Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
7 
Report this post
Granted, the visuals don't look like DX11 Frostbite engine quality, but they certainly aren't bad. Many games have been released recently with similar graphics or worse, especially considering the glut of so-called "old school NES-style" titles we've been seeing.
Perhaps the part that reduces the credibility of your claim the most is the part where you write "it looks like it was released decades ago." Decades, plural. That's not true and you know it. Maybe, at most, it might look like a game released ten years ago in 2004 (although I don't think that's true), but certainly no further back than that.
I've been gaming since 1984 on an Apple II, and believe me, I've seen the graphics in the 80s and 90s. If something was released with visuals like this 20 or 30 years ago, it would've needed a supercomputer and even then it wouldn't have been possible for professionals, like Industrial Light & Magic.
Sorry if you feel I'm nitpicking, but when someone writes "this game looks like it was released decades ago" that screams they don't have the slightest clue what older games looked like. I don't even mean console titles. Go on MobyGames and look at the best games from 1994 and 1984. I think you'll find that although this title doesn't stand up to the very best of today's graphics, it in no way represents the graphics seen and used "decades ago."
For the most part the op is right. I gave much more detail and offered specifics in my review.
It is true that the graphics are not that great, but they are certainly not decades old. There are some assets in the game that are better than others. The people in the game are not particularly good and remind me of 10+ year old games, but then, this is not a people sim, it's a firefighting sim.
I can get past the lack of modern and high quality graphics in this game...it is only $20 after all. But there are far too many other problems with the game that it wouldn't matter if the graphics were perfect...it'd still be a poorly designed game and a poor player experience.
Thanks for the warning guys, my hats off to all that did buy it and spoke up, you save the rest of us from BAD developers, hopefully I can return the favor one day ;)
Don't feel burned, your doing the community a huge service, and we all appreciate it!
Stop hating on the problems and enjoy it for what it is.
Hopefully the developers don't ignore the issues and actually correct some of the issues.
You do not possess magical ability to read minds. You do not possess psychic ability to read minds. And you definitely did not employ critical reasoning in your assessment of those who have negatively reviewed the game.
Had you actually read my review, you'd have seen that I have already set my expectations low and stated in the beginning of my review that one ought not have the expectation of a AAA game experience.
It seems that you are just defending the game for the sake of defending it instead of considering what others have to say.
Please go to my review (on the front page), read it, and post back here what you disagree with about it. I'm skeptical that you'll find even 1-3 points that are wrong. It's an objective review, not some subjective rant.
You state that you don't expect a triple A game but you criticize it as if everything is supposed to be perfect.
I'm defending it because it has a lot of potential and at its current state, it's really not that bad.
If you want developers to put more effort into correcting some of the issues perhaps you should speak more of the positive and the problems that can easily be fixed rather than telling people not to buy it.
Edit: As for your pedestrian car issue, I accidentally hit a car into a stop light and they turned sideways.
My one issue with the sound so far is that in the video, it's North American sounding sirens while in the game It's European.
That you personally find it fine in no way means that others or the majority of gamers do not find it distracting and unecessary (I'm not the only person who has reported these issues). It's an easy fix...yet exists...this is bad game design.
This is really bad reasoning again. I have several non-AAA games in my library, I enjoy them quite a bit. Know why? It isn't because they are comparable to AAA games...it is because for an indie or low budget game, they do what they are supposed to do...they have at least a moderate or acceptable level of immerson, lack unecessary bugs, lack immerson breaking bugs (when applicable), and the game play is what is to be expected for that genre and cost window.
I'm assuming you meant "potential" and not "positional." And no...it doesn't have potential. The reason it doesn't is because this is a complete game. It's assets and mechanics are seemingly compied from other games (other threads discuss this). It's rare that this sort of game gets updates, and it is never the case that this sort of game gets DLC's. There's no potential here...it is what it is. This type of by this type of developer is the sort that is the quick-in-and-out. That is, copy/paste assets/mechanics, on to the next game. EU sims are notorious for this. Practically every single one here sold on Steam is the same.
So why did I take the plunge and buy? Because it looked particularly interesting and I was hoping that this would break the mold. It doesn't. It's like the rest. Poor quality EU sim intended to make a quick buck with as little as an investment of time and money as possible.
...wait...so if I want the bad things corrected, I should not be so vocal about them and instead, tell people what is good about it? Again, that doesn't make any sense.
If you want change, then you need to speak out about that which needs to be changed. You don't cover up the problems, you expose them.
In the first mission you are supposed to put out a dumpster and trash fire. The fire in the dumpster will only be put out if you stand in the right location (within a certain angle of the front of the trash bin/dumbster). If you stand outside that angle window, despite the water actually hitting the fire directly, the fire magically stays.
Fires can ONLY go out if you stand in the right place.
That is immersion breaking. It's frustrating. It's annoying. It's ridiculous. And it is annoying.
As part of a fire team in the USN (which most sailors are who are stationed on ships), I can assure you that where you stand is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the fire goes out when sufficient amounts of water make contact with it. But one need not have experience with actually putting out fires to know this...it's just common sense!
It's another part of the magic physics that exist in this game unfortunately, and thus, my negative criticism of the game experience remains.
And the ghosting still exists. Stand in the street...wait for a car to come hit you. It won't stop, it goes right right you.
The little things make the difference...and the devs didn't care enough about this game to consider the little things. It's the same as in almost all other EU based sims (that I've seen anyway) for some reason. I don't know how these game sell there, but here in the US they are received poorly.
Stop being so negative. The game isn't about crashing into cars or pedestrians on your way to the scene so don't expect you hitting a pedestrian to see them thrown 20 feet.
Again, the little things can't always be the main focus of a small development team. Stop over reacting and realize you didn't pay 59.99 for the game but 16.99.
I can also live very nicely with these graphics, but the developers gives a signal that they don't care. Just base it on one of the old games, add som new type of missions, name it something with 2014 and get it out to get some money in...
It might be me, but I expected some progression from the previos fire-simulator games..
Actually, they've released several firefighting sims - Two airport based, two industrial plant based, and NBC. But I do agree with you. I've played all bar one, and I think this is the best one yet.
I hope now that they are on Steam, they'll look for feedback and patch glitches.
Edit: I leave the computer for five minutes and Tobinor sneaks in like a ninja.
Ah yes, I remember in NBC I used the airport fire tender to extinguish a burning building...
Actually I think this is the first title without a unique vehicle. Not sure about NBC, but the airport had the airport tencer and the Industrial plant/Werkfeuerwehr had that massive thing that looked like a MLRS.
Also, how do you know the devs don't care? Compared to Airport 2013, there's a lot of changes.
The loading is terribad though. They could've easily made one large map, like the previous games.
Regardless of the game's quality (good or bad), it ought to always be reviewed objectively and honestly. To do anything less is both unethical and does a disservice to both the devs and playerbase.
That a company is small, big, new, old, dedicated, or out for the quick buck...is entirely irrelevant when it comes to reviewing the finished product.
People have a right to both share their experience and read the experience of other players. Let the playerbase decide whether or not they wish to play the game based on what information is out there (walkthrough's, reviews, marketing, etc.). It's wrong to suggest that people censor their reviews just so some "luck dev" can catch a break, and that is precisely what you are suggesting.