Microsoft Flight Review IGN

[csefton]

Pretty well sums up flight and a good review imo!
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/122/1220696p1.html

[StringBean]

I read half of it and gave up.

It is not a good review because the reviewer carries into it a preconceived bias that is prevalent in the sim community.

Instead of giving a review of what Flight is, they spend too much time complaining about what Flight isn't.

Not worth the paper it's written on, IMO.

peace,
the Bean

[raimondo2]

I read half of it and gave up.

It is not a good review because the reviewer carries into it a preconceived bias that is prevalent in the sim community.

Instead of giving a review of what Flight is, they spend too much time complaining about what Flight isn't.

Not worth the paper it's written on, IMO.

peace,
the Bean

that is only your opinion

ign is one of the major gaming site - and that is one of the 'pick up' point target to bring new support to this i would say 'aborted' simulator.

i let you draw the conclusions

[Capt_Flappers]

Instead of giving a review of what Flight is, they spend too much time complaining about what Flight isn't.

why does that make it not a good review? any organization/person in the business of reviewing products, when they do a review, points out the pros and cons, what it will do and what it won't do, whether it's a review about cars, trucks, appliances, you name it.

[StringBean]

why does that make it not a good review?

IMO reviews should be fair and balanced.

When a reviewer displays a bias, pro or con, on a product I can no longer expect to receive either.

As I said in the part of my post that you neglected to quote-

"It is not a good review because the reviewer carries into it a preconceived bias..."

peace,
the Bean

[Capt_Flappers]

IMO reviews should be fair and balanced.

When a reviewer displays a bias, pro or con, on a product I can no longer expect to receive either.

As I said in the part of my post that you neglected to quote-

"It is not a good review because the reviewer carries into it a preconceived bias..."

peace,
the Bean

i just read the whole review, i don't see how you know the reviewer has a preconceived bias. everything that was stated in the review as far as i could tell was spot on except for the part of the trees that don't move. although when i played flight i never noticed the trees, i have heard comments that they do, but other than that everything seemed correct, it could very well be the reviewer came to the same conclusion that you say is a preconceived bias all on his own after trying the game. you should read the whole review, he points out good points and bad points.

[alaskancrab]

doesn't IGN run a competing service to GFWL....DirectDrive?

[loki]

IGN sold Direct2Drive recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct2Drive

[Trev]

I take reviews with a pinch of salt. Doesn't matter whether it is a review of a game, book, cd, dvd etc. I have bought cds on reviews saying you shouldn't miss this one etc and bought it and hated it. I have read game reviews where the reviewer has said it's a bad game and I have really enjoyed it, or the opposite and have really hated it, so don't take a review as gospel but just as one persons opinion instead.
:)

[fxsttcb]

While that review referenced pure fact, I think the reviewer suffered from the same thing many of us did/do. Disappointment. It showed.
Seeing that Flight wasn't developed as a replacement for FSX, and isn't as in depth, not being what was "expected" does not, should not, take anything away from it as a game.

I think the most telling review, isn't a review at all. Multiplayer. Unless all these Flight newbies are flying in the wee hours EDT, there isn't much action.
Where is the "target audience"? From what I see they're MIA.
Of course I haven't been monitoring 24/7, but, when I have, maybe, 100 or so players are scattered throughout my "Quick Match" forays.

I think MS pulled an FSX style launch. Way too early, way too incomplete.
Sure, the Hawaii freebie is enough for FREE, but, IMO, they should have had 5 or 6 planes and 3 or more areas ready for DL, upon release.
If it wasn't for what has turned into an obsession with getting it to run without hangs and BSODs, it would be relegated to Z:\Hanger Queens...Don

[alaskancrab]

Dunno I don't think you can get a feel for the size of the Multiplayer by just playing.. don't forget it uses fancy algorithms to find you appropriate matches, so that very well may be the 100 or so people you keep seeing. Have you tried flight on your CAD computer.. perhaps you need the extra 2 gigs of ram?

Who knows maybe you get another free aircraft with that tiny portion of alaska they'll let you play with. Certainly helps the multiplayer numbers if there is enough free stuff constantly.

