Major gaming site IGN reviews Flight

[Faire 0]

I couldn't hold myself from commenting that review, I really think it's really not correct, it seems like the reviewer didn't spend enough time on playing the game, or thinking about it.Problem is that it really can hamper future development, and that would be a shame. I personally like DLC model - if that means that I can buy what I want and skip other things. I do not like that in current state of things I have to buy Maule though I do not really want it :)

The review is pretty spot on right now. In its current state, Flight is very mediocre especially value-wise. If they would have boxed this for 39.99 retail and it had one location and 5 planes, people would laugh it out of the store. I like Flight because of the potential I see in it. I do find it very lonely running around Flight, even in multiplayer. It is strange landing at Hilo without anything at all moving. It feels like I'm the last person in the world, flying around after the apocolypse. What's more, is that there is settings in the Config file for air traffic, boats, and cars, so they may add that in the future. Overall, I am spending money on Flight because there's not a new alternative. I'm a very niche market though and I don't think MS will succeed in the casual marketplace with the current business model (price wise.)

What about Flight Unlimited 2 with not much more aircraft and only a small area of flight? Still it was heck of fun...

Another review by SIMHQ is here:http://www.simhq.com...4/air_518a.htmlGuy

This one looks fair and fine to me. Didn't know that there are so many missions ot

[scotchegg 4,207]

Can't agree with everything this guy says, but he does make a good point about the lack of immersion in the world. The lack of anything moving in the world is killing the feeling of being in the world for me.I can see lots of future potential in the platform, but I've found myself going back to FSX more frequently recently if I want to really enjoy flying. Shame, and I hope Microsoft start adding things to make the world seem more like, well, a world soon coz the game's appeal is starting to feel short-lived.

[Guest Antlab]

I question IGN's reviewer. It seems he didnt fly anything but the demo. No radio's? No animations? Really? No way to talk to other aircraft?

Which demo? A.

[Guest Antlab]

"I'm only in if I can fly a dragon, just sayin'..."toooo funny :LMAO:

This can be a great idea! (fully coherent with the new philosophy to attract "soft-core" users)Flying Dragon DLC: 10000 MS points. It would be perfect to fly over the Hawaii volcanos, and could also act as a prequel, explaining why there are no more signs of life on the islands :-)A.

[trevorbee 0]

Regardless of what you think of Flight, the rest of the world views it much the same as this review. The MS advertising and PR department is fully to blame for this. This is the impression people get when they try the game. Once that impression is given, not many people will spend the time to find out if there is more, especially when there is no indication that there is more.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this comment. I think that MS has completely failed to market this version. We have no idea where it is going or whether or not it is worth investing in. They reailly do need to do something about this very soon or, in my humble opinion, the product will fail.It is all to do with respect for your customers. Treat them like mushrooms and they will walk away.

[Nick Barber 0]

and IGN is probably right in every aspect too

[Faire 0]

More I think about it the more it seems to me that the review really failed in one respect - Flight is more service then finished product. You pay around 40 USD (right?) to get most out of it, having 4 airplanes, and lot of things to explore and do, but no ATC, no whole-world, no AI airplanes. BUT X-plane 10 costs 80 USD, that's more then twice. 40 bucks is more akin to low-budget games - and in that part of market Flight would shine, being able to attract more people. It's really a shame they didn't communicate more clearly what the game is about, and how is it supposed to evolve - for me it's more akin to marketing mode of MMORPGs, and as you know, they tend to be improved by time as well...

[LHookins 3,104]

BeachAV8R is a pretty good guy. I've read a lot of his posts. His video review was well done.He brought up one of my complaints that a lot of the engine instruments don't work quite right. He was flying at 8000 feet and wondered why full rich reduced fuel flow. That's been pretty standard in Microsoft aircraft, dunno how it works in real life.I'm not sure about the missions being repetitive. I guess if you fly the kayaker rescue several times that would count.Overall, a very good review.Hook

[trevorbee 0]

Can't agree with everything this guy says, but he does make a good point about the lack of immersion in the world. The lack of anything moving in the world is killing the feeling of being in the world for me.I can see lots of future potential in the platform, but I've found myself going back to FSX more frequently recently if I want to really enjoy flying. Shame, and I hope Microsoft start adding things to make the world seem more like, well, a world soon coz the game's appeal is starting to feel short-lived.

This comment for me highlights a very real shortcoming with Flight. The total lack of any activity on the ground or in the air in the world occupied by Flight. This is not 'as real as it gets' which was the motto of FS 2002 which was how many years ago?

[Guest Antlab]

What about Flight Unlimited 2 with not much more aircraft and only a small area of flight? Still it was heck of fun...

