Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 23AG_KA

23AG_KA
  • Posts: 151

Posted 16 September 2009 - 05:09

As far as I know the article can be judjed as anti-advertisement with the sub-header "If You See This Game on a Store Shelf, Run Away Screaming!". I don't know the system of american judgement, but I think Neoqb can easily take the author to court for that.
For the content - you can easily write three pages of sh.t in 20 minutes, but only try to make a marvellous sim instantaneously. I feel sorry for the people who just can see the black side in everything around them.
  • 0

#42 Welshie

Welshie
  • Posts: 537

Posted 16 September 2009 - 09:52

There's another Good review here which seems to be more up to date
http://www.impulsega...seofflight.html">http://www.impulsega...seofflight.html
Although where the author got to fly a Radial engine plane from is beyond Me :lol:
And another good review here
http://www.gameplane...Rise-of-Flight/">http://www.gameplane....nz/pc/games/15 … of-Flight/
  • 0

#43 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 16 September 2009 - 10:14

The graphics for Rise Of Flight are spectacular, maxed out they can be compared to IL-2's graphics in some respects.

Huh..!?

edit: pretty solid reviews, though, although an 8 seems a bit high.
  • 0

#44 AI-Neoqb

AI-Neoqb
  • Posts: 1697

Posted 16 September 2009 - 10:36

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


Hi Darkwing,

Thank you very much for your review.

Honestly speaking, when your post has appeared on our Rise of Flight Forum, I have thoroughfully looked through it, and was rather upset…

Had to went out, had a smoke…

Point One.
I can understand your indignation about neoqb’s business model (pay for new planes), and I would like to say that it will be like that. We are not planning to change this model in the nearest future. Please look through this topic:
http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=2293

This poll was organized by a user, who was also dissatisfied like you. In this topic you can see opinion of our users from all over the world. No comments here…

Point two.
Please take your time and check people’ comments on your post. And again you can see opinion of users from all over the world.

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3158
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2860928/1.html

No comments again…
Actually, there is one comment: thanks a lot to our users for their support of our project and belief in us!

Point three.
Rise of Flight is only five months in the market. Our Team worked only for three years so far. And we continue working…

One more time I would like to thank you for frank conversation. See you in the Rise of Flight virtual sky, Good Luck to you!

Best regards,
Lefty-neoqb


Hi Darkwing,

Спасибо большое за Ваш обзор.

Честно говоря, как только Ваш пост появился на нашем форуме, я очень внимательно его прочитал и достаточно сильно расстроился по этому поводу…

Пошел, покурил…

Первое.
Понимая Ваше негодование по поводу выбранной компанией neoqb бизнес-модели (деньги за новые самолеты) скажу – это будет именно так. Мы не планируем ее менять в ближайшее время. Посмотрите сюда:
http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=2293

Это голосование было организовано таким же, как и Вы, недовольным в настоящий момент времени пользователем. Там выражено мнение людей из разных уголков Земли. Без комментариев…

Второе.
Потратьте время и еще раз почитайте, что пишут люди в ответ на Ваш пост. Это опять мнение людей из разных частей света…

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3158
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2860928/1.html

Опять – без комментариев.
Вернее, комментарий один: огромное спасибо нашим пользователям за поддержку проекта и веру в нас!

Третье.
Игре ROF – пять месяцев. Самой команде – 3 года. Работа продолжается.

Еще раз, спасибо за откровенный разговор. До встречи в виртуальном мире ROF, здоровья Вам и удачи!

С уважением,
Lefty-neoqb
  • 0

#45 Welshie

Welshie
  • Posts: 537

Posted 16 September 2009 - 10:47

Thanks for the reply Lefty :)
  • 0

#46 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 16 September 2009 - 11:37

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.

With regard to that specific point, I think plenty of people miss that. His review is no different than a lot of knee jerk, not thought out criticism.
  • 0

#47 Masaq

Masaq
  • Posts: 511

Posted 16 September 2009 - 13:54

I've got to say - I love Lefty's reply.

