Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of Flight Review

By Chris Tomkins Published 25 September, 2003

Feel like getting high?

Version tested: PC

I came to review Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight from the standpoint of a casual gamer, and without having played a game in the series since Flight Simulator 2000. Despite that, after skipping through the introductory videos as if they were a passenger's emergency information card, I found that I immediately knew the key sequences to release my brakes, drop the flaps and apply some throttle, and none of the other controls had changed a great deal either. It wasn't until about half an hour of déjà vu that I realised what a great metaphor for the whole Flight Simulator 2004 experience that would be. There are several good improvements over previous versions, but to the eyes of the casual gamer at least, this is an iterative improvement. Maybe the subtitle should have been A Decade of Flight Simulators?

Flight risk

'Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of Flight' Screenshot 1

Probably the single biggest overhaul has been to the visuals - both the presentation of the introductory menus and videos, and to a slightly lesser extent the in-game graphics. Although the video clips teaching the would-be pilot the basics are dreadfully over-enthusiastic and the presenters make you long for the good old days of dry, factual 500 page manuals, they are consistently well produced, succinct and reasonably informative.

The in game graphics are more muddled - simulator or not, gamers in 2003 can rightfully expect a bit of Rayban Aviator style eye candy, especially in a game with no real objectives beyond enjoying the feeling of flight and the beauty of the surroundings. In some ways, it's delivered - watching the sunrise over a beautifully mirrored sea, or looking at fluffy clouds, or rain running over the cockpit window, it's hard not to be impressed. But there's no longer any excuse for a game engine that the player can "trick" by turning around suddenly, leaving the computer struggling to draw things quickly enough.

The real subtitle of this game is A Century of Flight, and it does give a clue that even the developers realise the series needs a new selling point. The idea here is letting the gamer recreate historic flights spanning the last 100 years, and for the most part it works well. If you have a little imagination, it's hard not to wonder at the fantastic feats of bravery and stupidity that have occurred since 1903. To help your imagination along there are short essays describing the historical flights being recreated, but in some cases the flight itself requires a little too much imagination. I know this is a serious simulation and not an arcade game, but couldn't we have had some cheering crowds or some kind of other reward when you reach your destination?

Flying too close to the sun

'Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of Flight' Screenshot 2

In fact, the player is given an overriding impression that Flight Simulator is unashamedly a simulator first and foremost and therefore details incidental to the actual flying experience are brushed over. For example, there is really no excuse when you perform a gut wrenching, dramatic, and of course deliberate inverted nose dive into the ground at 120 knots - only to be greeted with a naff crunching noise, a text message, and a plane that inexplicably stays in one piece.

The flying lessons in this version, on the other hand, are very well implemented. They are filled with well-scripted instructions that relate closely to the situation, and as a result it feels like you're really interacting with an instructor. It would have been better if the lessons didn't sometimes end immediately when you drift too far from your course though, as when do you learn better than when you're correcting epic mistakes?

There are a lot of positive points to be made here. The sheer scale of the project is amazing, with apparently faithful replication of countless different aircraft, great weather, recognisable locations all over the world, and some really well implemented ideas like drawing real-time weather information from the Internet. It all feels incredibly like real life, at least, to non-pilots like me. But then, washing dishes feels a lot like real life as well, so it really depends what you're after. It's definitely a great experience for an enthusiast - a game by propellerheads, for propellerheads.

Plane

'Flight Simulator 2004: A Century Of Flight' Screenshot 3

In all honesty you probably know without any help whether this sounds like the kind of game that will appeal to you or not. If you like the sound of flying around for half an hour on the odd occasion, I would only suggest buying this game if you've got money burning a hole in your pocket. (Smoking on a plane? For shame!) Or, if you enjoy digging deeply in to a game there's no contesting that there is a great deal of depth on offer here. Even if you've got the hang on flying a Cessna, there are enough controls in a 747 to keep even the world's finest obsessive busy for days. It's also almost infinitely expandable, so if you do feel like you've mastered everything, there are plenty of add-on packs available to experiment with. I played around with Just Flight's B-17 "Memphis Belle" expansion. Strangely I couldn't seem to get very far even without enemy fighters. Must be some kind of technical fault.

For the most part, Flight Simulator 2004 has much the same strengths and weaknesses as all of the previous games in the series did. If you own an older version and you find you've finally got a PC it runs smoothly on, perhaps it's time to move to Microsoft's latest and greatest?

