SimHQ Review...

[wellenbrecher]

 

Anyway, what that means, is that the campaign mode is considered to be the highlight, according to the reviewer.

 

Which is in line with what Jason, Zak and Loft told us over the last months as well. No surprise there.

Makes it even weirder that they made this puffed up QMB stub instead of an actual campaign.

 

That's a better and more balanced review.

They actually have a positive view of the unlocks as a challenging part of the game. That's really how mainstream gamers will see it. Not the way enthusiasts on forums do. It also highlights the true positives of the game.

The thing is, it's not challenging. It just takes time and in higher levels absurd amounts of luck, nothing else.

Heck, when even "officials" tell us to use the autopilot to get it over with, something is incredibly wrong with this.

 

 

Better, Bearcat?

[avlSteve]

The thing is, it's not challenging. It just takes time and in higher levels absurd amounts of luck, nothing else.

 

I guess I was very lucky to unlock everything.  I would have sworn that my skills increased dramatically and that I learned a lot, and that it kept getting more and more challenging as I progressed in level, but I guess I was mistaken.

[wellenbrecher]

Luck as in the ultra-accurate AAA that has been reported for higher levels not nailing you instantly.

If it increased your skills, good for you! Not being sarcastic, at least some of us got their money's worth then.

 

I guess we have also finally found the target audience then?

Edited November 13, 2014 by [JG2]G3_wellenbrecher

[Dakpilot]

*stuff*

 

Can you direct me to where the "officials" tell us to use the autopilot to get it over with.. 

 

No argument I would just like to see where it was written and by whom

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm at level 9 and I'm not finding the AAA to be incredibly deadly.  I haven't noticed much of a difference from the lower levels.

[unreasonable]

I am on pilot level 8, never noticed any "sniper" AAA.  Maybe people just call it that when they are unlucky enough to get hit? Use RL anti AAA tactics and your chances increase dramatically.

 

The challenge in the SP career is flying a long series of missions, attempting to achieve the mission goals while staying alive. Of course luck comes into it - how could it not?

 

I think I have been damaged by flak 2-3 times over the last 20 missions, certainly never killed by it.

 

(Not sure I fancy a Stuka though).

[avlSteve]

Luck as in the ultra-accurate AAA that has been reported for higher levels not nailing you instantly.

If it increased your skills, good for you! Not being sarcastic, at least some of us got their money's worth then.

 

I guess we have also finally found the target audience then?

 

I guess I was lucky enough to fly around the enemy airfields, and pay very close attention to the AAA.  I'm just lucky in that regard, I suppose.

[BraveSirRobin]

(Not sure I fancy a Stuka though).

 

I just finished all the Stuka unlocks.  I was shot down by fighters a few times.  I think I was shot down by the AAA on a train once.  I find the train AAA to be the most deadly.  In fact, it's the only AAA that is a real threat.

[unreasonable]

I just finished all the Stuka unlocks.  I was shot down by fighters a few times.  I think I was shot down by the AAA on a train once.  I find the train AAA to be the most deadly.  In fact, it's the only AAA that is a real threat.

 

I expect I will get round to the stuka eventually, I think I have the hang of GA in a Lagg. Encouraging if it is not impossibly hard. 

 

I think the train AAA is nasty because you are forced to fly pretty much straight at it due to the nature of the target, giving it the easiest shot.

 

On airfield attacks you can swoop in and go for the parked planes and then escape in a low fast turn - you will be unlucky to be hit, but it will happen eventually if you do enough of these attacks. The high level hit is mostly a numbers game - the chances of hits are low, but the longer you stay in the zone the higher your chances of getting it. 

 

Overall I find it very plausible now.

[BraveSirRobin]

I think the train AAA is nasty because you are forced to fly pretty much straight at it due to the nature of the target, giving it the easiest shot.

 

I find that it doesn't seem to shoot at me while I'm inbound.  It only shoots as I extend away.  

