So in short, I don't necessarily demand a complimentary review of Flight, because everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Flight does indeed have some faults, but I do at least demand a competent one, which this was very far from being.

That is exactly my big problem with this review. It was so very apparent, the guy just did not spend any amount of time exploring what Flight is, what all one can do in it, and give an accurate account of both the positives and the negatives. I have seen at least a couple of reviews like that in these first couple of weeks, and it just really chaps me. If one is going to give a review, and I presume in many cases get reimbursed in some way for doing that review, then at least devote the time and energy to doing it properly... this one just smells.

Not sure why we would let a review tell us what to think about a game. It's all a matter of personal preference as to whether you like a game or not.What we're looking at with MS Flight is the bare bones of a game that they hope to greatly expand. Let's give it time... Maybe one day they'll come out with a "Simulation pack" that will include some more realism for those who like playing with switches and experiencing "as real as it gets" :)

Maybe one day they'll come out with a "Simulation pack" that will include some more realism for those who like playing with switches and experiencing "as real as it gets" :)

You're using the checklists, right?Hook

Checklists? What Checklists? :oj/k. Actually that was a nice addition, but I don't use it myself.

Here is the link http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1220696p1.html, that is not good if MS hoped to get the average gamer to buy it.

Eventually, most gaming sites are going to conclude in a similar manner. It is not popular sentiment here, but I am seeing most reviews give the perspective given in this IGN review. The past can't be dodged, not matter how badly one might want it to be. What is interesting is that these gaming sites know and respect/expect Flight Simulator to be what it is. Pandering to wider tastes does have a place and can work, but regardless of firing ACES, and regardless of trying to have a marketplace, etc. people will work against what is expected in the past - in this light, Flight is somewhat neutered. The gaming world also, wisely, knows to be wary/leery of a game's future promise as it is quite feasible that Microsoft could turn tail in a year and you'll be left high and dry with the DLC they bothered to make. If Microsoft decides otherwise with Flight, there will be no SDK for casual and commercial developers to step in. This, and perhaps mostly this, is why some here show up with a deflated attitude.You may deride IGN as an unworthy critic, it would perhaps be fair if you look at a long history of IGN, but the truth is that, with so many choices in the marketplace, high expectations are fair. I think Josh Howard's outfit may want to consider drastically ramping up DLC output immediately. Some will compare the Flight DLC model to Train Sim 2012 (with Kuju roots, who have history with Microsoft). In any case, the difference with Train Sim 2012 is that there are development tools and end-user content is possible. The absolute best thing to happen to Flight sim was the offering of tools for users to create content. Now, we must wait and guess. To me, that Microsoft doesn't have another high-end offering on the market right now, is odd. They need to demonstrate that they are willing to go deep with content as gameplay, according to the linked review, does get shallow quickly.In any case, thank you to the OP for posting the review. I think the end of the review tells a story that even the rabid afficionadoes on this forum often seem to quip themselves:

"...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, but in the meantime, Flight is best sampled in its freebie guise."

IGN isn't perfect and I've cringed at some of their reviews in the past, but the impact factor of IGN cannot be ignored. They certainly hold sway in the wider game market, in terms of taste-making, and this seems to be the market Flight wants to dance in.For the sake of comparison, let's look at the Alexa rating for AVSIM: http://www.alexa.com...einfo/avsim.comand compare that to IGN: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ign.comThere is no comparison.Now, clearly AVSIM is a cozy community of dedicated flight sim enthusiasts, whereas IGN is a generalist site for reviewing entertainment (focused on video games). As I review Joshua Howard's interviews, his strategy is to win the eyes and pocketbooks of the IGN crowd. The review of interest does tell gamers that we'll have to "wait and see," but he gives a somewhat accurate sketch of what is at hand. The review is inaccurate in ways that are somewhat trivial (for instance, the trees and blades of grass do, in fact, move). However, in general, he is right, the landscape is barren of movement and the aesthetic. While the aesthetic appealing in the case of Hawaii, the overall graphical engine is not up with the times. It is fine for Flightsims, but not fine for a AAA gaming title.So, while gamers have Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, and Battlefield 3 as major choices for their wallet, Flight does come out of the gate as tepid. Of course, there is minimal risk as they are giving the base package away for free, but some KNOCKOUT DLC must appear within the 1st quarter of release (i.e. by early summer), or opinion of Flight is really going to tank in the wider market. Gaming is big business and gamers are not going to have the patience that many of us long-sufferers in the flight sim community have had. In any case, we are in the honeymoon phase, and many of you are in love, so I get it that you are scorning anyone who would dare to critique your beloved. However, there are those who are impartial and it is important to glean their message. Perhaps not so important for those who are crushing hard on Flight, but certainly for Josh Howard and his crew. I reckon the future of flight by waxing biblical: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth."Flight could still win the IGN crowd over, but they'll have to get their wares to market quickly.