So - here's a rating for the casual gamer. Add one point for every air show you've ever attended.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Chris.

About Chris Tomkins

Read more articles from Chris by visiting the Chris Tomkins archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (53) Latest comment 8 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Spin_Dr_Wolf #1 9 years ago

    Ha ha First !

    /looks at article

    Flight simulator !?!? I don't wear slippers and smoke a pipe you know.
    Lame.

  • Tiitiz #2 9 years ago

    406 out of 10 for me then ;)

  • Blerk #3 9 years ago

    What? What's this? No squad-based tactical shooter today? Hurrah!

    Oh... wait. It's a boring old flight sim instead. Come back, desert combats! All is forgiven! :-)

  • Errol #4 9 years ago

    450MHz processor
    128MB RAM
    8MB DirectX 7-compatible video card
    1.8GB hard disk space

    Yeah, right ! lol

  • TipTop #5 9 years ago

    Me wonders about EG's review policy. First 'The Great Escape' reviewed by somebody who has never watched TV at Christmas and now a Flight Simulator reviewed by a casual gamer.

    Shafting the game with a six is clearly missing the point of it (and yes I appeciate the throw away line about air shows). For what it is, for what it does, and for who it is aimed at, this is the definative package to date. I hate flight sims but even I recognise a good example of its genre. I suppose it doesn't have cars and desert fatigues so it doesn't deserve our energy ....

  • FWB #6 9 years ago

    Flying is cool, but I fail to see the except of doing it virtually. Taking the money you'd spend on your PC to play this, plus the amounts you've spent on sims throughout your life and get a pilot's license. Its pretty cheap in the US. I'm hoping to do it when I get the time and cash.

  • Blerk #7 9 years ago

    Here's an argument, then:
    This isn't even really a game, is it? It's a bit like a train set - something to fiddle about with rather than something to 'beat'. In that light you could probably argue that it's pointless to even try to score it - you'll only get out of it what you put into it.

  • ChrisOTR #8 9 years ago

    TipTop - I enjoyed the game - it's been said many times that a single "out of ten score" can't please everyone as everyone's taste is different. Besides, personally I'm not in the school of thought that gives every game somwhere between 8.00 and 10.00 to 2 decimal places - 6 is a perfectly reasonable score.

  • ChrisOTR #9 9 years ago

    Blerk - yep it's about the experience more than anything - as I tried to get across in the review it IS very atmospheric - the stormy weather effects are very nice.

  • TipTop #10 9 years ago

    Thinking about it (and it pains me to say it) but Blerk is probably right. To categorise Flight Sims as games is probably wrong.

    As for FWB flying costs £120 a lesson at Wycombe. You need 45 hours to get your license. I can see the appeal of a flight sim! Plus you'll be able to have a killer rig ready for Doom 3.

    I agree with the fact that simple scoring is difficult, it's just I wanted to raise a concept of genre scoring. Maybe it's a 6 for the non existant average gamer but an 8 for the flight sim genre. In fact that could work all over ... :)

    Wasn't having a dig at the review (this time) just the scoring side of things. The fact it's got stormy weather effects on the other hand ...
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/03 @ 11:28

  • Blerk #11 9 years ago

    Thinking about it (and it pains me to say it) but Blerk is probably right.

    Bwah-ha-ha! They all turn to the dark side eventually! You know I'm always(*) right! Yes! ;-)







    * Mostly

  • Harry  #12 9 years ago

    Pretty dreadful review. What next? Games review from someone who doesn't like games? While there have been many dramatic changes to the graphics engine since FS2002, the bulk of the changes come in the form of the Air Traffic Control, GPS and approach procedures. These are massive detailed changes that really affect the software and the way it is used. There's also the brand new weather engine with 3D clouds and moving weather fronts. But because the plane doesn't explode in a glorious ball of orange flame when the review attempts insane maneuvres it gets a 6. Flight Simulator should be reviewed on whether it's a good simulator compared to its peers, just as FIFA should be reviewed compared to other football games. Games shouldn't be marked down just because the reviewer doesn't understand the subject matter and the genre. Would you give Pro Evolution Soccer a low score if you couldn't understand that pesky Offside Rule?