 

I don't do airfield attacks.  I'm just trying to get unlocks and there is a lot less AAA at the other targets.

[wellenbrecher]

I guess I was lucky enough to fly around the enemy airfields, and pay very close attention to the AAA.  I'm just lucky in that regard, I suppose.

Hm? No reason to be obtuse here.

Train AAA? AAA emplacements next to artillery? Random AAA on your route?

 

You don't need to fly over airfields to get randomly blasted out of the sky with the first shot.

 

 

Can you direct me to where the "officials" tell us to use the autopilot to get it over with.. 

 

No argument I would just like to see where it was written and by whom

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

My wording was overly pointed and rather obviously biased towards my perception of unlocks, but here:

 

Okay, I know how annoying it may be for offliners to level for extra unlocks in single player. I had to get some more firepower for my Pe-2 by flying against bots and it obviously took some time (however it easy enough and I could let the AI do most of the job for me at any moment).

 

[avlSteve]

Hm? No reason to be obtuse here.

Train AAA? AAA emplacements next to artillery? Random AAA on your route?

 

You don't need to fly over airfields to get randomly blasted out of the sky with the first shot.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd want me to list each instance of AAA I avoided.  My bad.

[BraveSirRobin]

You don't need to fly over airfields to get randomly blasted out of the sky with the first shot.

 

I'm almost done with all the unlocks except the 111, and nothing like that has ever happened to me.  

[wellenbrecher]

Try the Stuka or the IL2 or ground attack in a fighter. I never had any problems flying the Heinkel either.

But of course the Stuka has the advantage of only needing to go in once (if you're not doing a mission that requires you to hunt more targets than can be hit with a single bomb drop obviously), so it's less in danger of the AAA in the target area at least.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd want me to list each instance of AAA I avoided.  My bad.

 

Utterly unnecessary post then and there's no reason to get all passive aggressive about it. 

There are instances of AAA one can't avoid and when there's a decent chance of getting blown out of the sky (or forced to land somewhere which isn't the "Exit Point"/home AF which effectively has the same effect), introducing an important element of luck to the SP experience. That's a fact, I don't see what your point is supposed to be.

Edited November 13, 2014 by [JG2]G3_wellenbrecher

[unreasonable]

I find that it doesn't seem to shoot at me while I'm inbound.  It only shoots as I extend away.  

 

I don't do airfield attacks.  I'm just trying to get unlocks and there is a lot less AAA at the other targets.

 

Airfield attacks are the easiest!  At least in a fighter bomber.  Use bombs, forget rockets. Approach airfield until you can just make out where the line of parked aircraft is positioned.  Fly around until you are lined up along the line of parked aircraft.  Approach at max speed at 1000m, reduce throttle to idle keeping high rpm as you enter 45% dive.  As target slips below nose release bombs about 1 second apart. Enjoy "Mission Completed" graphic. Open throttle, dive to the deck turning slightly in direction of exit point. Continue turning a little until out of range.

 

Using this method I normally get mission success without even firing my guns and I have only been hit once, and that was only bad enough to force a landing somewhere on the way home.

[BraveSirRobin]

Try the Stuka or the IL2 or ground attack in a fighter. I never had any problems flying the Heinkel either.

 

I just finished all the unlocks on the Stuka last night.  I only get hit by flak extending away from trains.  Never got blasted out of the sky.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Actually Wellenbrecher gave a cloaked suggestion.

 

In mission terms if you have to land, due to circumstances, in another airfield other than the original one it should be considered a success all the same and not as a crash. Same way landing a damaged plane after such a hazardous trip back should be successful.

Yes, yes, a plane is lost for a "uncertain" amount of time due to being damaged, but the mission was successful.

 

Obviously it would only count if the plane had troubles, and not a perfectly functional aircraft.

Edited November 13, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[BraveSirRobin]

Airfield attacks are the easiest!  

 

They might be the easiest target, but there is lots of flak.  Other targets have very little flak (except train, but I just enjoy blowing up trains...).

