Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Video Game Review: The Fall of 'Rise of Flight'


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Darkwing

Darkwing
  • Posts: 21

Posted 15 September 2009 - 12:04

Below is a link to an article you should read if you're considering buying this game.

http://www.associate...ise.html?cat=15">http://www.associate...tent.com/articl … tml?cat=15

[MODERATOR EDIT: In interest of full-disclosure; The author of this post is also the author of the article this post links to.]
  • 0

#2 musicman

musicman
  • Posts: 352

Posted 15 September 2009 - 12:25

I think everyone should read this especially Neoqb! :shock:
MM
  • 0

#3 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 15 September 2009 - 13:30

The title alone is immature. We all know what the issues with the game are. And we all know the reasons for DRM, and the issues neoqb have had with it. It's a work in progress, of a very neglected niche. If it's still in this state in six months time then that will be the time to write reviews of this kind.
  • 0

#4 Welshie

Welshie
  • Posts: 537

Posted 15 September 2009 - 13:33

A pretty Damming review and one to take note of…Personally (and this is just MY opinion,) I will gladly pay for extra Planes But they should be in a Bundle of at least 4 at US$7.65. Don't get Me started on Monthly CONSCRIPTION!!!!! :evil:
Yep again DRM for SP is annoying to say the least….Now for those that jump in and say "I ain't had a Problem with this"…Let Me just say I haven't either…I've have 2 Authorization Errors and 3 mission updates wiped out….Not bad really and I can live with it…But that doesn't mean that other people are as lucky as I have been and It also doesn't mean that I won't have this problem in the future…therefore it must be fixed for this Sim to survive…
I will continue to support neoqb because they are small and (Hopefully) do right by there Loyal Customer base….But even My patience will grow thin eventually…..please. please , please lets turn this into a classics Combat Sim by listening to whats being (Most importantly)said here and what independant reviewers are also saying…
there is nothing I want more than to be able to promote this game…but the DRM must be fixed
  • 0

#5 Welshie

Welshie
  • Posts: 537

Posted 15 September 2009 - 13:37

The title alone is immature. We all know what the issues with the game are. And we all know the reasons for DRM, and the issues neoqb have had with it. It's a work in progress, of a very neglected niche. If it's still in this state in six months time then that will be the time to write reviews of this kind.
I must have been typing while You where posting Sirocco…Yes a pretty immature title but one that will get noticed unfortunatly…and lets be honest DRMs are what put most people off buying a game, this one is killing ROF and thats just not from Me but the gaming communities I'm involved with
  • 0

#6 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 15 September 2009 - 15:44

I posted a comment on the actual article. I think the guy has maybe 2 valid points, and I think he fell way short of justifying the title of his review and his 0.5 star rating.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#7 IM.LOFT

IM.LOFT
  • Posts: 782

Posted 15 September 2009 - 16:08

Thanks
  • 0

#8 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 15 September 2009 - 16:16

He seems to miss the point that you'll get the new aircraft for free, gratis, as they're produced. You don't need to pay to have them. What you're paying for is to actually fly them.

When you consider the time it takes to not just learn these aircraft but master them and you'd have to spend a huge amount of time with the sim. And if you're putting that amount of time into it that higher price starts to look a little differently than it would to the average short time gamer.
  • 0

#9 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 15 September 2009 - 16:19

lets be honest DRMs are what put most people off buying a game, this one is killing ROF

I wouldn't say it's killing it, hurting it perhaps. Without a doubt server outages are a large part of that. I do believe the DRM can and should be improved - not removed - to obviate those issues, but we'll just have to wait and see whether neoqb are open to that.
  • 0

#10 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 September 2009 - 16:21

It's an idiotic "review". Ignore it.

Welshie, FSX add-on aircraft cost a lot more than RoF ones and usually are not as good. The Realair Spitfire is 32 euros. It's nice, but that's a heck of a lot more than the lovely RoF SE5a etc at 5.75 euros. If you got four RoF aircraft for 5.75 euros as you suggest, i.e., 1.4 euros each, they would be just 4.5% of the cost of the Realair Spitfire. My own view is that if you can afford a computer good enough to run RoF, then you can afford a fiver for an aircraft.

