again?

[Lusekofte]

As I see this tedious debate on how it is rated, does it matter? Ask yourself one question. Do we have a choice in this matter?

No we do not, comparing this game with cod is insane, they are too different and none remark themselves as the ultimate sim at all. Forget it, We do not have a choice in this matter. When it comes to living and breathing WW2 combat simulators we can only depend on 3 at the moment, 1 12 year old success, one 4 year old fiasco made reasonable good and very enjoyable by  a great devoted team, , and this, at the moment limited taste of a relatively good game/ sim.

In order to call this a hobby none of these are enough alone, together they might fill some spare time .

The bottom line is, bitching about it only make the devoted mission builders grow tired, the developers disillusioned and us worn out.

We have simply no choice on the matter , like it or leave it. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by LuseKofte

[Pringliano]

Ok, opening a Free topic on other sims... at the right forum :-)

[Rama]

For those who want to talk about Anthony Beavor history books merits or flaws.... please open a specific thread in the history sub-forum. It's totally off-topic in this one.

[Sparrer]

@luse

 

I respect your opinion but i don't think this way.

Good or bad is a relative statement. Thats why a review rate for

It means we need to compare.

Comparing could bring destructive or constructive outputs. Not only destructive.

A bad comparative rating in a specific subject doesn't means that feature is useless...just means it already was made better....so an improvement is achievable and possible

It's up to dev's and users to choose what they want to do with this comparison.

All the world industry and technology we have today was developed in an comparison and innovation way. Even comparing subjective stuff can output constructive ideas.

A bad rated think don't means peaple are forbidden to like it, or people are stupid if they like it.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sparrer

[SharpeXB]

It's a better review now that he edited out the direct references and screenshots of Cliffs of Dover.

 

I do disagree with the opinion that the map is blank and featureless. Hey it's winter! In Russia!

But there's a lot of subtlety in all the white, it's very well done. All the towns are layed out well and shown well on your map which is excellent by flight sim standards. So navigating around is not impossible like he mentions. It's quite easy.

And the lack of ground action? Well it's a flight sim. I wouldn't expect to see the real number of ground objects, it's too much for most PCs

You have to balance the number of objects with some good facts. The trees are collideable and all the aircraft use the same FM. That's a pretty big plus.

[SharpeXB]

Old il2: 9,5

Correction. WAS a 9.5

Now it's about a 2. A champion that badly needs to be retired...

[1./ZG1_ElHadji]

The DCS.....well. Is a flight simulator with combat planes, not a combat flight simulator. It can be an CFS if future, yes....maybe...ergh...we'll see. It's not clear for me what they want.

 

Really? I think the aerial combat in DCS is pretty amazing. Especially with the WW2 birds. Sure, the scenario is all wrong but it's definatly not less immersive than in BoS.

[Vaxxtx]

Should not have taken out the CLoD stuff, as it was a fair comparison for the simple fact 1c and the IL2 name is used in both.  ########### removed useless name calling ###########

 

I agree with most of the review, and I can see why some people find playing it worthwhile. In all honestly I think Heinkill was very generous, too much so in fact. It seems he glossed over many areas that are in need of improvement from a gameplay and technical point of view. More mainstream and kind of high level overview instead, which is fine I guess.

 

I totally agree on the landscape and lack of a "living" battle. The excuses of flight game vs ground game dont fly anymore. If this technical limitation is not addressed it will be a big downfall in the future of this game as it will seem to effect the FMB and what can or will be made.

Correction. WAS a 9.5
Now it's about a 2. A champion that badly needs to be retired...

Sorry man, considering a new TD patch is coming out, as well as HSFX was just updated, Dark Blue World 2 coming, and hundreds more mods, the future is still bright. I would guess there are more players still playing the "champion" over any others right now.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rama

[=LD=Hethwill]

Both games share the 1C brand.

 

Games don't share same engine.

 

That's where it all starts and ends Vaxxtx.

 

And given BoS shares similar engine with RoF why the hell no one brings RoF to a review !?

 

Sorry for offtopic.

[312_strycekFido]

...

 

5/10 on landscape? Can't really agree with that though.... I find the map stunning..and very representative

 

yeah, it's not devs fault, that russia is flat and empty...

[Vaxxtx]

Both games share the 1C brand.

 

Games don't share same engine.

