That's it, I am Cancelling My Subscription to PC Gamer!

[sobek]

:D

 

it also has an up-to-date graphix engine and collidable trees. :lol:

 

He said 'Yehova'.

 

:gun_rifle::bash:

 

:D

[Feuerfalke]

He said 'Yehova'.

 

:gun_rifle::bash:

 

:D

 

 

:megalol:

 

:blush:

[CE_Mikemonster]

I'd be happy if someone reviewed me and gave me an 82% decent guy score!

 

Some of the personal user reviews are less than that, and it doesn't mean they're wrong! As for having a steep learning curve and a thick manual, maybe that'll attract the simmers who've read it, who knooows? Dynamic campaign can be debated (lol jk, don't pick on me!).

 

Edit: 'Dense' manual? You're right the review is silly, he didn't mention collidable trees and missile spam!

Edited February 24, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[Boberro]

I am wondering do they (reviewers) really know what they review? How they know if this behaviour is correct? In sims it is especially important. This is not footbal to say "game is wonderfull, graphic and emotions, adrenaline too". I am not sure these PC games reviewers have any rights to review sims game types. I think a lot of them would say that LO's avionic is great and all is perfect. And overall rate would be 90%, but in most important thing - realism it would be muuuuch less. Of course reviewer would say game is really great and cool forgeting abour realism which without it no any product can be called sim.

 

By this readers don't know if is really good product? Is it really close to reality?(for sim fan realism is most important). They don't know. Due of these "reviews".

Edited February 24, 2009 by Boberro

[Feuerfalke]

That's true, but still not a bad rating, considering that this game is aimed at a completely different group of users.

 

And then, it's not as bad as the last review I read in a game-mag, calling it nit-picking that your gear is damaged when flying at full afterburners and that you have to slow down for landing. That was Falcon4 and it had a rating of less than 70%.

 

So, IMHO this is just a storm in the wishbowl.

 

On the other hand, I agree with Boberro, in terms that I am still missing that add-campaign and it's what? One week before the DVD release? :(

[rapid]

I too stopped my subscription to PC Gamer but this was about 3 years ago when I found some of their information was wayyyy behind everyone else’s.

The rating that they gave is ok in my opinion 60% would have been a bad rating lol but 83 is decent.

Considering they gave Jane’s Longbow2 a lot lower rating which I did find very wrong.

[auricom]

PC gamer is not reviewing the game for sim-heads.. It's reviewing the game for your average gamer who does not want complex or a 400 page manual.. Wait for the PC Pilot review if you want the 'it's amAZinnG!!11!!!1' 99.999%xinfinity+abillion review..

[rapid]

PC gamer is not reviewing the game for sim-heads.. It's reviewing the game for your average gamer who does not want complex or a 400 page manual.. Wait for the PC Pilot review if you want the 'it's amAZinnG!!11!!!1' 99.999%xinfinity+abillion review..

 

 

Errr is some one going to tell him>>>>"PC Pilot magazine will be published with a full review of "DCS:Black Shark" on the 19th February, so go out and buy a copy!

However, we have been informed that " It has been given a score of 95%, and awarded a "PC Pilot Classic" Award, with the description that "DCS Black Shark contains incredible detail, gameplay, graphics, and systems modelling; this is the pinnacle of combat flight simulations!”:smilewink:

[FADM Stern GNSF]

I must say I got a chuckle when I read this thread. I cant believe anyone would expect anything different from a PCG magazine. They are there, primarily, to make money like any other business. So, to do that you cater to the majority.

 

Face it people, "study simulation" is a dying species, and the fact the BS was made at all surprized the hell out of me. As a "group", we probably make up less than 4% of the Gaming audience. This is the way it has been for a long time, as Jane's and Sonalyst would attest.

 

Dont get me wrong, Im a sim junky, and always will be, but we are a rare breed. As stated, the vast majority of players are ones who play archade games, where a manual should be 1-2 pages max, and any form of realism is replaced with "show" and "flash". These players buy games, play them, and move from one to another every several months when a new one comes out. THIS is where the money is at for game makers.

 

So, how can we as the extream minority expect big buisness to cater to us. I take my hat off to companies like DCS and Sonalyst, who make realistic sims for us few, even knowing they can never generate the revenue with us as they could with the archade minions.

 

BRAVO DCS!!! We may be few, but will hold fast until the end.

Edited February 25, 2009 by FADM Stern GNSF

[gillers]

Just want to point out that the reviewer in PCG, Tim Stone, has been reviewing sims of all forms for quite a few years and is a keen simmer (from what I've read of his stuff over the years anyway). Bear in mind that the PCG buyer is mostly a FPS or MMOG player and not really a simmer mag. 82% is still good though I have to say.

 

Gillers

[uhoh7]

Face it people, "study simulation" is a dying species, and the fact the BS was made at all surprized the hell out of me. As a "group", we probably make up less than 4% of the Gaming audience. This is the way it has been for a long time, as Jane's and Sonalyst would attest.

 

Dont get me wrong, Im a sim junky, and always will be, but we are a rare breed.

 

First, I'd say 82% is about right, honestly. I didn't read the review, so maybe the gripes are off-base, I don't know.

 

I love the sim, and have enough hours to be a Major, but certainly there are a bunch of issues, from AI to models like the MI26 and MI8T, to 3d in the ME, and many other small things which are below par---ED is a very small shop so it's understandable.