We should also consider that MS have withdrawn from flight sims because they couldn't make any money from them. If content has to be nearly free, then nobody will be able to do make them and they will die out.

I know, I know, it's the internet so everything should be free…

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#11 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 15 September 2009 - 16:30

Off topic; MS just rationalised. The only statement I've seen from them regarding FS has them still committed to the series. They just closed the "publisher" down to cut costs.
  • 0

#12 =MR.FOX=

=MR.FOX=
  • Posts: 577

Posted 15 September 2009 - 16:41

Yes I can agree with somethings in that review. but really $7 bucks for new planes is not bad. I mean look at microsoft fsx. it costs about $40. and add on planes (which come as their own game, with box and cd/dvd ) cost about $30 a piece! so people who really want a new plane, have no problem paying for quality.


this is the link to add ons for fsx

http://www.abacuspub...default_fs.html">http://www.abacuspub...default_fs.html
  • 0

#13 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 September 2009 - 17:24

It just doesn't seem possibly to hammer that point home to people. We're not getting robbed of our money: neoqb is not getting rich, we can perfectly well play the game with only the basic planes (even online) and compared to other projects the aircraft really are not that expensive.

And yes, the reviewer is suggesting a monthly fee to play the game. What a dimwit, as this is a system that will cost the user way way more (and scare many away) and will still require an internet connection to play even single player.

If I was a real WWI pilot, as soon as I had landed I would tell my mechanic to whack this reviewer in the face.

Well, at least he gets the positive points straight. But apperently he doesn't know a flightsim from his arse as he never really appreceates them to even let them affect his final score.
  • 0

#14 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 15 September 2009 - 17:25

Well, he doesn't have to buy each plane, he can decide what planes to buy. That's what i'm doing, i will not buy every single plane, but only choose the ones i'm interested in.

That's much better, than buying a addon pack of like 10 planes for 50 € and you don't like most of those planes.

Plus the game itself is not really THAT expensive, i bought it for less then 25 € online, which is not alot for a flightsim.

I agree with some of his negative points though.
  • 0

#15 RoccoRedBaron

RoccoRedBaron
  • Posts: 29

Posted 15 September 2009 - 17:48

Small and not very professional one, but everything he said, is right, the game has not enough content to justify it´s pricetag and charging almost 8$ for a single plane is too much.
  • 0

#16 =FI=Macca

=FI=Macca
  • Posts: 24

Posted 15 September 2009 - 17:52

And 30 bucks for an airplane in Flight Simulator X is an adequate price?
  • 0

#17 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 September 2009 - 18:02

charging almost 8$ for a single plane is too much.

I just don't get this attitude. Why should RoF aircraft be cheaper than FSX ones?

Have you made any estimate of the cost of developing a good aircraft for RoF? My guess is that it's many days of staff time. You have to pay the researcher who gets all the plans and photos together and maybe goes to visit a real example of the aircraft. You have to pay the 3D modeller. You have to pay the texture artist. You have to pay the physics modeller who does the FM. You have to pay the guy who handles the sounds. You have to pay the guy who packages it all up and puts it into the rest of the game. Then you then have to make a profit to stay in business.

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#18 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 15 September 2009 - 18:05

From my point of view the review has two valid points the rest is matter of taste:
1. Lack of dogfight server. I repeat what is said elsewhere and what neoqb seems to have realized to be a very major problem: IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for a flight COMBAT sim. I hope they work hot steam on this issue so that we can have the dogfight server in let's say two months.

2. Forcing people to be online even in single player. I think it is nonsense to force people to it. If people want some centralized stats somewhere ok, they should have the option to do so. Others who don't want to be online all the time shouldn't be forced to be when playing single player.
  • 0

#19 Brutal_Baron

Brutal_Baron
  • Posts: 633

Posted 15 September 2009 - 18:21

That is a very damming review for anyone that is not familiar with the game and was considering buying ROF. I know if I had only this guy's review of the game I would not have bought it. The reviewer certainly has many valid points and the ROF community has also raised the exact same issues with Neoqb. However the vast majority of ROF members here strongly believe that Neoqb is currently working hard on correcting many of the problems that are causing a lot of complaints. The Christmas season is rapidly approaching and a fully developed game with dog fight servers,a decent career campaign and offline play capability must be available. This game will shortly compete with for new players with Oleg's Battle of Britain and even the mod Canvas Knights (built on the IL-2 1946 game). I believe there ia a radpidly closing limited "window of opportunity" (by this year's end)for making this game a success. The ball is in Neoqb's court. I am cheering for them to make this game great sim.
  • 0

