Page 6
Can I have my money back please?
By Steve MacGregorHere we have a major company issuing a product and saying, in effect, “OK, we know there are problems, but we don’t intend to do anything about it”. My guess is that the Hasbro folks don’t intend to produce any more simulations after B-17, so they don’t care about the damage to their reputation that this causes. However, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that in any other industry such a move would have been rightly castigated, and the company responsible subject to multiple law suits. However, because we are dealing with computer games, this seems to be an acceptable attitude.
Superhornet. Not a bad game, as far as it goes. It just doesn’t go far enough.
Next on the hit-list, F/A-18 Superhornet by Digital Integration. I wonder how many people bought this for the same reasons I did, based on nostalgic memories of the mighty Tornado and hoping that this might be as good. Not a chance! Tornado was a seminal game that extended the flight simulation game into the realm of strategy. Superhornet, in my opinion, was just another half-finished game that was foisted on the public because the developer/publisher had run out of time, money, patience, enthusiasm, or all four.
Like many, I read the pre-launch reviews of F/A-18 Superhornet with interest. These described a campaign structure that sounded as if it was both dynamic and subject to a great deal of control by the player. Wonderful! To my disappointment when the game was finally published, it lacked any form of campaign. This was clearly a last-minute decision, as the manual still refers to “Campaign” and “Command” options, which are not actually present in the finished game. The manual is also riddled with typos and inaccuracies; a sure sign of rushed publication. Potential buyers, however, were assured that the dynamic campaign and other theatres of operation would be available later as add-ons for the game. Hmm, okay, well, it’s not ideal, but just so long as these things would be around later, I didn’t mind.
I bought the game on the basis that I could learn to fly the aircraft at first, and then upgrade it later to the standard of a latter day Tornado. Bad luck for me, and for everybody else who bought the game on these grounds, because DI quietly changed their minds about the add-ons. DI would presumably cite poor sales as the basis for this decision. But poor sales are hardly surprising given that the original game lacked any sort of campaign. Few gamers are willing to pay for a game that comprises little more than a collection of single missions and some training missions.
I was particularly irritated to find the words “Voted best flight sim of E3 by COMBATSIM” emblazoned across the box for Superhornet. This is true, but Leonard "Viking1" Hjalmarson was told at E3 that the game would include a full campaign, and it was based on this nugget of info that he cast his vote for Superhornet. It is less than honest to use this recommendation when one of the major features this award was based on has been removed from the game.
Superhornet combat screen. See that gap in the middle?
To demostrate this point, take a look at the image above, in the Superhornet combat screen. See that gap in the middle? The manual says that there should be buttons marked “Command” and “Campaign” in there. What happened to them? Ask DI.
Here we have a familiar scenario: Developer rushes out half-finished game; Joe Public understandably declines to pay full price for half a game; Developer loses interest in supporting the game on the grounds of poor sales; All parties are left feeling aggrieved and let down.