[Mac_Messer]

Luck as in the ultra-accurate AAA that has been reported for higher levels not nailing you instantly.

If it increased your skills, good for you! Not being sarcastic, at least some of us got their money's worth then.

I don`t have a problem if AAA hits me when I do a low level attack. Always though that the real AA guns were deadly at that. Now if the flak hit my fighter at say 4000m, that would be a different thing.

 

 

I guess we have also finally found the target audience then?

Do we know the actual target audience or is it not defined yet?

[Brano]

I dont mind unlocks ,as they are what they are and I can reason myself purpose of their existence.I also enjoy campaign as it is now.It is not perfect,but it is good to spend some free time in the evening in 1-2 missions.I also like to fire up QM just for the flying Maybe I am member of that target audience group?

[Dakpilot]

 

 

 

My wording was overly pointed and rather obviously biased towards my perception of unlocks, but here:

 

No it was putting words in the mouths of "officials" and stating it as a fact, which where I come from is called something else

 

The real problem and sort of important in a review thread is that I have seen the same sort of "the devs tell us to use autopilot so it must be bad" repeated other places, again based on that one comment from Zak

 

sorry to pick you up on this but the more often an untruth is repeated the more likely it is to become a popular "fact"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

sorry to pick you up on this but the more often an untruth is repeated the more likely it is to become a popular "fact"

 

have to agree with this.........QFI

[Bearcat]

Which is in line with what Jason, Zak and Loft told us over the last months as well. No surprise there.

Makes it even weirder that they made this puffed up QMB stub instead of an actual campaign.

 

The thing is, it's not challenging. It just takes time and in higher levels absurd amounts of luck, nothing else.

Heck, when even "officials" tell us to use the autopilot to get it over with, something is incredibly wrong with this.

 

 

Better, Bearcat?

 

I don't get it.....

[SharpeXB]

Still waiting to see this influx of so-called mainstream gamers that are going to be drawn to this unlock style of gameplay.

 

Am I to be branded a mainstream gamer?

 

I play all kinds of games, Titanfall, Borderlands, Grand Theft Auto, IL-2 ...

 

If by playing lots of mainstream games I can comment, with authority, on the unlocks in this game: let me tell you, they do not belong.

Just look at how much they are complained about here, among enthusiasts, compared to how they are mentioned by a mainstream review. To them it's just a common feature nearly every game has. Not so earth shaking.

That's how the average buyer will see it and probably that they're fun.

BoS can't be successful just selling to the enthusiast crowd because for the most part they've probably already bought it.

There has to be some sort of progress or progression to keep players interested and reward them. Heinkill makes some good points about why the campaign is the way it is. Most SP games reward you with more storyline but that type of campaign in flight sims doesn't work so well.

Edited November 13, 2014 by SharpeXB

[BraveSirRobin]

That's how the average buyer will see it and probably that they're fun.

 

How are they "fun"?  Absolutely no one seems to be able to explain how that works.  

 

Because they're certainly not intended to be fun.  In most games they're intended to be so aggravating that the players are willing to pay money to avoid them.  

 

I guarantee you that people who only want to play MP don't find them fun.

 

So the fun part is still a mystery.

[=LD=Hethwill]

There is a confusion going on.

 

A Mainstream gamer will never pickup BoS, never with a large stone of salt mind you.

 

A mainstream gamer will normally won't touch anything that requires anything else that a mouse, a keyboard or a console type controller. That is why we see very little of them in simulations.

 

EVEN with hotas setups costing less than a gaming mouse they won't invest time, therefore money, into a long learning curve.

For example, ArmA with all its virtues and defect does indeed attract and sell way more than a flight simulator but also will never reach near mainstream gaming. Simply because it is not immediate results. Like ArmA I could say mechwarrior online for example. The mainstreamers don't flock there simply because it has a cockpit only !!! Obviously they all went to Hawken. Eventually many players will migrate to more challenging sims from war thunder or world of warplanes, but they will never leave en masse, more like a wild guess of 1 in 3k.