Graphically it is true that the likes of Mass Effect and Skyrim (both excellent games which I have and rate very highly indeed) are on a different level to Flight, but then again they can be, because at no point is either Skyrim or Mass Effect going to be in need of the spare memory overhead to allow a realistic model of Heathrow Airport or JFK to be added to it. This is an important thing to keep in mind with a game or sim which is structured to be expanded massively, as is known to be the plan where Flight is concerned. A reviewer of computer software should bear this in mind when they comment on the graphical appearance of something such as Flight, because the playing field it operates on is fundamentally different in this respect.Al

Graphically it is true that the likes of Mass Effect and Skyrim (both excellent games which I have and rate very highly indeed) are on a different level to Flight, but then again they can be, because at no point is either Skyrim or Mass Effect going to be in need of the spare memory overhead to allow a realistic model of Heathrow Airport or JFK to be added to it. This is an important thing to keep in mind with a game or sim which is structured to be expanded massively, as is known to be the plan where Flight is concerned. A reviewer of computer software should bear this in mind when they comment on the graphical appearance of something such as Flight, because the playing field it operates on is fundamentally different in this respect.Al

Very true, but the attention span of IGN needn't really keep that in mind: hence Mass Effect 3. <- they'll just do a new version. Of course, what this belies is that gaming sites have never known what to do with Flight simulators as they are such a unique breed.

Very true, but the attention span of IGN needn't really keep that in mind: hence Mass Effect 3. <- they'll just do a new version. Of course, what this belies is that gaming sites have never known what to do with Flight simulators as they are such a unique breed.

That doesn't really make sense, Mass Effect 3 is a continuation of a story, not a new version. Consider it the third part of a trilogy, this is how story driven RPGs work and BioWare is at the top of this genre right now.

This is an important thing to keep in mind with a game or sim which is structured to be expanded massively, as is known to be the plan where Flight is concerned. A reviewer of computer software should bear this in mind when they comment on the graphical appearance of something such as Flight, because the playing field it operates on is fundamentally different in this respect.

The main genre that could be massively expandable would be an MMO, and while Flight has some MMO aspects to it (like the levels that don't mean anything), most of it is misplaced and awkwardly implemented. I don't know if this particular reviewer took that into consideration, but it is an aspect that is well known to game reviewers.I don't mind the game, it is the development team I am worried about; they seem overly shady, and a bit lost.

I don't mind the game, it is the development team I am worried about; they seem overly shady, and a bit lost.

The Flight Team members that I have conversed with are not like that at all. They are just not permitted to share much at all about Flight. You're judging the entire team, when they have no choice but to adhere to the restrictions that their boss has imposed on them.That is like calling a beta tester "shady" if they honor their NDA.

eliyahu, on 15 March 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:Maybe one day they'll come out with a "Simulation pack" that will include some more realism for those who like playing with switches and experiencing "as real as it gets" :)

You're using the checklists, right?

Checklists? What Checklists?j/k. Actually that was a nice addition, but I don't use it myself.

So much for "as real as it gets", huh? :D I always use checklists, and even do a runup each time I take off. There's plenty of Sim in Flight if anyone cares to use it.Hook

The Flight Team members that I have conversed with are not like that at all. They are just not permitted to share much at all about Flight. You're judging the entire team, when they have no choice but to adhere to the restrictions that their boss has imposed on them.That is like calling a beta tester "shady" if they honor their NDA.

Thank you Arwen, that makes me feel a little better. Hopefully, the "boss" will lighten up a bit for the greater good of the game, I don't like being kept in the dark about something I have already invested in.

The Flight Team members that I have conversed with are not like that at all. They are just not permitted to share much at all about Flight. You're judging the entire team, when they have no choice but to adhere to the restrictions that their boss has imposed on them.That is like calling a beta tester "shady" if they honor their NDA.

I agree with that entirely. These talented designers are only doing their job to live life. They need to eat and pay bills like everyone else. They don't get to decide which way the company goes when it gets down to financial business.

great post man ..But i just had to laugh at this :LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO: .....

Thanks mate!Yeah, Justin will do that to ya ...make you laugh hard lolCheers

Well folks, with all the money I have in FSX, 8 monitors three computers, and all the software that goes with it.Flight right now as it stands for me is just a game and not a sim, yes the graphics are off the charts and yes you can walk around your plane and yes you can have fun flying thru hoops and go under bridges and chase balloons. Yes you can fly around and look at all that wonderful greenery and water. And yes you can pay more money and fly all of Hawaii, and at the end of the day it is still a game.You can’t get serious with it like FSX, FS9 or X-plane.Try and fly your plane way out over the ocean you will hit a brick wall, never had that with the other Sims.Flight was designed in my opinion for the folks that are not serious simmers, just folks that want to enjoy Flying that’s all.So please don’t compare Flight with the other Sims.Fsx will be around for a long time just like FS9 and X-plane.So unless Flight can come up with a full package like FSX, X-plane, or at least say to me what the price will be for the entire planet.Of course Flight is great, as long as they keep it on Hawaii and of course there planes are great as long as they keep it on Hawaii.All they did was compact it all in a controlled space, like first person shooters games.What do I look like dropping everything because they came out with a game that my 8 year old grandkid can play?I know im going to get cussed out for this, but Flight was a huge disappointment for me.]So Microsoft I hope this was not something you thought was going to replace FSX or out do X-plane, im sorry you failed.But you did gain support from those who like to have fun flying and did not want the hassle of setting up and flying properly. . (atc, flight plans, other planes, etc.)I’m a advanced user and not a beginner for twenty plus years and you Microsoft have done well over the years to keep me on my toes with reality in flying , and besides id rather be flying over my home town than Hawaii.And at least with FSX I can fly in Hawaii and get home in Indy if I want and not be trapped on the island.Those of course are my thoughts on Flight, a great game but not a sim.Thank you …………Robert