  • lost_soul #13 9 years ago

    I have to agree with Harry here, reviewing Flight Sim from the perspective of a casual gamer is a little like reviewing 3Dstudio MAX 5 from the perspective of someone who creates the odd Unreal Tournament map using UnrealEd.

    Oh yeah, does it have motorbikes???
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/03 @ 12:01

  • ChrisOTR #14 9 years ago

    But surely if you want to read a specialist review of FS2004 you would do it at a Flight Sim specific specialist site? This is a games review site, and I reviewed it as a gamer. Oh well, can't please everyone all the time.

  • Blerk #15 9 years ago

    I liked the review, Chris! :-)

  • Harry  #16 9 years ago

    ChrisOTR wrote: "But surely if you want to read a specialist review of FS2004 you would do it at a Flight Sim specific specialist site? This is a games review site, and I reviewed it as a gamer. Oh well, can't please everyone all the time."

    But surely that's ghettoising games. you could say that perhaps they should leave the racing game reviews to sites like BHMotorsports or granturismo.com - or the football game reviews to other specialist sites. I would have thought on an editorial team there would be someone who liked every genre. I've reviewed FS as a gamer too - but a gamer that like sims along with footy games, racing games, RPGs etc.

    Chris it was a well written review. And I dont mean to criticise you. If Flight Sims aren't your bag that's fine. All i'm saying is it would have been better if someone who knew the genre wrote the review - so that the important features of the sim were discussed. I'd be in the same situation writing about Japanese RPGs - havn't been interested in playing one since FFVII.
    Edited by 2 at 25/09/03 @ 12:16

  • TipTop #17 9 years ago

    Fair enough Chris. As a gamer though you have to respect the source material. Im a gamer, I dont like Japanese RPGs. Does that make them bad entertainment? I understand that Dark Chronicle deserves a 9 or 10, I personally think its worth 10p, but it still makes it a good game for its genre and the score is valid.

    As for the mythical gamer comment; as most gamers seem to prefer the Italian Job (see charts) then will you score games with this target in mind. If not then you have other criteria ....

    As for brown nose Blerk, he's just fishing for a copy of Chrome :)

  • CyberClaw #18 9 years ago

    I think the review scores serve one purpose only. To show you how much you should want that game. And this is a 5-6 game no doubt. It will appeal to a very short market, it certainly is good, but most of the people won't like this game (simulator) at all. People who indeed like it, will already buy it no matter what score, but everyone else will just pass by. And I think that's the purpose of the score. It shows how much a casual gamer would want the game. Much like that Capcom fishing game for the XBox got a 3, because it was just too realistic, translating to boring for a casual gamer. But of course, to a real fisherman, that's the next evolutional step for Pro Bass Fishing '99 or something.

  • FWB #19 9 years ago

    As for FWB flying costs £120 a lesson at Wycombe.

    That's why I said to do it in the the US. You can get your license for a few grand.

  • TipTop #20 9 years ago

    Im not moving to the US to save £2,000 on flying lessons :)

    Ok here's the rub Cyberclaw. When FS 2004 came out in August (Im being good and not mentioning timeliness - dammit done it again) it went to number 1 in the PC charts. It outshone WC3 - Frozen Throne amongst others. So it isn't as narrow as it would appear. I don't like the idea of reviewing games purely as to their desirability, otherwise game sites such as EG will start marking up the Italian Jobs of the world, and start marking down the Dark Chronicles. The issue here is that we all like the EG reviews and reviewers but in this case, some of us (Blerk not included) dont agree with the methodology. Desirability is an issue, but so is how the game will play with its target audience and the quality of programming etc.

  • TipTop #21 9 years ago

    ... and for crying out loud, who is this casual gamer? He must be a tard. Therefore we should review games for Tards?

  • CyberClaw #22 9 years ago

    Uhm... good point. Didn't know FS did that well. Still, I've played a recent FS, and to me, it sounds like the FIFAs. Personally, I think they are allright. But I'd give them a low score, not because they weren't good (they are good) but because they seem to be a small patch/upgrade compared to the last FIFA game. Same with FS IMO. Does it really improve that much?

  • Blerk #23 9 years ago

    As for brown nose Blerk, he's just fishing for a copy of Chrome :)

    I'll need a PC to play it on as well. Thanks.

