Review: Black Shark gets 72% by GameStar

[Jigsaw]

The German print magazine GameStar reviewed DCS Black Shark and rated it with 72%

 

Their biggest beef with Black Shark is the low detail of the landscape, and I have to agree. The mesh isn't very detailed, and I see lots of pyramid mountains when flying around that I thought to be extinct since the 90s. But I don't think that justifies the relatively low rating they gave this otherwise excellent sim.

 

Here's the translation of their pros and cons:

 

Graphics (6/10):

+ very detailed helicopter

+ nice cockpit view

- neglected landscape

- mediocre explosions

- few lighting effects

 

Sound (8/10):

+ very atmospheric real sound effects of the K-50

+ good English localization

- no German speakers

 

Balance (7/10):

+ arcade and simulation mode

+ manual with all details

- rather useless tutorials

- very steep learning curve

 

Atmosphere (8/10):

+ real feel of flight when using a joystick

+ eventful battles

+ debriefings

- lifeless landscapes

- no real career

 

Controls (7/10):

+ joystick freely configurable

+ instruments usable in the cockpit via mouse

- lots of keyboard shortcuts

- manual only a PDF file

 

Content (8/10):

+ Black Shark with all details

+ many missions, downloads also

+ mission editor

- only one helicopter

 

Realism (8/10):

+ vehicles and weapons ultra realistic

+ very believable flight model

- flat landscapes make tactics useless

 

Artificial Intelligence (6/10):

+ AI mates sometimes really helpful

- AI mates acted erratic and randomly too often

- enemies provide little variety

 

Tuning (8/10):

+ many optional helps

+ weather conditions customizable

+ every system of the K-50 can fail

 

Flight Territories (6/10):

+ eurasian border territory of 330.000 km²

- blurry and often undetailed landscapes

- often desolate country sides, little variety

 

And here's the conclusion of the author:

 

"Black Shark not only demands a lot of time but also a huge amount of concentration. Someone who only wants to explore the thin air for a while will be content with the arcade mode but will miss out on the uncanny depth of the simulation mode. It's a pity that the game on one hand allows to study the technology of the helicopter to its finest details but that on the other hand the professional knowledge is useless over the superflat landscapes. The tactical elements that are a result of the lowflying capabilities of the aircraft are not really covered by this simulation."

 

I can't really understand that criticism. So far I encountered many hills and mountains during the deployment stage of the first campaign. Although they lack quite a few polygons they still provide enough cover to use the tactical advantages of a combat helicopter.

[Smoky]

I'm torn about their reviews of the landscaping. On the one hand, yes, the landclass and texture mapping is based on a 5+ year old graphics engine. And yes it doesn't have a whole lot of detail to it. BUT..

 

Agreed, obviously there are mountains, hills, trees, buildings for cover..so the author just did not explore enough.

 

But the lack of quality of ground textures is, in my opinion, a good choice. It saves frame rate for important things. ED focused on performance, immersion, realism, and the "experience of being a combat helicopter pilot". I would NEVER fault a sim builder for making that decision over pretty ground textures.

 

However I do see the author's point from the perspective that "in today's technology" I think the ground textures COULD be better, with newer and more efficient texture modeling, without taking a performance hit anywhere else.

 

Regardless, when you get into a ground battle, and you can see intimate detail of the ground vehicles, weapon systems, and the ferocity of the battles, all while maintaining a solid FPS... you know ED made the right choices given the resources they had to choose from at the time. (We also have to remember that BS started development a LONG time ago...so decisions had to be made and coding committed without the luxury of experimenting with new graphics technologies that we now take for granted several years later).

[Boberro]

I can't agree with few really weird opinions:

 

Graphics (6/10):

+ very detailed helicopter

+ nice cockpit view

- neglected landscape

- mediocre explosions

- few lighting effects

I agree with these opinions. But graphic is not so bad, even for 2009 year is quite pretty.

 

I would give here +7

Sound (8/10):

+ very atmospheric real sound effects of the K-50

+ good English localization

- no German speakers

I would give here 5. Bad sound engine is painful. A "no German speakers" shouldn't be a minus IMHO. It is not must be.

Balance (7/10):

+ arcade and simulation mode

+ manual with all details

- rather useless tutorials

- very steep learning curve

Can't agree with "very steep learning curve". It shouldn't have been a HAWX. About tutorials I agree, not very useful but not bad at all. Interactive would be cool.