#20 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 September 2009 - 18:47

Hmm, maybe they should even republish the game for added publicity…
  • 0

#21 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 15 September 2009 - 19:00

How many people buy new planes when they come out just to "have them"? I know I dont because I think $8 bucks is too much money for a plane. That is my personaly belief. Now when a plane comes out that I "want" I will pay it because I have to. I will not pay money for different variants of the same plane. That is a ripoff and everyone knows it. If you buy a DR1 you should get the different variations if there were any. If you buy the Albatros you should get the different models of it.

How many copies of RoF have been sold? Say even if 3000 of those subscriptions paid cash for planes simply to have them that is 24,000 per plane they earn. Do the math and if you want to pay them pay them I wont. I will stick with the planes I have and that is all.
  • 0

#22 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 15 September 2009 - 19:20

How long have they been working on the game? Years not months. How large is the team? More than one or two people. You don't get this for peanuts. If you're going to quibble over a bit extra for new flyable aircraft you might find it's a while until we get another WW1 sim with this level of detail. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot here.
  • 0

#23 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 September 2009 - 19:31

It takes a lot of money to keep a team of 30 people going. As well as rent office space and keep servers and everything running.

Also, of course the planes may be too expensive for your taste to put your money in. Then don't. But I'm sure they represent a realistic fee for what we are getting, and for what neoqb are investing in both developing those planes and in future development.

As well as that, the DV and the DIII look alike and are different models of the same line of aircraft: but they are still inherently different.

They have both different flight models and 3d models, and they represent different periods of the war. It's like saying the N17 and the N28 are the same aircraft, because they're both Nieuports with a rotary engine and a number for a name.
  • 0

#24 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 15 September 2009 - 20:43

many copies of RoF have been sold? Say even if 3000 of those subscriptions paid cash for planes simply to have them that is 24,000 per plane they earn. Do the math and if you want to pay them pay them I wont. I will stick with the planes I have and that is all.

Viper, how long can you keep a business of (say) 30 people going on US$ 24k?

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#25 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 15 September 2009 - 21:36

Viper, how long can you keep a business of (say) 30 people going on US$ 24k?

Cheers,

Nick

Wow was that all you could pick from my post? Those were just a random number I picked. First off if they only sold 3000 planes of course they wouldnt be in buisness smart guy. How do other video game companies make money off of selling single player games? Jesus Christ this isnt a new market somone has been making money for about 20yrs in the video game industry. Did they charge for updates? Not until Microshaft did video games start charging for these "Addons" that the marketing people thought it would be more brilliant to let us suckle on the tit for months instead of finishing the damned game with all the planes and be done with it.

So no genius I dont think a company can exist off 24k.
  • 0

#26 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:02

Well then don't work with bad examples because you will just get them in return. But if you come up with a larger sum, we still come up with the same answer.

We are never going to pay less than what it costs the developers to produce the product. This is not a car boot sale.

neoqb does not charge for updates, they charge for expansions: additional content.

The market is not new, but it is very very small. They are not exactly reaching the average gaming teen here.
  • 0

#27 Masaq

Masaq
  • Posts: 511

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:12

I should point out that Darkwing has acknowleged on the SimHQ forums that the site the review is published on is an open-access site that any member of the public can post on, and that Darkwing himself is the author :)

Just worth mentioning, I feel.
  • 0

#28 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:15

Well, that's rather hilarious. At least the reviewer had his review reviewed :D
  • 0

#29 Brutal_Baron

Brutal_Baron
  • Posts: 633

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:18

These next 3 1/2 months are sink or swim for ROF. I believe they are paddling as hard as they can. They have spent years of toil and sweat on their dream sim. To not do everything they can to make their software work as it should have been and to please as may air "simmers" as possible would just be stupid. Their modeling detail is excellent but because they are a new team maybe they just lacked the experience of anticipating the vast array of problems with so many variables, operating systems and hardware combined with the complexity of a world market. Give them some time. Look how long it is taking for Maddox games to get Battle of Britain to the market. Even Richtofen started out as a "noob" and took time to sharpen his skills when it was life or death. I will give Neoqb those 3+ months to “sharpen their skills”.
  • 0