  • Harry  #24 9 years ago

    CyberClaw wrote: "Does it really improve that much?"
    /nerd mode on
    Yes there has been a serious amount of change in the latest version. The way the pilot interacts with the ground - able to request different approaches, cruising altitudes etc - makes a big change to navigation, one of the central aspects of the flight sim experience. The dynamic weather interacts more closely with the ATC so pilots have to file Instrument flight plans if the weather closes in. There's a new detailed GPS system that enables players to request complex approach procedures. I guess to someone who isn't into flight sims these seem minor things - but believe me it's a quantum leap in the series. Control and navigation around airports is central to the sim and the new complex systems have revolutionized the FS series. Graphically the game has had some tweaking - at a low level to benefit General Aviation pilots with new road, bridge and railway graphics - rivers and roads now cut into the scenery. Telegraph polls and signs also aid navigation. The weather system is all new too, which isn't about eye candy - it's about flight conditions for the pilot.
    /nerd mode off.

  • FWB #25 9 years ago

    Im not moving to the US to save £2,000 on flying lessons :)

    Three syllables: hol-i-day. :)

  • TipTop #26 9 years ago

    If you take your flying lessons in the US, FWB reckons you could save at least £3,000 therfore you can reinvest in a killer PC...

  • Angrydarren #27 9 years ago

    Christ, I think that your average gamer is clued up enough to know whether they like flight sims or not. The idea of marking a game lower because it has a niche appeal is nonsense - essentially you're saying that you have a duty to protect casual gamers from hard core niche titles because otherwise - *GASP* - they might accidentally buy a game just because it has a good score!!!!!
    I know that I don't like rhythm action games, so whether it scores 1/10 or 10/10 will make no difference to me whether I buy it. The logical conclusion of the argument that ChrisOTR presents is to rate games not on their technical, aesthetic or gameplay merits but whether it has a mass appeal. Therefore Enter The Matrix should get 10/10 whereas Ikaruga, ICO and their ilk should get 1/10 because they won't sell.
    Is this a gaming site or Pop Idol?

  • FWB #28 9 years ago

    That figure is slowly creeping up, Tip-Top. I'm watching you, because next you'll be quoting it as £35k. :)

    This all assumes Blerk wants to learn how to fly, anyway.

  • CyberClaw #29 9 years ago

    No Harry you seem to be missing the point. Can I make a lowflight by the local street corner, picking up a ho' of my choice, and flying to the nearest unpopulated bushes, and doing the horizontal thingy with charming "hi-ho-hi" sounds and the plane rocking left and right. That would be improvement.

  • TipTop #30 9 years ago

    ... of course he does. If not he won't have enough money saved for his PC and his brand new free copy of Chrome :)

  • TipTop #31 9 years ago

    Me thinks CyberCLAW wants to buy Grand Theft Aviation : Heathrow. I also feel thay he may need the lessons more than Blerk as flying that close to bushs is difficult.
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/03 @ 13:13

  • CyberClaw #32 9 years ago

    Ah, but anyone able to fly those wingless planes in GTA3 is garanteed to be able to fly anything, from a Boing 747 to a dinner table.

  • FWB #33 9 years ago

    Well there we have it. Want a brand new PC? Go and get your pilot's license in the US, regardless as to whether you want one or not. :)

    I like the GTA: Heathorw idea. And if you're looking for planes to steal in real-life, then Africa might be the place for you.

  • Slacker #34 9 years ago

    Arg. Bloody review score debates.

    Shafting the game with a six is clearly missing the point of it (and yes I appeciate the throw away line about air shows). For what it is, for what it does, and for who it is aimed at, this is the definative package to date. I hate flight sims but even I recognise a good example of its genre. I suppose it doesn't have cars and desert fatigues so it doesn't deserve our energy ....

    The review does actually echo this sentiment, such as here:

    It's definitely a great experience for an enthusiast - a game by propellerheads, for propellerheads.

    Just read the damn review and dont just look at the review score. Review scores are a small part of the whole review.

    Dammit! I've just entered the review score debate which I hate so much!

    Look what you have made me do! Tsk.

  • TipTop #35 9 years ago

    Slacker, your post is a good 7 out of ten.

  • lost_soul #36 9 years ago

    Finalshok: I think you might have missed the point of MS FlightSim slightly.

  • FWB #37 9 years ago

    some mission like objectives

    Eh? Say again.

