Maybe I'll save the $$$ I was gonna spend on SF and use it to buy upcoming paid update for SBPpe. I don't like paid updates but it seems to be the better investment...:hmm:

Lets be honest here, judging by the demo Steel Fury is just as much a sim as ... say ... the Silent Hunter series, and its now called "more a game than a simulation" by the SB Pro crowd. I think this means its just the right amount of simulation for me.:)

I overworked a draft for a review after having played 16 missions until now. I gave it two notes: as a complex action game, I gave it a B or B-; as a simulation I gave it a D.

Stabiz,

of course I know that people will suspect that I talk it down in order to let SBP shine, but believe me - I did not want and I even did not need to do so. As a sim it simply is no competition to SBP, in almost no way.

I let it rest now to see if over night something makes me changing my mind, but my interest to play on is almost nil, the past missions already were repetitive, and all very much the same, in good and bad. the most obvious difference is the changing ghraphics according to time of day.

If I do not see any need to start a massive rework, you have my 5200 word review tomorrow afternoon.

If you take SF as a light game and have not too high expectations, you can like SF. If you want a realistic sim, with the needed elements characterizing a simulation, SF is no serious player, imo. the simple fact that you can win almost all missions by doing nothing and just make sure you stay alive, and that after 24 hours I am already done with half of its missions and even had time to review it, speaks for itself.

I have now both played, TvT and Steel Fury. But with all the bugs in TvT, for me the armored battle in TvT feels more demanding. Steel Fury looks beautiful for a tank game in this niche market but I find it half implemented in some cases of the game logic.

I never felt truly I have something contributed for the ever positive outcome of the missions, and this on highest realism settings not matter which side in the campaign I played.

I let move my comrades in a straight line onto the scanty existing opponents (like in ancient wars ;) ) and after about 5-10 minutes of playing time, mission is reported successfully, total loss of enemies, my men are all alive, absent the ones I shot down for a test of friendly fire.:88)

I do not know if there is only no longer remembers correctly, but a few years ago when I played M1 Tank Platoon, M1 Abrams, Panzer Elite and SB I felt that all these games are much more demanding and sophisticated. The graphic was not the best but the feeling and the degree of difficulty was higher I think. Maybe today you can no longer sell such a high level of difficulty to the consumers if you want enough revenue of your work.:roll:

compare that to this part from my review:

"In the tactics department, this game disappoints. Tactics I never needed to win – just letting my force linearly move towards the objectives, and sooner or later they succeeded, no matter how unorganised and chaotic the scene was (on highest difficulty settings, there are several sliders to adjust this). "

I call it different, I call it: broken AI. If it looks, feels and behaves broken, and another explanation is not available or not likely, then it probably is broken. But I am the known black bogeyman of unforgiving reviews anyway... :lol:

I think that is the best way to go. I should have listened to my own instincts that said "No" after the SF demo - would have saved me 40 bucks. But all that talking of people made me jittery. Should have let them talk, like usually I always do...

The SBP packages however has plenty of tasty stuff in it. Before you feel bad about paying for it, please remember that there already were I think six updates, including one major addon, all for free. They said from the very beginning on that from one point on they would need to charge for further public work.

Skybird,

I saw you posted over at the lighthouse forums as well and I think the good folks here deserve another point of view on Steel Fury. Your views on SF are unfair and unfounded. I don't understand why you think its not a serious sim.

I have been a professional reviewer for years and I see nothing in SF that doesn't point at the label 'hardcore sim'. The physis and operation of a WW2 tank are painstakingly accurate, the landscapes are modelled after the real thing (the Graviteam guys went on location to model them), and it has lots of bells and whistles in terms of sounds and sights.

Based on that, then what in the name of the simgods make you say it's an 'action' game?? Whats your problem with it, and what's up with the constant comparison with Steel Beasts?

Your comments are inappropriate and unaccurate. You have a right not to like it, but don't make it sound like its a piece of crap because it didn't pass 'THE SKYBIRD TEST', because then, my friend, you have a long way to go as a reviewer :-)

I think (and hope) you are right. I wont have the game until thursday or friday, but I have yet to read anything as negative as what Skybird writes.

I read that it is a helluva lot better than TvsT, a game Neal liked alot in his review, and now Skybird says he is uninstalling it after 24 hours. It doesnt make sense, unless its the usual SBP rant.

With it only just been out and bugs been addressed within days!! I think its a pretty good start.

