SH 5 ROCKS! New Review 84% from Gamestar

[urfisch]

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

How much money changed hands?

this is the question...

[karamazovnew]

Here we go:

http://translate.google.com/translat...3Fpage%3D0%2C1

I still think we'll raise this puppy to SH3 levels and beyond, but still...

[janh]

in the middle of reading this review, a big Ubisoft advertisement pops up -- Assassins Creed 27. Know that reminds me of a different thread regarding Ubi and reviews/previews here...

Unfortunately this review doesn't have much "meat" in it. Not surprising for Gamestar, Andreas is correct. Not much details or facts, little to learn from it. When again is Neal's Subsim review due? I guess that has become more or less the verdict by which all subsims are measured...

[Rickenbacker]

They probably just didn't have much time to play the game. Plus, if a freelancer did it, they might have picked one who knew little about sub sims, if he was available and could meet the (usually short) deadline. Not to mention the atrocious pay freelancers in the game journo biz get - they just can't afford to spend more than a few hours with a game, unless they really like it and can play it for fun in their spare time.

The sad truth about gaming journalism, trust me, I know.

[OakGroove]

Originally Posted by Schunken

Beleive me my non-german friends...

"Gamestar" in Germany is what "The Sun" is for England

Andreas

Way back GS actually provided thorough (as thorough as you could expect from a gamemag) multi-page Simulation pre- and reviews. Falcon4 was praised for "exceptional realism" and got 92%. F4AF didn't fair that bad either, being awarded 85%. Times have changed. Coincidentally the reviewer of F4 was Mick Schnelle, same guy who reviewed SH5 on http://www.gamersglobal.de/test/silent-hunter-5 . Joerg Langers, founder of Gamestar, is now chief editor of Gamersglobal.

PCzone gave Operation Flashpoint 2 a 9/10 scoring. Some people will know how this turned out, the game is basically abandonware now.

[Schunken]

but this leads me to the question: Was "Gamestar" better in the past or the simulations....

Andreas

[OakGroove]

Originally Posted by Schunken

but this leads me to the question: Was "Gamestar" better in the past or the simulations....

Andreas

Both

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by OakGroove

Falcon4 was praised for "exceptional realism" and got 92%. F4AF didn't fair that bad either, being awarded 85%.

The original review does not mean anything. Falcon 4 was a dog when it was released in 99. Many features were missing when it was released (yes, way much more than SH5) The code was unstable and it was always a coin toss whether the game would crash before you finished your current mission. It took 6 years of work and F4AF to get F4 to the level it should have been in 99.

[OakGroove]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

The original review does not mean anything. Falcon 4 was a dog when it was released in 99. Many features were missing when it was released (yes, way much more than SH5) The code was unstable and it was always a coin toss whether the game would crash before you finished your current mission. It took 6 years of work and F4AF to get F4 to the level it should have been in 99.

I don't have SH5, so i can't draw a comparison on which game shipped in a worse state. However. I was trying to point out that "back then" Simulation games had a reserved column in those magazines, with according reviews. F4 was the most complex combat flightsim of it's time, of course it had issues, and imo fully deserved the rating it got.

[McHibbins]

Maybe Gamestar is one of the three biggest game magazines but also the most incompetent. That´s not only my opinion, you can be sure of that

[johnnyseven]

Gamestar is pulling a "shiftey". Gracious Salutations to the folks of "Grey Wolves" as we still have a great subsim of the Atlantic Theatre of Operations.