 

4% of the gaming market is a large potentially very lucrative audience. MACs have only 4% of the PC market, even today.

 

The fact that F4 is flown still by many people attests to the life and durability of a good sim. Much much more money could have been made from that sim, but it fell into the hands of Atari and some small shops with no resources and less vision.

 

As is BS is in a tight niche cause we got one flyable most in the west have never heard of, add the apache, Su25T, A10, F16 and an eastern mover, and eyes would open up, but that's big work and investment for one little outfit.

 

Study Sims have been dead, but not because good ones couldn't make money IMHO.

Edited February 26, 2009 by uhoh7

[GGTharos]

What's wrong with the Mi-24 model? :huh:

 

I love the sim, and have enough hours to be a Major, but certainly there are a bunch of issues, from AI to models like the MI24 and MI8T, to 3d in the ME, and many other small things which are below par---ED is a very small shop so it's understandable.

I'm ok with the 82%. What I'm not agreeing with Tim Stone is the fact that he cited things like dense manual and steep learning curve as a "low". As I've said earlier, a dense manual and steep learning curve is expected in a study sim so that shouldn't be counted as a low if the reviewer knows what they are talking about. This is why I think Tim Stone is clueless. I agree that this is PC Gamer catering to mainly game players and not hard core simulator pilots....

 

......which is why I've had it and going to cancel.

 

:)

[815TooCooL]

About "low"ing on no dynamic campaign, it seems the reviewer never understood rule of game in Black Shark campaign.

It also took me more than a month and a half to understand whole mechanism so no wonder.

Once one grab the rule of 'phase scripted campaign' in BS, it becomes very addictive, fun and authentic far more than hollow repetitive dynamic campaign. I thought WTF first when I flew a few missions of Georgian oil war without understanding. :D

 

I just wish someone publish nice campaign pack which is intermediate of "deployment" and "grand campaign" with nice script and randomness.

I'd gladly buy that with sufficient price.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Once one grab the rule of 'phase scripted campaign' in BS, it becomes very addictive, fun and authentic far more than hollow repetitive dynamic campaign.

 

I've never had a repetitive campaign in Falcon, i've had the same stages of the campaign, but not ever had to fly the exact same mission twice like in Black Shark.

If the campaign was ever hollow maybe play with force levels, you'll get jumped by fighers without expecting it, or SAMs will only light up once you're in their envelope and ambush you. I like to play in a sim where the next mission can be a direct result of your prior one, and you can't just 'Fly Again' a failed mission knowing the enemy force levels and positions.

 

I'm just levelling up the field here with reg. to a DC, no offense intended. Hijacking BARCAP's is repetitive, I will admit :doh:

[HansRoaming]

Well I saw this is the PC Pilot forums

 

Issue 60 (Mar-Apr) landed safely on the doormat today and while it carries a splendid cover of Aerosoft's Bush Hawk, I must say that all my computer time has been occupied with DCS Black Shark reviewed in this issue.

 

Putting aside the whole combat part of the simulator, there are so many depths to the navigation systems in this simulator. It would be great to see some regular features or tutorials on using the ABRIS/AMMS for flight planning and instrument landings.

 

And I would encourage any readers who would not normally try a combat orientated simulator to experience the sheer thrill (and frustrations) of flying an excellent simulation of rotor-wing flight.

 

Never hurts does it :)

[LastRifleRound]

I agree with the OP here. I see this with all reviews, not just simulations. You don't review a study sim and say it's bad because all of the elements of a study sim are there. Case in point: when the review for HAWX comes out, one of the cons listed certainly won't be "Too simplistic for flight sim fans."

 

It is a pointless distinction in context. It's like writing a review of different brands of oranges and listing "Cons: Doesn't taste enough like apples, doesn't look at all like a blueberry, either"

 

It's not like anyone cares, but I find these publications haphazzardly jam nonsense into all of their reviews. I know it's the reviewers opinion, but why is this guy their flight sim reviewer if he doesn't like reading large manuals? Does he hate wrenches, too? Should we thus make him a mechanic?

 

Anywho, just trying to have some fun at their expense, end of the day we're all happy with our purchase ;)

 

I ignore reviews in gaming magazines. Previews are cool, it's nice to get some details on up and coming projects.

[uhoh7]

What's wrong with the Mi-24 model? :huh:

 

sorry MI24 is superb, it's I meant to write MI26

[Bolt Uprite]

I thought Andy Mahood was PCG's sim guy (N american edition ) I've always found him to be a straight shooter (no pun intended ) . Odd they wouldn't get him to do the review .

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I subscribed to PC Gamer magazine because me and both of my sons are PC Gamers. I have 6 PC's in my home and all but two (AspireOne and wife's laptop) are loaded with games.

 

I've been playing flight simulators since 1988, Falcon 3. And in my view, Tim Stone review of black shark is short/sighted and shallow. 82% is in excellent category according to PC Gamer rating. However, in my opinion, 82% is not a rating good enough for Black Shark.

 

April was my last issue of the magazine. I am not renewing my subscription for now.

 

PC Magazine, next time, please have somebody more qualified to review modern air combat simulators.

[Lav69]

We're reviewing a review? Go fly fellas!

[connos]

We are judging a review :)

[Brach]

And we are having fun at the expense of someone who obviously has no clue what he was reviewing. :P

[connos]

So true. By the way i find it a serious issue for PC gaming that such gems are treated like that. Its not dying they are trying to kill it.

[Raz_Specter]

can the 15 year olds actually read :)