 

If you look to the history of PC games, simulators only had their place in the top 10 before the internet BOOM. After that it all became e-competition and e-sports, where fast paced games where arenas of 10 minutes are the norm. It is not about the simulation for them. It is about the immediate results. Unlocks are not a reward nor a mainstream mechanic - they require time and learning, not combo and pwned maneuvers! There is a difference in unlocks here and unlocks in a battlefield or medal of honor game type.

 

So if most of the reviews point this single aspect as the most "alien" choice for a game of the genre there must be something being aligned that either really requires them, or simply dwells in business model for different editions worldwide, we do not know.

 

A e-pilot finds his fun in the challenge, the learning, the investigating, the discovery. The mainstream gamer find his fun in ladders, stats, and immediate mastery of controls. Whatever the case the ambition for a sim to get mainstream is long gone, unless some studio finds a most imaginative way to entice a simple gamer to want to learn and spend time in a virtual cockpit.

Edited November 13, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[[KWN]T-oddball]

There is a confusion going on.

 

A Mainstream gamer will never pickup BoS, never with a large stone of salt mind you.

 

A mainstream gamer will normally won't touch anything that requires anything else that a mouse, a keyboard or a console type controller. That is why we see very little of them in simulations.

 

EVEN with hotas setups costing less than a gaming mouse they won't invest time, therefore money, into a long learning curve.

For example, ArmA with all its virtues and defect does indeed attract and sell way more than a flight simulator but also will never reach near mainstream gaming. Simply because it is not immediate results. Like ArmA I could say mechwarrior online for example. The mainstreamers don't flock there simply because it has a cockpit only !!! Obviously they all went to Hawken. Eventually many players will migrate to more challenging sims from war thunder or world of warplanes, but they will never leave en masse, more like a wild guess of 1 in 3k.

 

If you look to the history of PC games, simulators only had their place in the top 10 before the internet BOOM. After that it all became e-competition and e-sports, where fast paced games where arenas of 10 minutes are the norm. It is not about the simulation for them. It is about the immediate results. Unlocks are not a reward nor a mainstream mechanic - they require time and learning, not combo and pwned maneuvers! There is a difference in unlocks here and unlocks in a battlefield or medal of honor game type.

 

So if most of the reviews point this single aspect as the most "alien" choice for a game of the genre there must be something being aligned that either really requires them, or simply dwells in business model for different editions worldwide, we do not know.

 

A e-pilot finds his fun in the challenge, the learning, the investigating, the discovery. The mainstream gamer find his fun in ladders, stats, and immediate mastery of controls. Whatever the case the ambition for a sim to get mainstream is long gone, unless some studio finds a most imaginative way to entice a simple gamer to want to learn and spend time in a virtual cockpit.

well said, a much more lengthy clear and concise version of my ball-in-cup and chess analogy.

[Vaxxtx]

There is a confusion going on.

 

A Mainstream gamer will never pickup BoS, never with a large stone of salt mind you.

 

A mainstream gamer will normally won't touch anything that requires anything else that a mouse, a keyboard or a console type controller. That is why we see very little of them in simulations.

 

EVEN with hotas setups costing less than a gaming mouse they won't invest time, therefore money, into a long learning curve.

For example, ArmA with all its virtues and defect does indeed attract and sell way more than a flight simulator but also will never reach near mainstream gaming. Simply because it is not immediate results. Like ArmA I could say mechwarrior online for example. The mainstreamers don't flock there simply because it has a cockpit only !!! Obviously they all went to Hawken. Eventually many players will migrate to more challenging sims from war thunder or world of warplanes, but they will never leave en masse, more like a wild guess of 1 in 3k.

 

If you look to the history of PC games, simulators only had their place in the top 10 before the internet BOOM. After that it all became e-competition and e-sports, where fast paced games where arenas of 10 minutes are the norm. It is not about the simulation for them. It is about the immediate results. Unlocks are not a reward nor a mainstream mechanic - they require time and learning, not combo and pwned maneuvers! There is a difference in unlocks here and unlocks in a battlefield or medal of honor game type.