 

Atmosphere (8/10):

+ real feel of flight when using a joystick

+ eventful battles

+ debriefings

- lifeless landscapes

- no real career

"lifeless landscapes"... I feel same, can't explain this.

 

Controls (7/10):

+ joystick freely configurable

+ instruments usable in the cockpit via mouse

- lots of keyboard shortcuts

- manual only a PDF file

"lots of keyboard shortcuts" - don't know how can be it a minus :ermm:

"manual only a PDF file" - again... so maybe PowerPoint?... PDF is flexible.

 

Content (8/10):

+ Black Shark with all details

+ many missions, downloads also

+ mission editor

- only one helicopter

"only one helicopter" - game's title says something about this...

 

Realism (8/10):

+ vehicles and weapons ultra realistic

+ very believable flight model

- flat landscapes make tactics useless

"weapons and vehicles ultra realistic" - I am worried if this reviewer knows something about. Don't know how tanks, another vehicles which can't self defence like popping smoke, running away ect are "ultra realistic". Due of this behaviour (and similar issues) battlefield realism drops down very much. 8/10 is way too much.

 

Conclusion of the author about superflat terrain IMO is unfair. There are many hills and similar climbs.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Boberro

[crazysundog]

Yeah, I'm not sure where he was flying but he should have maybe explored the whole map a bit better. Even in flat terrain there is bridge overpasses and buildings to hide (a.k.a. tactics) behind.

 

But the terrain is a little dated...

[Airway]

Well guys, that paper is called GameStar and what are they testing a simulation for ? ;)

Honestly - I think all these rewievs from these magazines are not very meaningful.

How long are they testing games? And how deep do they look into it?

Most of these magazines read new products on the release list, get them and want to be the first who reviewed them.

 

With us simulation users it is different as we have a better view for the details that count and see the relation to other simulations.

 

So, I think these magazines can only give a very general view on the thing and their rating is maximum 50 % precise.

In the case of GameStar the rating differs around 20 % from other magazin ratings.

Odd....

[Jigsaw]

Yeah, some of these points are pretty strange. But keep in mind that the days of magazines having their very own simulation buff are pretty much over. These guys are specialized on testing all that medicore one button does all idiot stuff that is released these days. They probably don't have the time and expertise to test a simulation like this in depth. The review in the mag only had one page, while H.A.W.X. got three pages in the very same issue. The latter got 70% by the way.

 

But I think it's nice that they reviewed it at all. Lets face it: our beloved genre needs all the attention it can get. Especially since Microsoft axed the ACES team.

 

"manual only a PDF file" - again... so maybe PowerPoint?... PDF is flexible.

 

He meant "as opposed to a printed copy" ;)

Edited March 28, 2009 by Jigsaw
wrong rating for HAWX

[Acedy]

The review in the mag only had one page, while H.A.W.X. got three pages in the very same issue. The latter got 80% by the way. Go figure...

 

Actually Hawx got 70%. ;)

[Jigsaw]

Actually Hawx got 70%. ;)

 

Your're right. My bad. :pilotfly:

[Smoky]

And another thing... lol

 

I've watched a ton of Ka-50 videos on the web. And almost every one of them I think "damn that really looks like the territory covered in BS". So as far as their saying the landscape is bleak, etc.. I've never been there but the videos of Ka-50 demo's show tall skinny trees, flat lands, desolate/farm lands, rivers, mountains, hills, valleys, snow, rain, mist, roads, buildings, and lots of powerlines. I think ED got it right on the money. We're not at war in the French Riviera after all.

[hitman]

Content (8/10):

+ Black Shark with all details

+ many missions, downloads also

+ mission editor

- only one helicopter

I counted almost 2 dozen helis in the sim...they should be a little bit more technical with their description.

[Boberro]

He meant "as opposed to a printed copy" ;)

 

Ah I see :)

[joey45]

...... I think ED got it right on the money. We're not at war in the French Riviera after all.

 

can always hope.....

 

 

he probaly only played it for about an hour before giving up....

[159th_Viper]

Ah I see :)

 

.....Said the Blind Man to his Deaf Daughter whilst seated on the corner of the round table.......

