[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JScones

:rotfl: Apart from demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the subject matter, a knowledge which is kinda, well, necessary in order to be seen as knowing about what you write. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of WWII tanks can tell the difference between a PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 and PzKpfw VI Ausf E.

Okay Mr. Brilliant, let's explain to me what a mislabelling of two WWII tank types has to do with recognizing and listing sound bugs, AI problems, pathfinding problems, unsatisfactory (in my taste) game design and shallow gameplay. Or in what way has my mishap with the type labels anything to do with the things I listed, when in fact I have not made the specs of the PzVI the basis of my assumptions? You fire a lot of hot rethorics there, but it is pointless. Show me where I have referred to weapons and armour-specs of WWII in general in my review? I haven't, nowhere, left it to very general, subjective impressions, with not technical system specifics at all. How could a comment be wrong if it even does not exist? What has this non-existing comment to do with remarks on completely different issues?

I mean, you would never label an M1A1 as a Bradley, would you? And if someone did in a critical review of SBP, would you take it, or them, seriously after that?

If he does not attribute the characheristics of an M1 to an M2, but just labels the MBT an M1 Bradley, it is something that would make me smile, and I would judge his review by the rest of the details - sh1t happens. just if he thinks the Bradley should have the armour of an MBT, and his M1 has a T-80's 125mm gun, he would reveal that maybe he adresses technical details he does not know too well. but I have not adressed armour and weapons specifics, just left it to this brief comment:

On side of weapon effects, I would think that kinetic ammunition indeed looses destruction potential the greater the distance is, and that it is important from what aspect you are firing at your target. The basic formula “turret stronger than hull, front stronger than flank stronger than rear”; seems to be true here. The efficiency of explosive ammunition and MG I cannot judge, just that small calibre tracers can go right through infantry but eventually causing no harm, is irritating. I think it is eye candy only, the counting real projectiles are simply deactivated if the target is beyond a certain range, only the eye candy effect moves on in the linear direction – at least that’s how it feels to me.

Is that a detailed review of WWII-technology? Hardly. You make it appear as if I commented on things I could not know. Actually I did not comment on it because I knew from the beginning that I do not know these specifics.

Sorry, but I would expect an "official" reviewer representing tanksim.com to know the differences between most well-known tank types.

Why? Other reviewers admitted as well they are no experts on WWII tanks and never did the real thing. About them - f.e. simHQ - you do not complain. A review is the personal opinion of the author, a subjective description of what he likes and does not like in the object of the review. Maybe because by simHQ's preview of the game you expect their review to be more friendly and mirroring your personal opinion to a wider degree, than mine? I focussed on gameplay, AI, graphics, sounds, the way the missions unfold and impresses you, or impresses you not.

So, with this in mind, why are you surprised by the criticism you are receiving? I doubt it's just because you are critical of the game. Don't get me wrong, you have made some observations with which I totally concur (I just read your review after spending the better part of the week playing the game and forming my own opinion), but when they're hidden behind basic research errors

What basic research errors? All symptoms I listed and described I have reproduced at least two times in the according missions. And others observed them as well.

as well as distracting spelling errors, grammatical errors, and a suggestion that you can't understand why a $50 tank simulator for the masses doesn't equal a $125 tank simulator intended for contemporary military training,

Where have I said that in that review? Show me. As a matter of fact I said in the review that I gave up an earlier plan to do such a comparison, since I understood it to be "pointless" since SBP is too far ahead in quality and runs not inside the usual competition.

you really lose your credibility (for example, comments such as "Is SF really a tank simulation able to rival SBP in the simulation department?"

and now you quote me out of context, which reveals your true intention here, and that is not so much to adress the actual points I said and that you probably cannot counter, but to simply give it all a bad name. Actually, the full and correct quote in the correct order of paragraphs goes like this:

Of course, people knowing me, expected that I cannot avoid to compare Steel Fury with Steel Beasts Pro PE. Is SF really a tank simulation able to rival SBP in the simulation department?

Originally I planned to write a long separate chapter just about this comparison – but the longer I played SF, the more I realised that this would not make sense, since it is pointless. A tanksim is more than just correct physics, it is about formation interaction, a believable mission environment interacting and reacting to actions of the player, it is about AI, and general handling, tactical depth and opportunity to implement real world tactics. These are things you can compare even when taking into account that WWII and the present, tank technology from 70 years ago and from the present, cannot directly be compared to each other.