 

So if most of the reviews point this single aspect as the most "alien" choice for a game of the genre there must be something being aligned that either really requires them, or simply dwells in business model for different editions worldwide, we do not know.

 

A e-pilot finds his fun in the challenge, the learning, the investigating, the discovery. The mainstream gamer find his fun in ladders, stats, and immediate mastery of controls. Whatever the case the ambition for a sim to get mainstream is long gone, unless some studio finds a most imaginative way to entice a simple gamer to want to learn and spend time in a virtual cockpit.

I totally agree with this. I think this is why most sim folks have issues with the way BoS has developed. Trying to cater to a market that has no interest to pick it up, yet people who do are pretty much ignored. Its a head scratcher.

[=LD=Hethwill]

A mainstream gamer would more easily sit down at a command position in the RAF command at Uxbridge issuing orders than at the commands of a Spit.

 

Maybe that is something worth thinking of,

 

( I say this because some of the worse ArmA players we got became awesome Zeus game masters just because of their command&conquer/starcraft gaming attitude )

Edited November 13, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[SharpeXB]

I guarantee you that people who only want to play MP don't find them fun.

Trouble is that segment is about 3% of the buyers. Hey I was online the other day and there was a huge group of 11 players on! I hope BOS has sold more that 11 copies of this sim...

[Lusekofte]

What I meant is that it doesn't look like actual people were involved in placing the guns. No randomness, no accidents just pure maths or algorithms. Every time the same damn line. Not even german SS would have had that kind of discipline... 

 

 

Google artillery Stalingrad and you will find many perfectly lined artillery pictures

[BraveSirRobin]

Trouble is that segment is about 3% of the buyers. Hey I was online the other day and there was a huge group of 11 players on! I hope BOS has sold more that 11 copies of this sim...

 

The servers were pretty busy before the unlockables were dumped on us.  

 

Still waiting for more details on how unlockables are fun...

[AndyHill]

I'm a pretty experienced gamer, I've played a number of different games throughout the years, studied game stuff etc. so I'm not just a simmer even though they are my favorite genre. I don't dislike unlocks as a game mechanic per se (<- that is Finnish for "ar se" btw. and thus quite funny to post on a forum), but there are a number of reasons why I don't think they are a well thought out thing in this game.

 

1) They don't have a very long appeal. Simulators in general are expected to hold one's interest for years, these unlocks are "over" in a few weeks of relatively intensive gaming. They also have zero replay value.

 

2) They break an important campaign mechanic; the availability of planes and equipment needs to arise from the supply situation / time period in the campaign, this is both interesting gameplay with true replay value and historical.

 

3) In combination with pilot levels focusing on unlocks seems to have sidetracked another important feature of the campaign: the difficulty needs to depend on the campaign situation and starting point and more importantly the previous events of a campaign. An abstract pilot level takes away a lot of interesting gameplayby replacing mechanisms that generate it.

 

4) They break multiplayer. Games that rely on grinding stuff are usually massively multiplayer shooters that have a matchmaker for setting up teams of somewhat equal equipment level, in Il-2 everyone is in the same matches. The situation where someone can't participate because he lacks the necessary planes or equipment is not handled well at all and thus it becomes virtually impossible to create certain kind of coop or other mission content. This is actually a game-breaking problem in many ways and absolutely needs to be fixed.

 

Combined together these issues form a serious game design problem that needs to be fixed for the game to thrive. I applaud the effort to design compelling and interesting gameplay, but when the result is not good the devs have to make the right conclusion. But for some reason that has been a problem, there are a number of extremely weird decisions (no graphics settings, no campaign difficulty settings) that drag the game down even though the core seems to be pretty good.

[SharpeXB]

If you look to the history of PC games, simulators only had their place in the top 10 before the internet BOOM.

