IGN review live

[GunSlingerAUS]

Hey guys

 

I've just posted my IGN review of this exquisite game. It'd be great to see lots of comments at the end of the review, proving to my editors that simming is alive and well, and worthy of IGN coverage :smilewink:

 

And please go easy on me - I'm an experienced simmer, but this game and its systems are so insanely deep that it's inevitable to make a mistake or two.

 

Head over to here to check out my thoughts on DCS: Black Shark.

Edited January 16, 2009 by GunSlingerAUS

[Chibawang]

Excellent, I'll read it right away. Glad to hear there's atleast one of our kind among your ranks! :)

 

Review of the review:

 

Overall it was a very fair review with good press for the flight sim genre, and you know as well as I that it needs all of that it can get!

 

My only complaint was that you didn't mention the upcoming DCS modules! I think it would have drawn much more interest if the readers knew the much broader and brighter future of DCS. Oh, two complaints: it's only an AU review?!

 

In any case, good work and thanks for getting the word out.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Chibawang

[DannyB]

Good review GunSlinger. I agree with all your comments. I do like that you say "don't like to read manuals? Stay the hell away!" As much as we want the genre fan base to grow, we have to be realistic about the type that really enjoys these things. That's part of what makes games like BS so amazing to see realized.

[slug88]

Good work. I enjoyed the review and have commented. I recommend everyone else do the same; registration was a surprisingly easy one step process. We need to spread the word, people!

[McVittees]

Really good review - nice! Comment left. Is there a release date for the boxed version yet?

Edited January 16, 2009 by McVittees

[Rhino4]

My only complaint was that you didn't mention the upcoming DCS modules!

He sure did near the end. Quoted from the review:

For those who love these types of games though, this is just the beginning of a beautiful story, as Black Shark is but one of the first of many modules to plug into the DCS engine. New aircraft will be released on a nine-month cycle, with the A-10, AH-64, Hind-D and many others on the horizon.

;)

[slug88]

He sure did near the end. Quoted from the review:

;)

 

I have a feeling that was a recent addition in response to the aforementioned comment :D

[uhoh7]

Well, I'd never heard of Ace Combat, but since you mentioned it, I had to check out the youtubes. That thing is hilarious. You gotta love the flying aircraft carriers----now there's a carbon footprint, hehe.

 

But like you say the graphics are stunning, outside anyway.

 

ED better send you a beer for that review!

[DragonRR]

Nice review on IGN, 9.2 is an incredibly high figure for a sim on a "gamer" review site.

 

I have been unfortunate enough to try Ace Combat 6 on the 360. The Graphics for the planes are very nice and look pretty realistic. However the detail isn't there and the ground textures are pretty iffy. I say unfortunate because the game is pure arcade. Infinite missiles, VERY arcade flight model and so on.

[Chibawang]

I do like that you say "don't like to read manuals? Stay the hell away!" As much as we want the genre fan base to grow, we have to be realistic about the type that really enjoys these things. That's part of what makes games like BS so amazing to see realized.

 

Actually, I disagree. That kind of attitude has contributed more than anything else to the near death collapse of simulations. A statement like that reads to the casual gamer as "dorks and geeks only, stay out!" I'm a lover of the massively in depth mechanics as anyone else, but arcade mode is there for a reason, and it's not to turn our sim into the likes of Ace Combat or HAWX. It's there to draw in people who would otherwise be flat out overwhelmed and turned off by trying to pour into a 380 page manual to play a "game." But, nine times out of ten as they play on the lite version, they start to appreciate the level of detail they're missing out on and a desire develops to learn the nooks and crannys of the simulation. It's a way of reaching out and enlightening the masses, and I applaud ED for trying to do this. :thumbup:

[Sunjah]

...

:smilewink:

 

...

 

No more need be said, EXCELLENT review (and I agree 100%).

[nemises]

great review GunSlinger, right on the money if you ask me.

[deviletk]

Yep i agree. Good job Gunslinger. ;)

[JimMack]

It would be very much appreciated if the real rotary pilots on this forum (Blackhawk, Apache, Cobra, Lynx etc) would post their comments on the IGN site. Your endorsement is important. Tell the truth, where we have got it right, and where we are wrong.