[fxsttcb]

Have you tried flight on your CAD computerUnfortunately, that rig is a Large by Huge Rolling Rackmount, set up for traveling(primarily used for machine control apps), and won't move into my apt very easily.
http://www.helpbumpers.com/testing.html?expand=q top right hand side pic will give you an idea of size. One of the techs is leaning against the High Speed Video monitor.
That was shot while doing an NHTSA FMVSS-215 test(Bottom pic) a few years ago.

"Quick Match" runs through all of the available venues, and with only Hawaii and 5 planes possible, what could be the limiting factor for a multitude of matches?

I was waiting patiently for Ivy Bridge to release, but, I ain't waitin' another year! X79, i7-3820(5GHz capable, wet), HD 7970, and 512GB SSD is in the wishlist stage...Don

[Paxx]

Dunno I don't think you can get a feel for the size of the Multiplayer by just playing..
Problem #1 with Flight Multiplayer - Zero public tools to determine with who and what you "play".


... don't forget it uses fancy algorithms to find you appropriate matches ...
Problem #2 with Flight Multiplayer - fancy algorithms are a sad replacement for actual public user interaction. Microsoft decides, not you.
Gee thanks, way to not understand what the heck "live" or "online" actually means in any modern sense of the word. Quick Match is fine, where are the rest of the in-game social tools for a vibrant online community? Missing is where.


From the review.
The one big question here – and yes, it's really big – is where Microsoft plans to take Flight in the future. Will we see other parts of the world opened up? More aircraft in the skies? More options for the hardcore…and the softcore? Only time will tell ...

Alaska is coming. Hopefully it is a step forward.
122979
(Not Flight)

[alaskancrab]

That's true.. it is just a "quick match" so far I doubt it does anything besides geography and perhaps age. I know on the first weekend, judging by the gamertags it was just us 30 somethings and no kids at all. But I imagine controlled/modereated airspace is on the todo list, lets hope.

[Flyfalcons]

Who knows maybe you get another free aircraft with that tiny portion of alaska they'll let you play with. Certainly helps the multiplayer numbers if there is enough free stuff constantly.

600,000 square miles is a tiny portion?

[fxsttcb]

That's true.. it is just a "quick match" so far I doubt it does anything besides geography and perhaps age. I know on the first weekend, judging by the gamertags it was just us 30 somethings and no kids at all. But I imagine controlled/modereated airspace is on the todo list, lets hope.Geography? Kinda odd that it doesn't seem to notice if you have the rest of Hawaii installed! I don't and I've quick matched and ended up at the extreme south end of the chain with nothing but blue in any direction!
That is not what I would consider a good match, but, it was fun trying to stay on course and DedReckon some green with a 17 knot crosswind...Don

[vonBobo]

The problem with reviews is that they can be biased by personal preference and maybe even the preferences of the fans of the reviewer, and the reviewer can sometimes forget who the target audience is.

But in this case, I think the reviewer did an ok job of trying to identify who would like this game, and who wouldn't, and came up with a conclusion that many of us have had:
"As frustrating as it may be for seasoned sim veterans, it likewise isn't "fun" enough to hold the interest of the casual gaming crowd it's clearly after."

This has been my biggest question mark about Flight since I started learning about it... who is the target demographic? Simmers seem to casually enjoy it as a diversion from FSwhatever, but I wouldn't call that a success. Folks with a pc that can't run FSX seem to be enjoying Flight, but those can't be the target either? We are going to have to wait until Flight is launched on X-box before we really know if gamers are going to like this product. Is Flight great enough to lure people away from first person shooters, sports titles, racing titles, RPGs, etc? That's a tall order for a franchise/title that historically has never been top tier.

The reviewer is speaking the truth. He doesn't find Flight exciting enough to play when compared to other titles, and there is no other obvious demographic for the title to reach out to. What else is there to say?