#30 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:19

Yeah, I agree with you.
  • 0

#31 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:22

Viper, to your point about this being a 20 year old industry in which businesses have flourished, that's true. But do you really think it takes the same level of effort to produce a title like ROF as it did to produce Space Invaders? The level of detail and sophistication of today's AAA titles require far more time and energy (read: $$$) than games of yesteryear.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If $8/month is too expensive for you, you have bigger problems than ROF. Seriously. Think about it.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#32 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:29

These next 3 1/2 months are sink or swim for ROF. I believe they are paddling as hard as they can. They have spent years of toil and sweat on their dream sim. To not do everything they can to make their software work as it should have been and to please as may air "simmers" as possible would just be stupid. Their modeling detail is excellent but because they are a new team maybe they just lacked the experience of anticipating the vast array of problems with so many variables, operating systems and hardware combined with the complexity of a world market. Give them some time. Look how long it is taking for Maddox games to get Battle of Britain to the market. Even Richtofen started out as a "noob" and took time to sharpen his skills when it was life or death. I will give Neoqb those 3+ months to “sharpen their skills”.

I think we should be a bit more patient. I simply hope for them and for us that they can quickly fix some issues that turn away a lot of potential customers (dogfight mode :) can't help mentioning everytime ;) ).

I also would prefer to get all planes for nothing. At the same time I think the price they charge is appropriate considering the work that went into the plane. They are soooo detailed. Fantastic!

We also should consider that flight sims and particularly flight combat sims are - regardless of the available planes for nothing - a niche product. Unlike ego shooters like Call of Duty and whatever their names are which are mass products producers of such a niche product will sell much much much less units but still the development effort required (to satisfy our wishes for nice grafics and good physics) is at least as important as that of a high end ego shooter. Furthermore there is for historic flight sims all that research work for good data. I think this effort should be appreciated. It was done for us. The devs of RoF could well have said: let's make money so let's make a nice ego shooter and no flight sim. The return is so much higher with ego shooters …
  • 0

#33 awreaper

awreaper
  • Posts: 79

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:31

He seems to miss the point that you'll get the new aircraft for free, gratis, as they're produced. You don't need to pay to have them. What you're paying for is to actually fly them.

I think you missed the point actually.


I think this review is the best I have read so far on ROF. He covers most of the major problems with the game. NEOQB needs to read this review and have it posted on the wall of every devoloper at the team. They have a good following now but unless something big comes along to change this game such as a relaxed DRM model, dogfight server and fixing the elevator issue, I don't think they will be in business this time next year if not before. We all hate critisism but it is coming at them for a reason. Now lets see what they do with it.
  • 0

#34 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:36

They don't need that review for that: they have the forums, which do a much better job pointing out ROF's problems than that review.

Now if it was a well-written and well-considered review, with a fair score, written by someone with some authority in the gaming world (a well known website or gamer), then hey should pay attention to it. This is just another rant, only not on the forums, but on some open community website.

If you really think the game is worth 1 out of 10, then why are you still here? Treat it like the pants you bought that shrank and lost all their colour in the washing machine, and throw it away and pay no more mind to it. Accept your loss and stop getting bothered over it.
  • 0

#35 awreaper

awreaper
  • Posts: 79

Posted 15 September 2009 - 22:54

LOL Jorri if you are talking to me. Perhaps I have hope the devs will listen to the negative reviews, etc. and make the changes this sim needs. As for casting this review off as a "not from someone with authority in the gaming world", I would suggest that all of us that bought and continue to support this game are not "someone with authority in the gaming world". I personally would have given it a 6 of 10. But then again, who am I?
  • 0

#36 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 15 September 2009 - 23:07

Its not that I cant afford the $8 or I wouldnt have paid $39 for the game you think, it is the fact I think they are milking the product that is what I dont agree with. Its the new fad with the gaming industry. Charge for content. Turbine is doing now, Microsoft has been doing it for a little while. To me its in bad taste. Sure you dont need any of these new planes to play the game and $8 isnt alot of money.