From Wikipedia about FU 2:"The game features a fully functional air traffic control system, with the busiest airfields having some form of control tower, ground control and ATIS systems, each accessible via different radio frequencies."and"There are also many other aircraft controlled by the computer, ranging from the flyable ones (except the Fokker), to larger corporate jets, passenger jets, military transports, and (off-duty) fighter craft. These aircraft fly on their own flightpaths around the map and can be the focus of view of the player. The player can be affected by jet-wash from large planes."As you see, one of the big problems with the present configuration of Flight is that it is really too poor in many aspects compared with the glorious examples of the past. And please consider that, for example, FU 2 was released in 1997. It's hard to accept that, 15 years after, a new game lacks some basic features for a flight simulation. The question is obviously related to the new DLC model, but in my opinion MS took a big risk in providing a free package too basic, the obvious result are disappointed initial reviews and user reactions.A.P.S. Your avatar is really cute :-)

[alepro 15]

Frankly I'm only surprised that some of you are surprised. Did you really think Flight was a good "game" for the masses? I have had a much better time with some 99 cent games on my iPad, and that is despite the fact that I really wanted to like Flight and gave it a more thorough try then I would have with any other game.The fact is MS has chosen to go after the board market rather then the "simmer" niche with the (in my opinion) naive assumption that there is a very big market for a casual flying game. If you red some of the comments by John Venema (ORBX) regarding their earlier insolvent in Flight, then you know that MS was projecting massive demand for Flight add ons back in the day when they still wanted third party developers to develop for the platform. Back then John (ORBX) thought those figures highly unlikely, and he would have some idea of what market is out there.I think this reviewer hit the nail on the head with this sentence "Flight is, for the most part, a waste of your time. It matters not if you're a detail-oriented, accuracy-loving sim-head or a gunning-for-action "arcade" gamer. Flight is likely not the droid you're looking for."I.e. this game manages to alienate the loyal fans and fails to gain a new broader base with casual gamers - something it was designed to do, and without which it doesn't have a leg to stand on. And if you think that IGN is irrelevant you'd be quite wrong: http://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/ign.com - this review from this source is very bad news for MS indeed.I think most gamers will pass this one by - free demo or not (which is pretty standard in the game industry anyway). I don't reckon this little adventure is going to pay for MS, and I'd expect them to eventually pull the plug on it. Time will tell.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

At this point, it's clear to see there are essentially two types of reviews:Those from flight enthusiasts of the old school Fsx variety and those from practically anybody else. The terminology used in the review, the references to specialized flight equipment, interspersed with jargon heavy speech and the like very quickly identify which camp a reviewer belongs to.

[Arwen 289]

Well, don't dismiss too easily IGN (or other gaming websites) by thinking that they can't review a sim. IGN AU gave 92 to DCS Black Shark (IGN US 80, still good), and the same is true for a lot of sims of various levels of complexity, most in excess of 80. Sadly, Flight does stick out at the bottom of this list.

That's perhaps because combat flightsims score much higher in gamer reviews. Gamers LOVE to blow things up. Why do these reviews always state that civilian flightsims are boring? Answer: because you cannot blow anything up or shoot at each other.

[T_Fleck 36]

One of Flights biggest issues preventing it from gaining a more broad appeal, was trying to maintain an E rating. Look bad things can and do happen to airplanes, I know it, you know it, the devs know it, why ignore it? The problem with comparing the game to an MMO, is that it is not an MMO. Even those poorly done "work in progress" MMO's rarely recover from a bad review. MMO's also offer weekly updates, free content, and a living, breathing environment. (the violence that most of them contain doesn't hurt either.) They also cater to multiple play styles and in most cases some limited customizability. Flight gives you none of this. Flight needed to break the mold, redefine demarcation lines and cross barriers. It needed to do what Doom did for FPS, it needed to do what Everquest did for RPG's, it needed to reinvent a genre; unfortunately, it did not. The current group of developers it would seem did not have a clear enough plan or vision about what exactly it was they were trying to accomplish. They released a game too early in my opinion, did not have enough DLC ready and available nor did they have any DLC ready to be release shortly afterward. They omitted key points of aviation under the banner of making it more simplistic (which I don't buy), and in the end did nothing groundbreaking. A bad review is not a deathblow, but they also do not need to ignore it, they need to address it will all haste.

[psolk 3,048]

I think everyone needs to stop, take emotion out of it and review Flight for what it is today, not what it may be someday...As I mentioned earlier:TODAY:Good graphicsDecent performance with no AI, who knows what would happen at a large airport full of AI. Answer- no one...Great soundsFunHawaii OnlyNo ATCNo AINo full worldNo heaviesVery limited DLCAC like the P51 released without even a cockpit!Need to purchase DLC to get any sort of complicated model beyond the Icon and Bi-PlaneSo yes, at best it is mediocre as it stands right now and without any DLC it got boring after 20 minutes... I don't understand the polar "it is the best sim ever" or the opposite "It is the worst sim ever," it is what it is, a limited sim to date that has potential but as it stands is mediocre in terms of features, functionality and expand ability...I would not give it a 5 but I would not give it anything above a 7 as it stands today.