[jpc55]

Well I thought it was about time for me to jump in here and give my 2 dollars worth on Flight, (I want my 2 dollars! ((I’ll bet angels355 knows what movie that line is from))
Up until yesterday I wasn’t overly happy with Flight. I had no problem flying the Icon A5 but shortly into the flight I had my video freeze a couple of times on me, but the audio would play on. Then I started to have crashes to reboot. It seemed like the more I flew it the better it got.
Now I’m starting to think Conspiracy (lol). I reached the point where I could fly any where on the big island at will. I flew the Icon up to 13800 ft. and the Stearman up to 19000 plus ft; flying was pretty good. So I decide to get the rest of the islands to get a better overall view of the graphics in Flight. So I downloaded the rest of the islands, start Flight, jump in the Icon move it to PHNL and 2 seconds of taxiing my computer crashes. (When I say crash it’s always to reboot). I relocate to the small airport at the north end of the island and I’m in the air with no problem, I decide to switch over to the new airplane the RV-6A and my computer crashes, if I selected the RV-6A airplane at any of the airports the second I started to taxi my computer would crash. So back to the drawing board.
I’m running an 8800 GTX video card and had driver 285.58 on it, and I’m sure you’ve heard, “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it! I run FSX on the raged edge with no crashes. Well somewhere in my searches someone had said get the latest driver, which in my case was 296.10, so I did. It’s hard to believe how much difference it made. After installing it I fired up Flight with the Icon at the big airport on the big island took to the air, and then switched to the RV-6A and continued on my flight. I flew all the way to PHNL with no problems; except sometimes when I went to cockpit view I would get stutters in the out side view. I would switch back to spot then back to cockpit and it would be good again.
Now to compare them, is it a GAME or is it a SIM? I find a lot humor in the debate that goes on here about this. In reality it’s both, it’s what you choose as an individual to make of it. (After all, life is a game, a mind game). FSX to me is far more sophisticated then Flight. I’m what is called a GA pilot, I was a RWP back in the 70’s have my PPL with SEL rating, and I can tell you that unless you were born with a silver spoon in you mouth or in the right place at the right time, flying is really expensive to do! There is little doubt in my mind that’s why there are Simmer’s. I myself do not like flying the heavy iron, not that I can’t but that it’s boring to me, it makes me think of people working in cubicles. (Absolutely no offense intended to heavy iron people, different strokes folks makes the world go around).The heavy iron pilot’s want there cockpits to be as real as possible all switch working just like the real ones, ATC, good AI, and as far as scenery goes they want the clouds and airports as real as possible. GA pilot’s on the other hand want the world terrain to be as real as possible as well as airports, AI, and ATC. Flight is right now a GA pilot’s Sim, as I choose to see it. But if it does make it I will be surprised. I surmise that it will only do so if MS throws a ton of money at it. Presently, at what the costs of add-ons are, I’m not going to be able to afford it. Being on a fixed income, and not being an MS employee. So I will be flying both of them for the time being, when I want to fly in Hawaii it will be with Flight and the rest of the time it will be with FSX.
Time to end this rant, to all a good day!
And of curse this is just my own opinion.

(NEXT)

[jomni]

This has been my biggest question mark about Flight since I started learning about it... who is the target demographic?

The other thread with the link to the Microsoft interveiw says it all.

[fxsttcb]

The other thread with the link to the Microsoft interveiw says it all.
If you are refering to the one posted on Avsim, Yessir! I think Avsim's Mr. Allensworth did a good job trying to nail down what we can expect from Flight in the future.
Still wonder why Mr. Howard is reluctant to provide a "Long Haul" Plane though. A single plane capable of long duration flights does not preclude it from being used locally.
With Hawaii and the upcoming Alaska DLC, a seperate DLC Plane that is capable of PHNL->PANC would sell like hotcakes, IMO. Its all water in between anyhow...Don

[rsoro01]

I read half of it and gave up.

It is not a good review because the reviewer carries into it a preconceived bias that is prevalent in the sim community...
Really? I didn't read it that way. He seemed much more disapointed in it as the game it wants to be in order to appeal to a wider customer base. In fact, that is where he was the most negative about it. He knows it isn't meant to be a sim a la FSX, etc. But, right now, it isn't a game with staying power either, in his opinion.


Rich