 

That's where it all starts and ends Vaxxtx.

 

And given BoS shares similar engine with RoF why the hell no one brings RoF to a review !?

 

Sorry for offtopic.

Both games share 1c, as well as BoS touted as the legend returns. The also share the IL2 name. A comparision is fair since both are newer versions of the original. Different engines should not compared? Makes no sense. I guess comparing a Ford ot a Chevy is wrong as well? They use different engines too.

 

I would assume RoF is not mentioned because it does not have 1c involved, the IL2 name, and the fact its a WWI game. My guess anyway.

[unreasonable]

Both games share the 1C brand.

 

Games don't share same engine.

 

That's where it all starts and ends Vaxxtx.

 

And given BoS shares similar engine with RoF why the hell no one brings RoF to a review !?

 

Sorry for offtopic.

I would be quite happy to bring RoF into a review since it was developed by mostly the same team using the same game engine. Unfortunately, many of the features that make RoF very good have not been included in BoS. Some of these features will probably come along soon, but it looks as though there has been a deliberate design decision to ditch others. At the moment BoS is clearly inferior to RoF. Unless you are only interested in WW2, of course.

[JG4_Sputnik]

yeah, it's not devs fault, that russia is flat and empty...

Well, the emptyness looks like an emptyness from 2008 though. Of course the steppe is flat and empty, but the trees are mediocre at best, there are no different bushes and light wood and such, no telegraph poles, craters, holes, burnt tanks, shelters - you name it.

 

Stalingrad looks like it could be sold as an addon of Il2 1946 a few years ago. Its flat, has blurry textures, missing details everywhere, no signs of a whole army taking shelter down there. The airports look like they'd been drawn with a ruler, hard edges as if there's no wind who blows snow on the runways, again no sings of people and material, etc. etc. pp.

 

Ever spotted artillery in the midst of the wilderness? They are set up in a perfect straight line, again "as if someone had programmed it with a computer"... you just need to strafe once and they are done... No trenches or truck tracks to and away from the guns, just 4 dots in a perfect line. It kills every immersion.

 

Imho one of BoS biggest letdowns is the map (not the clouds and the lighting, they look great), it looks just a bit like you fly in a clean vacuum with no soul or signs of vividness.

Edited November 11, 2014 by JG4_Sputnik

[=LD=Hethwill]

A ford or a chevvy comparison relies on showing both engines strong points and more weak points, from any car magazine review point of view.

It compares numbers, performance statistics and hard factual data.

It leaves the room empty for a consumer to decide.

 

It is hardly what has been done here.

 

Hard data would be:

 

- amount of AI possible in a design mission

- amount of human players possible in a MP design mission

- hard flight model data 

- hard damage model data

 

I think you can think of a few more, right ?

 

Sorry being so adamant but a "gamer" review is based on feelings. A "product" review is based on facts.

 

Screenshots are as good as car photos. Depends on the photographer.

 

S!

[Sparrer]

jesus, why we can't compare sims each other????

they have planes, they have FM, they have AI, they have 3d models, they have related sounds, they have landscape, they have cockpit,  they have ground units, they have clouds, they have sky, they have forests, they have, controls setup, you fly them with joysticks, they have ballistics, they have engine management, they have bomb explosions, they have HUD, they have campaign, they have multiplayer, they have bugs, they have camera views, they have difficult settings, they focused in the same war, they even share the same brand, they ARE COMBAT FLIGHT SIMULATORS!!!!!

You can even compare Warbirds with Bos if you want to and do it wisely and carefully!

You can even compare orange with banana if you do wisely!

[SKG51_robtek]

Are you serious? combat in DCS (current engine) is totally horrible. without label,  you even cannot find out where is bandits.

That is a lot like it is in reality, not like in a game.

[Mac_Messer]

BOS is a rough diamond. But i can't see dev's intention of polishing it because of the game design decisions. They just want to sell it as it is charging the price of a polished one and telling us that polishing is unnecessary.

I think it would be fair to give the devs some more time to work on it.

[Sparrer]

S!

I think it would be fair to give the devs some more time to work on it.

 

 

I agree devs did a LOT of GOOD work in really short time. They have awesome kudos of doing this!

But im very concerned about their decisions on game design. And those are not related about labor time imo. If they change them in the future, i will be pleasure to kudos them also!

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sparrer