About Microsoft Flight

[Paxx]

I want to like Flight, I really do. Because the title is from one of the largest software companies in the world I expected more. Not more as in FSNext. More as in the announced new title, new direction, new audience. What we got is FSX-Hawaii (ATM), done up with some quality add-ons. While the game doesn't look "bad" I don't see anything state of the art or innovative at all. The game looks about 4 years old and counting compared to others. This is disappointing.

Completely empty Hawaii is disappointing. I'll get to multiplayer in a minute.

Yes, some performance gains have been found. On my system at everything maxed (yay) it runs pretty well with some familiar FSX quirks and peculiarities, but that is to be expected on any game/sim of this type. I'm not going to harp on the few technical flaws, they'll get it ironed out eventually, they'll have too, simple as that.

The marriage of RPG elements with a Mission/Achievement/Award system is interesting. Unfortunately it appears they have copied only the basic mechanics for these features, leaving the compelling aspects behind. For example, as you accomplish missions/jobs/goals and receive awards/rewards (paints?!?, C'mon Man!) these "features" actually do nothing to better your in-game character or the equipment your character is flying. In-game character advancement (and loot) is the cornerstone of a good quest (mission/job/achievement) system. This implementation is rudimentary and disappointing, I'm looking forward to some tweaking in this area. A Maul Autopilot comes to mind after 10 hrs in-game flight time (doh!). Microsoft will need to get some creativity flowing for this to go anywhere.

Along those same lines, Flight multiplayer. Someone please explain the point. Where are the "social" tools? Where are even the basics for a vibrant online community to thrive in? Quick Match is about as Skip to Waypoint as you can get in the "Live" arena. Please, Microsoft Studio guys and gals, you can do better. If you need some ideas, ask.

They're trying something new here so version 2 will probably be a more mature offering as they learn, if they choose to do so.

[mith]

You're assuming MS DID get the code right..... Flight is SO much smoother with FAR more objects (trees etc) than FSX is with far fewer objects. This is a comparison with my current system (quad core 3.0, 560TI, 8 gigs of ram, 7200 HD etc. I don't know anything about code, but I can say that Flight's code seems to be much smoother.

If no backwards compatibility means smoother flying... so be it.

[mith]

I want to like Flight, I really do. Because the title is from one of the largest software companies in the world I expected more. Not more as in FSNext. More as in the announced new title, new direction, new audience. What we got is FSX-Hawaii (ATM), done up with some quality add-ons. While the game doesn't look "bad" I don't see anything state of the art or innovative at all. The game looks about 4 years old and counting compared to others. This is disappointing.

Completely empty Hawaii is disappointing. I'll get to multiplayer in a minute.

Yes, some performance gains have been found. On my system at everything maxed (yay) it runs pretty well with some familiar FSX quirks and peculiarities, but that is to be expected on any game/sim of this type. I'm not going to harp on the few technical flaws, they'll get it ironed out eventually, they'll have too, simple as that.

The marriage of RPG elements with a Mission/Achievement/Award system is interesting. Unfortunately it appears they have copied only the basic mechanics for these features, leaving the compelling aspects behind. For example, as you accomplish missions/jobs/goals and receive awards/rewards (paints?!?, C'mon Man!) these "features" actually do nothing to better your in-game character or the equipment your character is flying. In-game character advancement (and loot) is the cornerstone of a good quest (mission/job/achievement) system. This implementation is rudimentary and disappointing, I'm looking forward to some tweaking in this area. A Maul Autopilot comes to mind after 10 hrs in-game flight time (doh!). Microsoft will need to get some creativity flowing for this to go anywhere.

Along those same lines, Flight multiplayer. Someone please explain the point. Where are the "social" tools? Where are even the basics for a vibrant online community to thrive in? Quick Match is about as Skip to Waypoint as you can get in the "Live" arena. Please, Microsoft Studio guys and gals, you can do better. If you need some ideas, ask.

They're trying something new here so version 2 will probably be a more mature offering as they learn, if they choose to do so.

MS has taken us in a new direction. This is why they offer the free demo. If it's not your cuppa tea... leave it be and continue with FSX. I have said it before and I'll say it again, from a marketing point of view, piece mealing the game is genius.

[mith]

Hi,

What is MSX?

Am I perceiving a sense of humor there sir? YEA!

[Paxx]

MS has taken us in a new direction. This is why they offer the free demo. If it's not your cuppa tea... leave it be and continue with FSX. I have said it before and I'll say it again, from a marketing point of view, piece mealing the game is genius.

I explicitly said, "Not more as in FSNext. More as in the announced new title, new direction, new audience." I then expressed my disappointment with how they implemented the very rudimentary and (for some) pointless "features" they expect to bring 20 million new users (Joshua Howard's quote) in with eventually. Although I did comment that some of the performance idiosyncrasies were comparable to similar problems with FSX, this was merely a truthful operator observation, nothing more.

A stripped down title, slow-release DLC schedule, features that are broken (latest patch), worthless, or implemented in a poor manner all combine to sour the "new" experience for me. As I have said before, script kiddies running EMUs have demonstrated more gaming theory, creativity and innovation than a multimillion dollar studio. This is why I said they can do better. A f2p game with a serious lack of DLC is a problem whether Microsoft recognizes it or not. One might even wonder if the supposed "new market" demographic research has taken into consideration that 8 to 13 year olds probably don't have much disposable income. Either way, the lack of available content for Flight in a variety of forms for users who do have money to spend could be interpreted as a foot meet bullet situation for Microsoft.

That is disappointing and demonstrates a lack of forethought by the powers that be.

[mith]

That is disappointing and demonstrates a lack of forethought by the powers that be.

I'll bet MS makes a lot of money on this though....

[n4gix]

One might even wonder if the supposed "new market" demographic research has taken into consideration that 8 to 13 year olds probably don't have much disposable income.

You are making a conclusion based on a suspect assumption. As it happens, the vast majority using Flight are in the 20-60 year old demographic

[alaskancrab]

The demographic you should be looking at is there are probably just as many so called "hardcore" users are there are people who would never use it. actual normal distributions notice the symmetry as well on the polar ends

[Paxx]

My "new market" demographic comment was sarcasm. I'll be more clear next time.

Regardless of the demographic analytic, it seems to me a F2P game with a DLC business model should have DLC. Lots of DLC. That MSFlight doesn't atm, may be cause for concern in building brand presence and loyalty. "Before everything else, getting ready is the secret of success." - Henry Ford.

Mith - "A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business." - Henry Ford.

[alaskancrab]

"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford...