On the whole, for a short review, I think it's largely pretty fair. And I know achieving this is sometimes hard to pull off, as I'm also a writer by profession (amongst other things) and have done quite a few software reviews in my time. In writing reviews, one has to adhere to strict criteria, and usually get it all to fit in a specified number of words too!
However, because I know this, I did notice that the piece lacks some of the detail a review should really have, i.e. what system was it being tested on and specifically, how much RAM, what video card and what operating system?
These are important things to mention, in view of the fact that the review refers to the sim crashing a fair bit and also alludes to patches being available - so one presumes it was not the 'A' key crash to blame for these mishaps.
This is the kind of valuable information that reviews are supposed to provide, so that 'punter A' can read the review and think: 'hmm, that's similar to my set-up, so I might have problems too'.
The review closes by saying that SH4 is a 'profoundly frustrating experience', but without evidence for a comprehensive test, or at least a mention of if this was done, I find myself not convinced that the software was always the smoking gun. If the game is crashing a lot, then the first suspect ought to be the system it is running on, whereupon the obvious thing to try is another review machine with alternative specs. If it still crashes, then the software should start coming under suspicion. Whenever I run software for a review, I test it on as many differently specced-up machines as possible, and I'd kind of hope people who review stuff and pass judgement on a product would do the same, as an unfair review could end up giving UBISOFTs sales figures a 'profoundly frustrating experience' that they might not have deserved. And then sub simulation fans might find their favourite software genre undeservedly even thinner on the ground than it already is.
For the record, Patched SH4 has never crashed on my machine (Win XP SP'd, ATI PCIx card, 2 gigs RAM). I'm not claiming it's without issues here, just stating a fact.
I find myself disagreeing with the interface complaints, as although the SH4 interface initially threw me and many other 'SH vets', it's not really any worse than stock SH3 was, just different. And with no knowledge as to whether UBISOFT is going to 'do an IL-2' and release expansion disks, there may very well be a good reason for the interface change for all I know, particularly in view of the fact that lots of other stuff is directly ported over from SH3 with no changes whatsoever.
So it would seem to me that if there is no reason for the change (which none of us can either confirm or deny with any degree of confidence) then the changes would simply be a case of the developers making work for themselves, and given that UBISOFT is not some amatuer company, I'd like to think that's unlikely.
Apart from these gripes about the review, which may not have as much foundation as it seems to me, if the test was more comprehensive than the review makes it appear, I agree with a lot of it. I just think that one ought to be careful about stating with absolute conviction that software you review is unstable, when it actually might not be to blame.
I'm personally convinced another patch will sort it, and the review seems rather more pessimistic on this score than I think it should be before the facts are all in.
|