 

:D

 

Re the review - One cannot but help notice the subjectivity of the authors attendant to all the reviews one reads and personally therein lies the downfall........as such I am rarely overtly interested and never swayed.

[element1108]

Even the best looking military sims don't have amazingly rendered terrain graphics. Rendering a thousand square miles with enough detail low level sims such as helo or ground attack fighter sims require isn't ready for the modern PC.

 

(I actually have NO problems with the terrain modeled in Black Shark)

 

Military sims are all about flight model/weapons models and cockpit authenticity. How nice terrain looks is probably a lot lower on the list of military specifications.

 

Especially if the sim is running at 12fps....VERY smooth frame rate is also critical for authentic flight simulation.

 

72% is VERY low in my opinion...graphics will never make a game...controls, gameplay and longevity ultimately ad to a game's worth.

 

Anyway that's just how I feel...I would rate Black Shark VERY high and I've been playing since the it first became available for download. Squad flying is the best in my opinion...the sim REALLY shines with co-op multiplayer. Best of all...it's free to play online...I feel guilty and feel I should be paying a monthly fee ! ;)

 

72% still blows me away though

[TangoRomeo]

Have to agree here with the terrain not being the strongest point of BS. :(Especially for a low&slow Helicopter sim i was hoping for more terrain cover and high resolution DEM throughout. As for the audio department, i think they were quite gracious with their rating.

[Jigsaw]

I counted almost 2 dozen helis in the sim...they should be a little bit more technical with their description.

[/i]

 

They meant "only one flyable helicopter". These pros and cons are from a box at the bottom of the review so their text space is limited. It gets clearer what they mean when you know the complete review text.

[Distiler]

I think they are upgrading terrain engine. Don't know exactly what way, but some hints point to better terrain elevation matrix.

[hitman]

They meant "only one flyable helicopter". These pros and cons are from a box at the bottom of the review so their text space is limited. It gets clearer what they mean when you know the complete review text.

I understood that. They didnt make it all that clear, considering that DCS is bringing forth an Apache to play with soon.

[Jigsaw]

DCS is bringing forth an Apache to play with soon.

 

Well, as I understood it all future modules (A-10, Apache) will be stand alone, full priced titles that you have to purchase seperately so it would be odd to give Black Shark credit for things that will be in the sequels. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Nate--IRL--]

Well, as I understood it all future modules (A-10, Apache) will be stand alone, full priced titles that you have to purchase seperately so it would be odd to give Black Shark credit for things that will be in the sequels. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You are wrong :) IIRC The DCS base program will be upgraded for free, the new aircraft will have to be purchased.

 

Nate

[hitman]

Well, as I understood it all future modules (A-10, Apache) will be stand alone, full priced titles that you have to purchase seperately so it would be odd to give Black Shark credit for things that will be in the sequels. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As Nate just said, additional aircraft are forthcoming as well as support for BS. However, I am not above seeing it as being pulled off like what ED did with LOFC/LOBS...they may well indeed be standalone sometime in the future, but as of now they are addons.

[EvilBivol-1]

Future modules are designed as stand-alone simulations, not addons. At the same time, they are designed to be backwards-compatible with previous modules (mainly by capacity to upgrade previous modules to the standards of the latest module, minus the new flyable aircraft for those who do not wish to purchase the aircraft).

[EtherealN]

Well, to be extremely nitpicky they're not addons, they are stand-alone in that you don't need BS to fly the A-10 (etc), but if you have BS and someone else has A-10 you can play together.

 

So integrated stand-alone? Or something... Just "addon" would to most seem like one needs the first product to play the second.

 

EDIT: EvilBivol-1 was faster than I. :(

[hitman]

Future modules are designed as stand-alone simulations, not addons. At the same time, they are designed to be backwards-compatible with previous modules (mainly by capacity to upgrade previous modules to the standards of the latest module, minus the new flyable aircraft for those who do not wish to purchase the aircraft).

Thanks for clarification on this.

[192nd_Erdem]

Dunno, I pretty much agree with their points. Definitely some of the better reviews out there, the reviewer seems like he took his time. BS is awesome about "only" Ka-50, and it's realistic modelling. Environment except Ka-50 is still very basic and limiting.

 

I'd give it something like %75 though. I'm sure the scores will go up with the upcoming modules as ED finds time to improve the simulation overally (AI, graphics, sound, landscape).