Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[b]Rise of Flight or Rise of Fright? A LIST OF REVIEWS[/b]


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Chaos

Chaos
  • Posts: 624

Posted 15 August 2009 - 00:16

Impulse Gamer 65/100
http://www.impulsega...seofflight.html">http://www.impulsega...seofflight.html

Gameplay 6.0
Graphics 7.5
Sound 7.0
Value 5.5
Developer: Neoqb 777
Review Date: July 2009
Reviewer: Edwin Millheim
Classification: PG 6.5


Game Planet 8/10
http://www.gameplane...Rise-of-Flight/">http://www.gameplane....nz/pc/games/15 … of-Flight/

A meticulously detailed World War One flight and combat simulator that will entertain and enthral devotees with its period accuracy.
Ups: Stunning visuals. Comprehensive damage models and physics. Wonderful, whimsical audio and sound effects.
Downs: Slow load times. Clunky interface. Poor acting and translations during tutorial mode. Keys can't be changed or even viewed in-game. Why do I have to buy additional planes when it only comes with two in the first place?



IGN RATING 7.9/10
http://au.pc.ign.com.../1002055p2.html">http://au.pc.ign.com.../1002055p2.html

7.0 Presentation
An amazing flight model and graphics engine but the interface and mission content leaves a lot to be desired.
9.5 Graphics
The best graphics I've ever seen in a sim. They run surprisingly well too.
7.5 Sound
Engine sounds are distinct and powerful. Environment and weapon sounds add authenticity but there are some very weak voiceovers in the tutorial.
8.0 Gameplay
A first-class flight and combat model. The missions are realistic but that means less action than is found in most games.
7.5 Lasting Appeal
Two planes and some restricted mission options mean you'll have to rely on modders and post-release support to get much life out of this one.
7.9
Good OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)


Gamepro Arcade 3.5/5
http://gparcade.blog...-great-air-war/">http://gparcade.blog...ion.com/article … t-air-war/

Pros: Beautiful graphics and attention to detail, sticks to early World War feel

Cons: Empty feeling in campaign mode, long loading screens, tough handling learning curve


SIM HQ Review *NO RATING*
http://www.simhq.com...2/air_400g.html">http://www.simhq.com...2/air_400g.html

Game Spot
Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War Reviews *game spot user review*
http://au.gamespot.c....html?id=666987">http://au.gamespot.c...c/sim/riseoffli … ?id=666987

SUMMARY:
- graphics/vid: 8.5/10 – very nice indeed; even if you have to lower the landscape render quality it will still look great.
- audio: 7/10 – I had some minor audio problems right at the beginning of the training missions; the rest is of an average to slightly above average quality.
- gameplay: 8.5/10 – the learning curve could be steep for people who never played, more or less realistic SIMs, but this game includes really nice training missions where one can master the basics and beyond, before jumping in to the singleplayer or career missions. In general, the missions include several types of combat assignments in an area of roughly 50,000 square miles: air dogfights, ground attacks, baloon attacks, escort, and interceptions. Mission loading times are somewhat on the excessive side and controls setup is awkward. Under some angles/perspectives planes seem to *lack* their heft and appear toy-ish.
- multiplayer: YES.
- replay value: 9.5/10 – considering that the game has a multiplayer component plus its own and free mission editor (included with the game) the replayability is theoretically unlimited.
- DRM/Registration: 1/10 – one of the lamest activation schemes ever seen.
- Other: internet connection required not just to activate, but also every time you want to play (pretty bad idea); strong possibility that you will have to pay for extra airplanes if you want them (this is bad planning since the game is released and no clear plan for future fleet expansion has been set (check the developer's forums around July 7 to find out more).
  • 0

#2 Uberking

Uberking
  • Posts: 503

Posted 15 August 2009 - 00:30

?
  • 0

#3 awreaper

awreaper
  • Posts: 79

Posted 15 August 2009 - 03:38

I don't disagree with most of the things said, positive and negative. They are so close to having THE flight sim. The next 6 months will tell all.
  • 0

#4 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 16 August 2009 - 12:25

I think they are some very fine ratings for a game that, as the devs stated, was released early. And for a game that has a rather narrow market and a steep learning curve.
  • 0

#5 Latorque

Latorque
  • Posts: 36

Posted 16 August 2009 - 12:33

Yeah, i'm positively surprised too, In our time and day games with a learning curve are mostly destroyed by major game magazines. I'd have guessed they'd give a 5.0/10 purely for the graphics.
  • 0

#6 Bleddyn

Bleddyn
  • Posts: 811

Posted 16 August 2009 - 13:56

Also, most of all of those reviews seem to be based on release (they mention 2 planes alot) so they may even be better now with 4 planes included and a GUI overhaul.
  • 0

#7 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 16 August 2009 - 16:30

Yes, I hope the company will keep up the good work and improve the game to be worthy of even higher grades, like they are already doing.
  • 0

#8 Brutal_Baron

Brutal_Baron
  • Posts: 633

Posted 16 August 2009 - 18:53

ROF is a currently good sim but will become a truly great sim if the needed changes are patched in the very near future. However in my opinion most of the "review" guys are FTS (first person shooters) gamers that love games like Halo, which require almost no "learning curve". Sims by their very nature requires a longer learning curve or they would not be a sim but an arcade shooter. Much of the review points are valid especially having to connect online every time just to play any SP flight. That is just nonsense and currently is one of the game's biggest drawbacks (aside from other issues that will soon get "patched"). Maybe validation of your game could be checked every ten start-ups but NOT every single time you launch the game. Games, like Red Baron 3D,would never have reached "legend status" or have been playable for so long after developer "Dynamix" went out of business if that same validation procedure was in place at that time. It is like a game lease where you can use your game for as long as Neoqb is alive. If they are out, you cannot play the game you purchased.
  • 0

#9 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 16 August 2009 - 19:03

You're absolutely right, though there do seem to be some reviewers around who call themselves flightsimmers. But you bring up some valid points.

And since it's obvious that the devs are still supporting and working on improving the game, it seems to me to be too early to fully judge them on some of the current drawbacks of the game.
  • 0

#10 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 16 August 2009 - 21:07

well the "Learning curve" is really only for people who have never played flight sims before. I just picked up the game and started out…but I've played CFS2 and 3 a lot

I think they are a lil low…but games like SH4 got lowish ratings before patches and fixes
  • 0

#11 Uberking

Uberking
  • Posts: 503

Posted 16 August 2009 - 22:21

Also dont forget that some reviews are not always on the final product and some sites and magazines have been busted making a review on a game that they did not even really have.Some reviews that listed only two planes as a downside have gone in and updated with the correct infomation as the game is now off the shelf.

In the end for any reviewable item game/car/movie you can never know if you like it until you try it.
  • 0

#12 Bear2

Bear2
  • Posts: 28

Posted 17 August 2009 - 16:36

My vote is

Gameplay 7.0
Graphics 8.0
Sound 7.0
Campaign sitem 0.5 at this moment is random generated mission not a career and have static frontline
Storical accuracy 2.0 all the planes have the default skin "no aces and no squadron goup"
Extra aircraft price 8.0

:cry: at this moment i dont play RoF and wait for a significant improvemet of it
  • 0

#13 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 17 August 2009 - 16:45

Yes, well, reviews tend to strive for a bit of objectivity and also argumentation so I'm afraid your post is pretty void.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users