  • Harry  #38 9 years ago

    "I think that MSTS2 will not have derailment animation (even tho 1 has), because of stupid US terrorism stuff, this may be related. "

    You can enable aircraft damage if you want. A huge amount of FlightSim can be tinkered with by altering the config files in a text editor. In an aircraft file altering ShowAircraftDamage=0 to =1 (i think that's what it's called) adds the aircraft damage. Different damage effects can be created and added in the effects files - you can download this sort of stuff from flight sim sites. A menu in the sim itself lets you decide whether the sim should detect a crash as acrash or just let you continue on your way. Non simmers might be surprised to discover that Flight Sim is one of the most modded pieces of software available. Tens of new aircraft appear every day along with utilities, graphics, scenery files etc.

  • lost_soul #39 9 years ago

    Yeah, the flight sim mod scene is very inpressive, there's shed loads of stuff on flightsim.com

  • Pirotic #40 9 years ago

    bit of a pointless review - you didnt even mention the difference between the standard 29.99 and the 39.99 Pro version.

    Also you should really amend the system requirements, if you've tested the game then you should write them yourself and not copy them off the box, the last flight sim didnt even run well with thoose specs.

  • lost_soul #41 9 years ago

    There is no pro or standard version for FS2K4, just one version costing £49.99.

  • Pirotic #42 9 years ago

    Really? - oops didnt know - but what are microsoft thinking? I purchased the last version for 29.99 in order to give it a try and see if flight sims are "my thing", releasing only a 49.99 version is going to put-off any casual gamer wanting to try in future.
    Edited by 2 at 25/09/03 @ 17:36

  • pjmaybe #43 9 years ago

    Hmmm, a buddy of mine's training to be a pilot and he's just bought this and a yoke and pedals...

    Does it warrant it though?

    And those system requirements. Laughable! Fkin Crimson Skies wouldn't run on a rig like that, let alone this 50 quid monster!

    Peej

  • FWB #44 9 years ago

    pj, I know a few pilots and all of them said that flight sim is harder than flying any plane in real life. The reason being that you cant see around yourself. Apparently its a true sim in that if you can fly a plane in it, you can fly it in reality.

    Then again, I never found it hard to fly. The real bitch is knowing where you're allowed to fly, i.e. radio and map operation.
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/03 @ 17:44

  • lost_soul #45 9 years ago

    The thing I really like about FS2K4 is the ability to go virtual sight seeing with it. There's a high res mesh you can download for New Zealand, it's great to be able to fly over the country and recognise the areas I've been hiking in.

  • dynarama #46 9 years ago

    I bought the photo-real scenary for the whole of the UK - absolutely amazing. You can, quite literally, see your house.

    6 out of 10 - so it's only as good as Starsky and Hutch eh?

    Ho hum, vive le difference...

  • striker #47 9 years ago

    I understand that having a moderator delete all the tards posts like ^this one would be impossile, but aren't there any tard filters commercially avaiable?
    Edited by 2 at 26/09/03 @ 22:59

  • Harry  #48 9 years ago

    What's so Tardish about talking about the photo scenery?

    I've got it too. It does feel odd being able to see one's house in a game. I've actually used it to help me plan trips out to the countryside with the girlfriend, as I can find somewhere easier if I have an idea what it looks like. Found a lovely place in Derbyshire called DoveDale using this.

  • fastica #49 9 years ago

    I love this site and the reviews, but I think it was a poor review by a casual gamer and doesn´t mention important upgrades like the functional virtual cockpits. I understand that a Flight Simulator could be boring for a casual gamer but this simulator was done mostly to flight enthusiasts who don´t want to see a plane broken in pieces. Anyway I agree about the 500 page manuals, I miss them!!
    Edited by 1 at 26/09/03 @ 19:47

  • dynarama #50 9 years ago

    \o/ Pedro called me a Tard \o/

  • striker #51 9 years ago

    What's so Tardish about talking about the photo scenery?
    It's not the scenery, it's the reference to the score....


    \o/ Pedro called me a Tard \o/
    hooray...
    Edited by 1 at 27/09/03 @ 12:05

  • ThwartedEfforts #52 8 years ago

    A huge, Independence Day mothership size feature was missed: IP multiplayer. Stooging around the sky over not-badly rendered cities and holding stack over Washington with 32 other people doesn't sound like six out of ten, flight freak or not. I can almost see the attraction in it.

    So hello, multiplayer?

  • Lerxster #53 8 years ago

    Trackir is a must with any flight sim http://www.trackir.com/