Also I bet the time and money dumped into space invaders based on the value of a dollar Vs now I bet Space invaders cost more to develop then this game. Thats my opinion though since these guys arent blazing a trail with new technology, they are only improving existing tech and marginally at that.

On another note though I do enjoy the game and will buy planes that I feel I would enjoy flying. They need to work on the load times and other things and they will have a very great sim on their hands.

I am sure we all want these guys to succeed I know I do and lord knows there is only a finite ammount of planes that could ever be made since flying was kinda new anyway.
  • 0

#37 Welshie

Welshie
  • Posts: 537

Posted 16 September 2009 - 00:35

I passed the review onto a Mate of mine to see what he thought about it….He had some interesting observations (He is also a Sims Nut (Both Racing and flight as well as the SH series and is also in advertising and sales)…Basically..He said The title unfortunatly will grab peoples attention, thats the nature of the Media beast..The Bugs was not a game breaker for Him like He said there are very few PC games on the market that haven't had to be patched at least 3 times ( and I'm in total agreement, We've had great feedback through the Mods on what the company is planning to do about them)…He also mentioned that neoqb could be making more money by releasing the DLC planes as "Dogfighting Packs" (I.E- Camel Vs DRI, etc) and could easily charge between US$12 -15 Dollars for them and they will sell, and much better than single planes.
The DRM for single player is still a sticking point for Him…A quote from him was "Yeah with the house full of Kids I've got, as if I'm gonna get any internet look-in to Authorise this game for SP"
I am Supporting the Game, We all are. We've payed our Money and continue to support the Game through these Forums (Both Negative and Positive Comments)….But can We honestly Promote it by "Neglecting" To tell Our Friends about the possible problems with the DRM for SP
  • 0

#38 Retro-Burn

Retro-Burn
  • Posts: 237
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 16 September 2009 - 01:28

I, personally, will anxiously await the dogfighting server aspect. The "master server" part of the review is a little worrisome. Down the road, losing this server would certainly upset everyone.
  • 0

#39 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 16 September 2009 - 02:48

Sure you dont need any of these new planes to play the game

Exactly. I don't see the problem.

Also I bet the time and money dumped into space invaders based on the value of a dollar Vs now I bet Space invaders cost more to develop then this game. Thats my opinion though since these guys arent blazing a trail with new technology, they are only improving existing tech and marginally at that.

Well, I'm no expert, but I am sure there is a heck of a lot more money going into games nowadays than it did back then. Mind you, there is also a lot more money to earn, with the biggest games now even beating the largest of Hollywood movie productions.

But don't forget: they did have to make the whole engine from scratch, which includes both the lovely graphics and physics we're getting to play with in ROF.
  • 0

#40 Herodotus

Herodotus
  • Posts: 769
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 16 September 2009 - 04:54

What an appalling piece of rubbish. I found IGN's review far more professional, mature and written by a like-minded gamer (in that he actually flew sims back in the days of Dynamix).

http://au.pc.ign.com.../1002055p1.html">http://au.pc.ign.com.../1002055p1.html

IL2, it might be remembered by many, kicked off with a load of problems, and as for the dozens of flyable planes…who flew them all? Even after so many patches and add-ons, the game still has some terible bugs (the Me-110 Campaign is flawed - the AI wingmen love crashing into buildings and/or mountains quite regularly). Don't get me started on Pacific Fighters.

But that's off the point. I don't mind paying what is verging on $10 Australian for each new plane, as they are lovingly crafted, modelled very well and a joy to behold. Buy a new plane, kick the tyres, and well, don't light the fires…just stagger into the sky. Can spend hours just enjoying getting to know a new aircraft, just as the pilots in the day would have.

The online DRM is my sticking point, and until remedied always will be. If the server goes, so does the whole game. Gone to ether-waste, without passing go.
I live on the opposite side of the world to Russia, so I still find it hard when my ping is unacceptable to attempt MP. I have read many posts from gamers in my region (the South-East Asian region) wondering where they can buy a physical copy of the game. I got mine as an Import from Japan, but there are not that many available. We need a distributed release down this way. Yes, more than just Europe, UK and USA exist, and there are a great many of us (Australia alone is filled with well known Development Houses and Publishers - Heroes Over Europe has been developed here).
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users