Fall Blau to come and im sure some of the more talented simmers will be adding missions/mods pretty soon. :up:

Tigershuffle.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/hayl...ser_online.gif
sorry posted in wrong forum originally.. :oops:

Before you accuse me of being unfair and unfounded, why don'T you just wait until you have read what I have to say about it, and read the reasons why I rate it that mediocre? So far you object to details in my review that you still do not know. I have my reasons why I am not impressed, and I mention them. I also explain why I see it as a game, not as an simulation. but you will have to wait until Neal have set up the text.

The problem I see with both tank games here is that many people are craving so desperately for a WWII-tanksim or tankgame that after years of starving they are willing to forgive a lot if only they finally get that tankgame for the WWII era they waited for so long. But that does not make the many problems with TvT go away, nor does it make SF less shallow in tactical depth and the way the missions play.

Of course you have all freedom in the world to disagree with my conclusions, and I am not attacking you for disagreeing. But so far you do not know what it is that you disagree with - you need to wait until the review is out. ;) And if you like the game after having spend money on it, the better for you. But I do not, and I name my reasons - not here, but in the review. It's what I see as valid and solid reasons, and not just few of them.

And no, it is not because of SBP that I don't like SF - I bought SF hoping for the better even after the demo left me unimpressed, hoping for improvements, if you read my preview on basis of the demo you see that I already was careful. The planned chapter of a direct comparison with SBP I have left out in the final review, because it was pointless, the things that could be compared between two sims from two such different eras in case of SF simply were not there to the needed extent for giving any such comparison a meaning. But this also is explained in the review.


Stabiz,

if you have read carefully you will have noted that Neal meanwhile has stepped back from some of his positive comments about TvT, and I know from himself that he is even angry both over the state the game is in, and about the behavior of the publisher. Neal had released a post short time after the review on TvT, that he was not aware of some of the massive problems the game had, especially with MP, and that it made him correct his first impressions. Just search for it. originally Neal wanted to do the official tanksim review for SF himself, but he told me that the game gives him "problems". That'S why I am jumping into the gap now. Originally and while I already was writing, my review was meant to be just an extenisve thread in this forum.

I'm sorry that I cannot meet expectations fans of the game have for a positive review, but you need to grant me the freedom to describe it as I see it - not like you want me to see it. I give my reasons in detail, and once you learned about them, you can chose whether or not you want to agree. But I am not in the business of supporting sales policies, nor do I accept an obligation to serve the interest of the pro-SF community when forming my opinion of the game'S quality. I tried to be objective, and with a clean conscience I claim: I succeeded in that.

;)

I know Neal stepped back a bit on his TvsT review, but that was mainly because of online issues, a part of these games that dont interest me too much. (Only use racing sims online)

Fair enough, I guess, but do you consider the Silent Hunter series a simulation? To me SF seems like Silent Hunter with tanks and no dynamic campaign? Sure, AI could be crappy at times, it always is, as it is in the SH series vanilla.

Having tried both of them (Tho, havent finished either yet), my vote goes to Steel Fury. It just feels more like 'war'.

I've been reading all these SF threads with interest and all I can say is...great first post! In much the same way that Skybird has his opinion about the game, I have an opinion about his credibility to review free from bias. It's a bit hard to perceive Skybird as objective when everything he sprouts is in some way a comparison to his beloved nirvana of SBP. And why even *try* to compare SF to SBP? SF v PE or PC or TvT, sure, *that's* relevant for obvious reasons, but SF v SBP...why? That's right, because it's his favourite tanksim. But hardly relevant to me though, or anyone that exclusively plays *WWII* tanksims.

And Skybird, geez, it's only a review - one of many reviews - so why carry on like it's meant to be the ultimate word on the game that everyone must stand to attention and consider as the authoritive statement?

Anyway, thanks Dowly - a perspective from someone who has actually played both the current WWII offerings is very helpful. :up:

EDIT: Oh geez, now I have to read Skybird's pro-SBP drivel over at the SF forum. :roll:

Having watched the available videos for SF, it does appear that there is a certain amount of aimless zig-zagging. It isn't clear where the objective or enemy strongpoints are from watching the unit's behaviours.

This might be easier to follow if you are controlling the movement and action, and have studied the briefing and maps.

I usually won't come often to defend skybird. But if he posted his personal, subjective opinions in his review, he has to apologize to nobody.

Because that is what I am interested in. Not the average reviews ( that includes subsim / wargamer reviews) that always give ratings between 70-100%, like there are no bad games.

These reviews might be very detailed and elaborate, but at the end I am as smart as before. Because even if the reviewer didn't like the game, he/she was much too afraid to step on anyones toes, and dodged the issue.

To hell with that. Bring on subjective honest opinions, and conclude reviews with a plain statement how you liked the game. Even if that means writing that you hated it, with the result that a lot of people will disagree with you.