[uhoh7]

Actually, I disagree. That kind of attitude has contributed more than anything else to the near death collapse of simulations. A statement like that reads to the casual gamer as "dorks and geeks only, stay out!" I'm a lover of the massively in depth mechanics as anyone else, but arcade mode is there for a reason, and it's not to turn our sim into the likes of Ace Combat or HAWX. It's there to draw in people who would otherwise be flat out overwhelmed and turned off by trying to pour into a 380 page manual to play a "game." But, nine times out of ten as they play on the lite version, they start to appreciate the level of detail they're missing out on and a desire develops to learn the nooks and crannys of the simulation. It's a way of reaching out and enlightening the masses, and I applaud ED for trying to do this. :thumbup:

 

You've got a point here, and not just for complete sim newbies. The manual is comphrensive, but more powerful than ambien. The in game training takes a number of steps back from Lomac, which surprised me.

 

The producers notes are very nicely done, but you forget stuff before you fire up the sim.

 

I got going with Para_bellum's simple little training mission and the thread at simhq that went with it.

 

A simple printable tutorial using a training mission works pretty well to start.

 

All that said, the serious sim market is there and always has been there and always will be there. Look at IL2. (no it's not a study sim, but still takes some real time to get a handle on it.) It's partly the devs/producers (great as they are) who have convinced themselves it's a "niche" market.

 

The thruth is that F4 updated could have made good money over and over and over. It still could even today.

[EvilBivol-1]

Hey guys

 

I've just posted my IGN review of this exquisite game. It'd be great to see lots of comments at the end of the review, proving to my editors that simming is alive and well, and worthy of IGN coverage :smilewink:

 

And please go easy on me - I'm an experienced simmer, but this game and its systems are so insanely deep that it's inevitable to make a mistake or two.

Thank you!

All that said, the serious sim market is there and always has been there and always will be there.

IMHO, that's not the issue. I think you're right in that the market has remained more or less the same, but the problem is that development cost has skyrocketed with the increased complexity of realistic modern combat aircraft simulation, without a proportional hike in sales volume to justify the increased investment.

 

I think the market is still large enough for a successful flight sim to make a good profit, but there have only been a handful of these and trying to produce one today is too much of a risk. This is true for ED as well, hence the strategy to co-develop DCS with the military branch of simulations.

Edited January 17, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[uhoh7]

Thank you!

IMHO, that's not the issue. I think you're right in that the market has remained more or less the same, but the problem is that development cost has skyrocketed with the increased complexity of realistic modern combat aircraft simulation, without a proportional hike in sales volume to justify the increased investment.

 

I think the market is still large enough for a successful flight sim to make a good profit, but there have only been a handful of these and trying to produce one today is too much of a risk. This is true for ED as well, hence the strategy to co-develop DCS with the military branch of simulations.

 

A great post because I think it really reflects perception in the industry.

 

My belief is the potenial market is larger than ever. Nobody ever wants to talk about sales figures, but what do we think the last MS FS release sold?

 

ED is on the right track for sure in crucial FM dept. Nothing has ever equaled the SU-25t FM in the fixed wing dept.

 

To really take off in sales a sim will need FM fidelity, graphics, AI, MP and a balanced planeset--not huge, but enough for good RL combat scenarios. KA50/Ah64 F16/SU29k A10/Su25T would be fine.

 

Win 7 beta is already out, and with quad cores, 64x, it should be able to run the whole thing pretty well, if the engine is really designed for it.

 

It sounds like the next module of DCS may get a reworked engine, and it will be great to see how it comes out.

 

The last ingredient of course, is content. The new editor is a big step forward, but for long life the sim will need many many missions and hopefully campaigns. There's revenue potenial there, because alot of us would pay ten bucks for a good campaign, and that adds up.

 

To really tap the market a DC would be needed, but for ED that would mean everything built from the ground up, with some kind of bubble like F4. Dev costs could be mitigated by working with some russian universites--getting some grad students programming etc--but while I think it would pay off big time in the long run, it's obviously unlikely.

 

In the end, the military market has it's limitations, but for short term business realites, co development is certainly practical.

 

We can dream of what's already possible, but I guess we should be very thankful for what we have.

[Immermann]

As you mention MS FS, I'd like to see some 3rd party created civilian aircraft to this standard with AFM similar to the Su-25T, perhaps a Cessna or an aerobatic plane (you can't fly knife-edge in FSX without crashing for example). That could make it more interesting for the civil air crowd.

Sure, the flyable area is a bit restricted, but it wouldn't matter to the low and slow prop planes.