I think, by what I already have written, it is clear by now, that in the general tank department, SF in no way can compete with the benchmarks set by SBP. SBP is simply superior in AI, handling, mission design options, scaling, tactics, procedural realism. I personally also prefer the graphic style of the SBP world, but that is a question of taste, however, SBP gives you the greater maximum viewing distances, and WAY greater maps, if you want it that way.

Actually, I did not do that planned point-by-point comparison, and said that SBP should be considered to not run in the ordinary competition. It is like big blockbuster movies and some film festivals, the program openers. Usually they also do not run in the competition - because of the far greater budgets which allowed them to "outfinance" smaller budgets so easily that it would be unfair to le the small ones directly compete with the 100 million dollar blockbuster. Does it make sense to compare LOTR with "Stalker"? Hardly. you can only say what you like and not like in both movies.

Anyway, that's my opinion. FWIW Steel Fury looks like it will meet my definition of "simulation", even moreso if/when the modders get fully behind it (there's movement in this area already). I like to think of SF in Dec 2008 as SH3 in Mar 2005. Nothing overly spectacular by itself, but with the right mods it has the potential for a title that befits the bold statement on the case (and let's not forget, SH3 called itself "the most impressive, realistic and gripping naval simulator" when it was released, a very optimistic statement that really was not achieved until heavily modded). Anyone who plays SH3 with GWX, or one of the other super mods, will be quite thankful that they were not influenced by a misguided review like the one you're offering for SF.

at least here I agree and said so in two or three different forums now. It depends on whether or not modding is limited to cosmetical things only (skins, models, sounds), or if game mechanisms like AI can be accessed and redone, too, so to chnage the way in which the game plays. If the latter is possible, there is a chance indeed that in a year I will try this game again and maybe find it more worth to be played, but if it is not possible to adress AI and pathfinding, it will remain to be a very linear and shallow action game to me that dos not offer me what I want to see in a game or sim to come back to it.

-----

To All,

I have gotten some very unacceptable mails from three forums in the past 7 days, even before the review (just indicating I do not agree with the general view was enough to get some crazies upset), with some very juvenile phrasing at times, and two guys even qualifying for a description of hatemails. To say I 'm totally pissed by those attacking me on a personal level and thinking they must ignore every reply and correction about what I actually said when they misquoted me, would be an understatement. Most of these guys were apparrently coming from simHQ ahnd the lighthouse forum. That my views of the game would not be welcomed, I knew after just two hours of gameplay. But the way I got personally targetted and the points I listed got comfortably ignored and other nonsens got put in my mouth, I will not forget, and will not forgive. In three forums I said repeatedly that everybody is free to like the game nevertheless and to disagree with me on how he assesses the details I criticise, and repeatedly I wished those who like the game a happy gaming since it is the best that could happen to them now that they already have separated from their hard-earned cash. Will everybody please kindly keep that in mind. After all, every review is subjective, necessarily, and reflects not necessarily the general public'S views, but the author's views. but a good reviewer will give his reasons why he sees things the way he does, and that's what I did - en detail. Disagreement should be limited to discussing such things and how much they get valued and seen as important or not - not replacing such arguments with personal attacks and general questioning the person of the reviewer and his background.

But after the review was released, I got almost as many mails agreeing with me and thanking me for mentioning the issues I listed, and this really was of help.

Since Friday i also visited the family of an old girlfriend of mine, and just came back today afternoon. Her husband has left the BW just 18 months ago, having been a - tanker, a TC. He is interested in historic tanks and tankgames and sims, and yes, he probably does not mix up the Pz-IV and the PzVI and calling the wrong of the two as "Tiger". since I had deinstalled the game a second time meanwhile, and remain unimpressed by it, I took it with me and showed it to him, offering him to keep it. It's just that he reacted like me - after less than an hour he asked if I am sure that it is not MP-exclusively, since he had difficulties to take the missions and the AI as serious, and was annoyed by the bad sounds (no distance variations), and the bad pathfinding. He liiked the looks of it, but the historical correctness of how things unfold in a mission, he did not find convincing at all (and he is a hobby historians on WWII tanks, as I said). Like me, he rated it as a relatively shallow game, allowing not much tactical variation and challenge. In other words: he also got bored, and refused to keep the game.

I heared of some others that they see the game like this, too.

Now, I don't tell this to convince you to change your minds and agree with me - you just better understand that I am not the exception from the rule, but that there are quite some people who do not like the game as well - and like most people not liking a a game, they simply do not care enough for it as if they would show up in a community for a game they do not like. It's a normal thing.

Now feel free to carry on your discussions of the game and mods and patches and the usual stuff being done after a release - just leave my person, and personal targetting, out of it. After the last week I am not in the mood to take any more.