Darkwing, I'm going to extend an offer to you - hit me up on MSN or xFire (PM me and I'll drop you my usernames for both) or even email: masaq [dot] christies [dot] org [dot] uk

and we'll arrange a date and time for you to join myself, a few other T&T guys and a bunch of pubbies on the Tactics and Teamwork server. I'll even kick one of the players we have to make space for you, if that's what's needed.

We'll fly a few rounds with you, talk you through staying alive for a round or two, help you enjoy the game. Playing the game on teamspeak with a few guys tossing banter around - "Ahh you muppet, you missed him again!" and such makes for a great way to spend an evening.

If you had half as much fun playing a round of RoF as we do, you'd've given the game four and a half out of five, knocking half a star off for the occasional crashes to desktop.

I'm serious, if you can't find a way to enjoy it when it's being played the way it's supposed to be played - then there's no hope for you and you'd be best off letting the whole thing rest. However, I suspect that if you actually kicked back for an evening of gaming, playing RoF for proper fun - you'd be forced to re-write the review.

In fact - let's make that the deal. You take a few days, come back to me with an open mind and I'll try and make sure you get a good MP experience of the game. In return, you re-judge the game fairly and re-write or edit your review as required… deal? If you still don't enjoy it, you can tack that on the bottom and I'll whip myself with fifty lashes in pennance.


Oh, and with regards to the Master Server issue - why is it that no-one on these forums has apparently worked out that "If Neoqb goes bust, RoF master server goes, I can't play the game" is really unlikely to be the case… simply because if Neoqb goes bust, Neoqb will have little interest in protecting the game's DRM and would simply be able to briefly patch the game to disable the need for online access OR the rights to management of the server etc would be up for grabs. Put simply, MANY games have required some kind of online verification for gameplay and despite companies being bought, sold, merged and disbanded, the games are still playable :)
  • 0

#48 Darkwing

Darkwing
  • Posts: 21

Posted 16 September 2009 - 14:49

Lefty-neoqb you are very gracious and I respect your magnanimous reply. Most gracious indeed sir.

Masaq that is a truly generous offer and I will take you up on it but I have something to fix first.

Thank you to everyone who read the article and posted their thoughts.

A more in depth response is coming.
  • 0

#49 Darkwing

Darkwing
  • Posts: 21

Posted 16 September 2009 - 15:47

I only posted a link to the article in two places, here and at SimHQ. (I also posted it at WoV but there were no responses and when I went back to delete it yesterday it was gone)

Below is a post I just left at SimHQ:


Still here. Watching, learning. I posted it for you to read so I could get feedback, not argue every point with every individual who disagreed with me.
"If that was Darkwing that wrote that review, and it seems to be, then where is he now? He seemed so proud of it earlier." This is such a non issue but yes, it was me and I never made an effort to hide it. I even posted it at ROF forum and have been watching there too.

1. The article has too much bias. I accept that. Should have been listed as an opinion piece rather than a review. Less Rant, more objective review. Noted.
2. Not enough emphasis put on the good the game offers.
3. Stars rating was way too low.
4. The subject line is immature and should be deleted.
5. The last line is immature and should be deleted.
6. Anything (besides personal attacks) to offer that would make the review more palatable?

Contrary to how the article sounds, I want this game to succeed. When I wrote it I was thinking, 'That will make them fix things.' Well how the hell is a nasty review like that going to fix things? It's not. Think they are going to be inspired to work harder for people who don't appreciate their work? I seriously doubt it. Think I should rethink some things? Yes.

Lefty at Neoqb responded to my article by saying basically that he was frustrated (understandably so) but thanked me for the review, I'm allowed my own opinion and offered me some links to other things I can read concerning the game. An extremely gracious response that caught me completely off guard. I had to fight the urge to buy every plane they had to offer right there, right then.