Yeah but that was back when Asteroids was considered a flight sim. Seriously PC games had limited or no appeal to most people back in the pre-historic era. It's a different world today and these flight sims are better than they have ever been.

[SharpeXB]

Still waiting for more details on how unlockables are fun...

I think they're fun. I'm a hardcore sim type and I still like being rewarded for doing stuff. Taking off, landing, being scored and evaluated. Getting "points". Whether it's medals or achievements. Why not win actual content? I like how the system rewards you for playing with extra difficulty and I think that's important. So many players use the easy settings just because you can rack up victories. It's great to see players get points for things like landing and finding waypoints. Points are a important thing for the "game" of flight simming. Otherwise why would a player choose the expert settings that just makes the game harder? A storyline game just encourages the player to set everything on easy and get through the story. The unlocks are a direct reward for flying achievements. And that's what a flight sim is about.

Edited November 13, 2014 by SharpeXB

[Vaxxtx]

Yeah but that was back when Asteroids was considered a flight sim. Seriously PC games had limited or no appeal to most people back in the pre-historic era. It's a different world today and these flight sims are better than they have ever been.

Huh? Janes? MSCFS? Red Baron. Falcon. Really? Limited appeal? I am not sure you are familair with older CFS's.

 

Also, I still think IL21946 is better in a whole than any flight sim today. I still enjoy others, but pound for pound its still great, and its old.

I think they're fun. I'm a hardcore sim type and I still like being rewarded for doing stuff. Taking off, landing, being scored and evaluated. Getting "points". Whether it's medals or achievements. Why not win actual content? I like how the system rewards you for playing with extra difficulty and I think that's important. So many players use the easy settings just because you can rack up victories. It's great to see players get points for things like landing and finding waypoints. Points are a important thing for the "game" of flight simming. Otherwise why would a player choose the expert settings that just makes the game harder? A storyline game just encourages the player to set everything on easy and get through the story. The unlocks are a direct reward for flying achievements. And that's what a flight sim is about.

 

Again, I dont agree. Difficulty should be down to historic time/events, not because you level up.

 

Rewards should be being part of a grand campaign and "living" in the time period as a fighter/bomber/whatever pilot. Not flashy XP points for flying through an "exit way point".

Edited November 13, 2014 by Vaxxtx

[SharpeXB]

Huh? Janes? MSCFS? Red Baron. Falcon. Really? Limited appeal? I am not sure you are familair with older CFS's.

I'm sure those might have been fun back in the day but honestly the graphics just look really awful. I was never into PC games back then because the graphics didn't live up to the box art. Video or PC games prior to about 2007 were just too rudimentary for my interest.

[BraveSirRobin]

I think they're fun. 

 

But you still haven't explained how.  I get the same amount of fun from shooting down an AI aircraft in order to get a locked skin that I get for shooting down an AI aircraft and not getting a locked skin.  None.  I play the game for the challenge of shooting things down or blowing things up.  That challenge is not changed in any way by getting a locked skin or weapon THAT I ALREADY @#%^%$ PAID FOR.

 

I don't shoot down MP humans for any rewards, I shoot them because they're gonna shoot me down if I don't get them first.  That's what motivates actual combat pilots.

[BraveSirRobin]

If you don't enjoy playing the game for the challenge it provides, then I don't see how giving you a skin for a game you don't really enjoy is going to make the experience any better.

[Vaxxtx]

Yeah but that was back when Asteroids was considered a flight sim. Seriously PC games had limited or no appeal to most people back in the pre-historic era. It's a different world today and these flight sims are better than they have ever been.

 

 

I'm sure those might have been fun back in the day but honestly the graphics just look really awful. I was never into PC games back then because the graphics didn't live up to the box art. Video or PC games prior to about 2007 were just too rudimentary for my interest.

So like I said, you are not familair with them, and did not play them, therefore can only go what it looked like? Did you know that at one point DOOM was steller graphics wise?

 

You are commenting on things that you dont know about.