Honest Assessment?

[Guest Pfunk]

So is this the patch standard I should base my Second Look article on?

 

We were told that we were needlessly harsh to SF2NA in our review and if intend to present a second look at it (as I have promised I would), is this the patch I should be basing my article on or should I wait?

 

I am asking politely for guidance from the largest fan community for this game.

[liamp51]

My personal opinion, is that the new aircraft and .ini gifts are epic, but the terrain engine, negating the new water, sucks. The performance is really quite bad even on my system that can play FSX maxed out with quite acceptable FPS. Not to mention Far Cry 2, Crysis, and many others with 60FPS all the time. I think the new terrain engine needs some major optimization, but other than that, I was quite impressed. Just my two cents.

[exhausted]

Try another month maybe?

[+ST0RM]

Try another month maybe?

 

Or 2...

[exhausted]

agreed.

[Icarus999]

So is this the patch standard I should base my Second Look article on?

 

We were told that we were needlessly harsh to SF2NA in our review and if intend to present a second look at it (as I have promised I would), is this the patch I should be basing my article on or should I wait?

 

I am asking politely for guidance from the largest fan community for this game.

 

Seriously Pfunk I don't think it's worth your time considering how messed up it is. I'd wait until he get's the game working and integrated with the other titles. The game has huge problems and if you were to give it an honest review it would probably do more harm than good. Personally Ive got this installed but unless I want to sink ships or protect a carrier group I would rather play wings over Europe. It's a bummer because this game has so much potential.

[+CrazyhorseB34]

Not even one day and asking about a patch to review? Let it settle and spread out abit before you set it on fire.

[+Stary]

I'd wait for second patch

[+Sundowner]

Yeah, I'd wait for a second patch, I still dont own it or have my other installs patched past Nov 11.

[turkeydriver]

PFunk thanks for coming back for a second look. the patch does fix most of the bugs you mention-I havent tested to see if the fleets still merge halfway through the F-14 campaign. I think you could review it again, I have no problems flying around the terrain, but there could be a lot of reasons for that. The Tupolev series were given a lot of attention as far as different models/missions go (snooping recon bears and badgers have all the right blisters compared to the missile shooters/bombers) The airbases need a lot of help. The A-7 is quite plesent to fly and I feel it can fly circles around the F-14 from mach .99 on down-that needs to change. Attention paid to the F-14 is nice, glove vanes auto deploy starting at Mach 1.3. But overall, I think most features this game holds are unable to be taken full advantage of. So while i agree your view was harsh- the community here seems to echo it. Wait until June and give it another go.

[+Old Diego]

Why wait? Any product should be able to stand on its own, right? With the erosion of modding focus in Thirdwire products, why look to us for permission? Did TK state that this was patch 1 of 2? I would assume that this is it for the paying beta testers.

[+Stary]

Diego, ou clearly haven't "played" Cliffs of Dover

 

I'm sure there will be another patch

[SFP1Ace]

I'd wait for the April 2012 patch, but I'm not being completely objective here .

[+Old Diego]

You are absolutely correct, Stary, I have had my fill of WW2. That is why when SF:P1 came out, I was all over it. I tend to be very cautious and read reviews and especially the technical support forums before I buy any new game. Take On Helicopters has my eye but until Aggressor Blue's problem is fixed, I won't touch it.

 

Another patch you say, probably. But that really isn't my point. Its whether PFunk should even be asking us. We aren't a cog in TK's wheel anymore. So, the question, in my opinion, should be posed to TK or based on what is released and not on some rosy future of unknowns. That kind of hype is what got us into expecting that NA was going to be what SF2 should have been and not some unfinished and untested money grab.

[+Brain32]

Well I don't know if the remaining issues are related to stand alone or merged as most of us here have merged installs...

[+Julhelm]

should be posed to TK

I don't think TK would even reply. He doesn't seem to care much about reviews.

[+Stary]

or community for that matter

[+SkateZilla]

Seriously Pfunk I don't think it's worth your time considering how messed up it is. I'd wait until he get's the game working and integrated with the other titles. The game has huge problems and if you were to give it an honest review it would probably do more harm than good. Personally Ive got this installed but unless I want to sink ships or protect a carrier group I would rather play wings over Europe. It's a bummer because this game has so much potential.

 

Cant do any more harm than his first review did, lol.

[+Brain32]

Well maybe but I could never blame a man for calling out stuff as he sees it...

[+SkateZilla]

Well maybe but I could never blame a man for calling out stuff as he sees it...

 

im not, i agree with the points in his review.

 

But i still play SF2NA :-D

[tflash]

Pfunk, your review was honest and to me no surprise. The SFP series is what it is since the beginning: you run it, run into some issues, check the forums, wait for the tools, extract some files, dive into the ini's and the fun begins. It would only be half the fun if it all worked out from the start.

I cannot imagine flying the Tomcat without looking into the data ini etc. And then again TK does bring out patches at a decent frequency.

 

As long as I can open a file in notepad whatever and can start to tweak a little any title goes for me. Did you guys really expect a nice terrain? In this series? hehe.

 

I would wait until the community makes something nice for SF2:NA before a second review. And for one thing, do not believe modders who promise to quit the game. They don't. All lies

[+JediMaster]

Well, quite a few modders have left over the last decade. I've got many planes in my gen 1 installs that aren't really SF2 standard made by departed modders. It's a shame, but there you are.

[Spinners]

As long as I can open a file in notepad whatever and can start to tweak a little any title goes for me.

 

 

Post of the day

[+gerwin]

As long as I can open a file in notepad whatever and can start to tweak a little any title goes for me.

 

And that is quite something.

 

In the past I tried modding Jane's USAF: A hard coded limit of 6 cockpits!, any new cockpit had to replace an existing one. I tried to change the wrong amount of gun ammo for the Phantom in an ini file: no respons, it just ignored certain values. The user made F-14 Tomcat wing sweep would only move by pressing the flaps button. I do not miss that one bit

 

In Strike Fighters everything is right there in the ini files, and the game adds new items to the rest automatically.

It is not because software works like that, it is because TK facilitated it.

Edited April 4, 2012 by gerwin

[+column5]

So is this the patch standard I should base my Second Look article on?

 

We were told that we were needlessly harsh to SF2NA in our review and if intend to present a second look at it (as I have promised I would), is this the patch I should be basing my article on or should I wait?

 

I am asking politely for guidance from the largest fan community for this game.

 

Might be cool to turn that article into sort of an ongoing review with occasional updates as new patches, DLCs and updates come out. The series has always been evolving so much that it sort of defies the idea of being reviewed once and that being the final word on it.