I have no control over whether 'Associated Content' will let me edit or remove the article but I will send them a request to do so. It's almost a moot point since the only people who've read it are from the two forums I posted in. Deleting the two threads, or at least the link at the beginning of the thread, should effective render the article impotent.

If I redo the article and post it here BEFORE publishing it, would any of you be interested in reviewing it, offering pros and cons to add, and helping me publish a more proper article? If so, then once it's complete I will submit it to Lefty at Neoqb for their approval before it's published.

Correct me if I'm wrong but. . . If I truly want the game to succeed then I should start by:

1. Correcting/deleting the article or links to the article.
2. Re-writing an article more geared towards encouraging people to try the game but staying honest about it's flaws. (And point out the work their doing to fix them)
3. Help by offering (even if they choose not to accept) my assistance in correcting some of the English in the game and official posts on their forum.
4. And buying the available planes to show my financial support. Because, at least for me, money is not a problem.

I do this because I choose too. Neoqb has not threatened/bribed or cajoled me in any way.

Does this sound like an agreeable solution? Thoughts?
  • 0

#50 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 16 September 2009 - 16:11

Point three.
Rise of Flight is only five months in the market. Our Team worked only for three years so far. And we continue working…
Even though i agree with most of your post, i can't understand this point.

Wether or not you are a big company who has worked for 10 years on a game or a small company that worked 10 months on a game, you released the game in its current state for full price. You didn't wait a few more months to fix some major issues, but instead just decided to release it with those issues and fix them later. If people pay full price for a game, they can expect it to be finished with as few bugs as possible.

So yes, he does have a point, as do some people in this forum complaining about problem. I know it's not easy to create a game like this, but you just have to expect review like this, if you release an unfinished game, so i'm very surprised that you are upset about that, i'm more upset about your "excuse" for that.

Just my two cents.
  • 0

#51 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 16 September 2009 - 16:18

Personally, I feel the early release was probably a mix of two things; needing a cash infusion to keep the project ticking over. Let's face it, you can wait forever for a game to be finished. And secondly with BOB on the horizon neoqb may have felt putting the game out there now and building a community while they could still get focus was better than risking having it swamped later on. Being positive we get to add input while some things are still malleable.
  • 0

#52 Masaq

Masaq
  • Posts: 511

Posted 16 September 2009 - 16:23

Point three.
Rise of Flight is only five months in the market. Our Team worked only for three years so far. And we continue working…
Even though i agree with most of your post, i can't understand this point.

Wether or not you are a big company who has worked for 10 years on a game or a small company that worked 10 months on a game, you released the game in its current state for full price. You didn't wait a few more months to fix some major issues, but instead just decided to release it with those issues and fix them later. If people pay full price for a game, they can expect it to be finished with as few bugs as possible.

So yes, he does have a point, as do some people in this forum complaining about problem. I know it's not easy to create a game like this, but you just have to expect review like this, if you release an unfinished game, so i'm very surprised that you are upset about that, i'm more upset about your "excuse" for that.

Just my two cents.

As Neoqb have already alluded to elsewhere, it wasn't their preference to release the game in this state. I strongly get the impression that they needed revenue from initial sales to be able to continue with the project down the line; my guess is that they needed to show sales of the game now to be able to ensure they would continue to receive business interest from third parties down the line, if not actually to pull in cash urgently to support the business this quarter.

In that context, the "You should have waited X mroe months" becomes moot - when the options are release early and be damned but ensure the survival of your baby, or waste three year's work by being unable to secure credit/support for future products, you have no options. You've got to release.
  • 0

#53 Welshie

Welshie
  • Posts: 537

Posted 17 September 2009 - 02:21

Personally, I feel the early release was probably a mix of two things; needing a cash infusion to keep the project ticking over. Let's face it, you can wait forever for a game to be finished. And secondly with BOB on the horizon neoqb may have felt putting the game out there now and building a community while they could still get focus was better than risking having it swamped later on. Being positive we get to add input while some things are still malleable.
This is pretty much true for any Development team whether they are starting out or under a Corporate umbrella, a classic case being Creative assembly's Empire Total War. even under a well known publishing house like Sega they where (I believe) forced to release early (They had already delayed launch 3 times over a 6 month period). When it was release it was plagued with problems but 8 months later, it's a really great TBS/RTS historical Sim….That's why there are going to be problem with any new developments for PC (The different PC combo/Formats alone are mind boggling, let alone the size of must new titles).
  • 0