It's a bit like rating music, women, food, etc. You might make elaborate considerations, but in the end it's only taste that matters.

JScones,

I must say that you and some others exaggerate a bit. I did not say anything that could be understood as "my review being the ultimate and authoritive word" on it, as you put it. I just indicated here and in the simHQ forum, that a review is about to be released and that it will disagree a bit with what is said on SF so far, and one guy at lighthouse got me a bit engaged in a discussion about what he said - and that was what I would have described to be the utimate authoritive word on his opinion. Magnum of sim HQ also has announced here and at simHQ that he is about to release a review next week, and his preview was psoitive - and people leave him alone over his announcement. Me preparing people a bit that I do not see it as positive, gets engaged even before the text is released!

But that brief note already was enough to earn me five mails meanwhile, of very angry and personal attacking content, two just arrived this morning, three yesterday morning, and one of them, as I said at simHQ, almost qualifies as a hate mail. Now what you say on that attitude being ultimate and authoritive? My two brief informations on a reivew coming were enough to already bring up many people against me, and trying to engage me in disucssions about my review, pushing me into a defensive posture - although they even have not read it!

I did it at simHQ, and I ask here again: hold your breath and criticsm until he review has been released, then read and consider it, then give me also some right to disagree with maybe your own views and give me some space to have my own opinion - and what is then left of it and you think is badly done by me - for that you can crucify me - after the review has been released. I explained my reasons why I think it is a good game, but a sub-standard sim, its all there. I hope that request is reasonable enough for everybody now.

Meanwhile, until Neal has set it up hopefully today, and speaking as a moderator now, I strongly recommend and kindly ask you all to withhold any further discussion about this review that none of you know so far, until it is released. Feel free to continue the debate once it is released, but until then: please put it voluntarily on temporary interrupt, if you please. I don't think that is too much asked for.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8...lgelb20rg2.jpg

I believe the reason is that you seem have destroyed any illussion of objectivity to do an unbiased review Skybird. You have sated publicly on at least 4 forums that you don't like Steef Fury because it doesn't compare well to SBP PE. Anyone with a modicum of simulation experience will know that the two should not be compared. You have stated that in your opinion SF is more of an action game, clearly this statement is very confusing. How can a sim with realistic tank physics, optics, tank operation and ballistics be deemed an action game? As a reviewer it is impossible not to compare to other similar sims/games but the comparisons should be on an apples v apples basis. I must admit that your constant comparisons to SPB PE made me scratch my head in bewilderment. I have both sims and I do not believe they are comparible since they model different eras and technology. Granted it is possible to compare AI behaviour or mission scripting up to a point but overall the comparison of a $40 mainstream sim to a $120 specialist militarty training aid is an invalid one.

Now please don't take this as an attack upon you, I am simply explaining the reasons why some on these forums seem to have adopted a defensive/aggressive to your stance on Steel Fury. Also the fact that Magnum on SimHQ has not been attacked is because he hasn't been publicly comparing it to a modern, expensive and military standard tank simulation.

First, in fact I have said in the forums that I once planned but actually did not compare it to SBP, and skipped a previously planned chapter on detailed comparison for being pointless - the healdine is there, and then I say why it makes not much sense for the reasons you guys are mentioning as well: that SBP simply is too much ahead in developement. My remarks on SF vs SBP are short, therefore. I also explain my understanding of what contributes to a simulation actually being a simulation: and just correct driving and shooting physics is not enough, by far not.It is about how believable the virtual reality is that you are confronted is, and the levels of freedom it gives you, and the interaction between it and you, and the quality of it's reaction to you. On an abstract level, such things could be compared - not only between SF and SBP, but very different types of sims, too.

Second, I quote from simHQ:

Yes, I think SBP is the superior tank simulator. No - I do not make a big issue of it in the review.

And third, I am getting a bit tired of endlessly needing to defend myself over a review that so far nobody knows in details. Therefore, this thread gets locked until the review has been released. It's a bit ironic that I announced that review coming and that it disagrees with wide opinion in order to prepare people for it and avoid right that what I seem to have caused now. Obviously the wrong decision by me. Next time I let it fall down from heaven and onto people's head like a steel hammer.


This thread gets unlocked again once the review is out.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/254/ampelrotmn3.jpg

A pre-release of my review now is available:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...d=1#post996827

Feel free to continue to discuss and debate and share your opinions on the game.



This thread is now re-opened.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/7745/ampelgruenzg9.jpg

I somehow get the feeling the devs have stolen your lunch money or something back in the day. This review is one of a kind, in the way that it differs from all others I have read.

And more SBP-nonsense?

Do you or do you not consider the Silent Hunter series simulations?