#54 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 17 September 2009 - 05:29

A fair reply from Darkwing and all that posted after whim, who carry good arguments as well.
  • 0

#55 FIScott

FIScott
  • Posts: 43

Posted 17 September 2009 - 14:09

The review (if it can be called that) is at best poor.

The fact remains that outside of simming enthusiasts there is a wider market that may end up Googling this up and being well a truely put off.

As far as Im concerned the game has enormous potential but as it is suffers many of the typical problems a new and complex piece of software tends to have. Compare it to say Falcon 4 when that first came out and its a peach. That had One flyable (if I remember correctly) and nobody spent hours wringing their hands about it. It also couldn't run for more than 10 mins without a CTD- RoF can.

There are things about this game that I don't like, (top of the list is the multiplayer game and then the DRM route the developers have taken) but overall I have, and continue to enjoy Rise of Flight a great deal. It would be proper shame for it to be significantly damaged at the hands of a subjective and poorly written rant.
  • 0

#56 Sirocco

Sirocco
  • Posts: 1966

Posted 17 September 2009 - 15:21

Personally, I feel the early release was probably a mix of two things; needing a cash infusion to keep the project ticking over. Let's face it, you can wait forever for a game to be finished. And secondly with BOB on the horizon neoqb may have felt putting the game out there now and building a community while they could still get focus was better than risking having it swamped later on. Being positive we get to add input while some things are still malleable.
This is pretty much true for any Development team whether they are starting out or under a Corporate umbrella, a classic case being Creative assembly's Empire Total War. even under a well known publishing house like Sega they where (I believe) forced to release early (They had already delayed launch 3 times over a 6 month period). When it was release it was plagued with problems but 8 months later, it's a really great TBS/RTS historical Sim….That's why there are going to be problem with any new developments for PC (The different PC combo/Formats alone are mind boggling, let alone the size of must new titles).

Part of the problem is that developers sometimes, if not most of the time, sign contracts with specific release dates with no more than a month or two allowed for overruns. The publisher gets to gear up for publicity well ahead of time but we get an incomplete game.
  • 0

#57 =IRFC=Sparrow

=IRFC=Sparrow
  • Posts: 352

Posted 17 September 2009 - 16:31

Salute All:

@ Darkwing, good post and well said. I'm with you all the way now.

@ MattM, they are tired Bro. We did pay full price and they put the game out early. Probably because they need the money to continue, but they would never say that publicly. It's just not done. I recommend we give it more time because they show good faith and respond as quickly as possible to our issues. I would rather see them take a little extra time to work on a problem so it does not create another problem in its place. That lesson they just finished learning in the last two patches. I may be a fool but I have a good feeling about this company and it's programmers and staff. It would seem they are trying to meet our expectations instead of blowing us off. I recommend more patience for the time being. We have a lifetime to get angry with them. ;-)
  • 0

#58 JG1_Butzzell

JG1_Butzzell
  • Posts: 1376

Posted 02 November 2009 - 15:36

S! All

I feel there is one point that people constantly make but do not fully understand. The offline carreer is lacking. What does it lack? Romance and imersion. People always compare it to Red Baron. If it had those features of Red Baron the criticizm would be "Seen it, nothing new here." The fact is that since Red Baron we have gone from computers with megahertz procesors to gigahertz procesors. Now think back to your first ROF training mission. You walk into a briefing room and there is Eddie Rickenbacker giving you your briefing. WAY COOL !!! After that briefing didn't it pass through your head for just a moment that breifings would be done like that in the carreer? Instead of a simple pull down map like Red Baron, you would walk into an interactive room. The person could be Rickenbaker, Mannock, Guynemere or Boelcke giving the briefing. On a wall would be papers or posters you could click on to bring up intel reports on squads in your area or new planes seen over the lines. You could walk over to a mirror and see the medals on your uniform. There are all kinds of posibilities.

My point is that a replay of Red Baron is not going to be acceptable. People expect something better and that will take some time and imagination. At this point we have one of the best flying experiences posible. Just imagine what they can do with the carreer. Leave in Paris anyone? " Sorry for missing this morning's flight Sir but there were these two girls at Chez Madeleins….."

I choose to see the glass as half full rather than half empty.

S!
JG1_Butzzell_J4
  • 0

sig9.png


#59 Laser

Laser
  • Posts: 1611

Posted 02 November 2009 - 15:47

Actually the official campaign starts to feel pretty ok to me - I fly a Camel campaign in Squadron No.3 and probably because it's difficult and i fly with most helpers off (i leave only subtitles on), i'm "having a blast". Flying the plane, fighting, navigation with icons off and landing in nasty weather makes a hard experience. Also i see random flights (e.g. friendly bombers passing the front line or dogfights), or when i'm not expecting, vehicles on the road.

( I posted some pics here: http://simhq.com/for...tml#Post2891968">http://simhq.com/for...bbthreads.php/t … ost2891968 )
  • 0

#60 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 02 November 2009 - 15:52

I guess the missions themselves are OK, but it's the interface and campaign/pilot development that lacks immersion

Nice screenshots.
  • 0

#61 stethnorun

stethnorun
  • Posts: 571

Posted 02 November 2009 - 15:59

I guess the missions themselves are OK, but it's the interface and campaign/pilot development that lacks immersion

Nice screenshots.


Yeah the impression that I get is that the missions (for the most part) are fine for now, it's the bells and whistles that people want out of their campaign. Just stuff that immerses you in the "role" of a WW1 pilot.
  • 0

#62 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 02 November 2009 - 16:40

Yet when you look at it, the whole way it is set up now is wrong: it is silly to just choose an aircraft and fly that until the end of the war.

But yes, I have been flying some career missions lately for the first time, and it is still rather entertaining.
  • 0

#63 stethnorun

stethnorun
  • Posts: 571

Posted 02 November 2009 - 17:02

Yet when you look at it, the whole way it is set up now is wrong: it is silly to just choose an aircraft and fly that until the end of the war.

Yup they are aware of this "silliness" ;)
  • 0

#64 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 02 November 2009 - 17:04

I mean, in the campaign of Flying Corps, you had to watch for the morale of your wingmen, could decide how many and what type of planes you take on the mission, could decide where to fly your patrol next or what target to attack.

That's why i just loved the Flying Corps campaigns and that's why i haven't touched the ROF campaigns since late August. In ROF, the campaign is not a campaign, it's just a string of single missions, that don't really differ from eachother.
  • 0

#65 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 02 November 2009 - 17:47

Yet when you look at it, the whole way it is set up now is wrong: it is silly to just choose an aircraft and fly that until the end of the war.

Yup they are aware of this "silliness" ;)

I guess I knew that, I just couldn't help posting it to show how clever I was :oops:
  • 0

#66 Der.Mo

Der.Mo
  • Posts: 1010

Posted 02 November 2009 - 21:42

I guess the missions themselves are OK, but it's the interface and campaign/pilot development that lacks immersion

Nice screenshots.


Yeah the impression that I get is that the missions (for the most part) are fine for now, it's the bells and whistles that people want out of their campaign. Just stuff that immerses you in the "role" of a WW1 pilot.

????Its the missions design that is the worst!!!! U start…then u meet two enemy aircraft,shoot them down..u fly home…u meet two enemy 2-Seaters..U land..thats it.And this repeats itself one every single mission i´ve seen so far..exept bombing missions.They are even more boring.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users