Air Conflicts: Pacific Carriers Is Watery, Grave

By Adam Smith on April 26th, 2012 at 2:00 pm.

What is a chock anyway?

Aircraft carriers are odd and brilliant. I rarely think about them but the trailer for Air Conflicts: Pacific Carriers just sent me into a tailspin of questioning. Who first had the idea to build mobile artificial islands that are, as I understand it, motels for murderous planes? Check in, fuel up, admire the cheesecake nose art on the 22nd’s B-24s, then back to the business of battle. The Pacific was strewn with carriers, as well as the ruined parts of men and machines, and Air Conflicts has plotted a course to the heart of it. Trailer below.

The previous Air Conflicts game entertained me, although in a fashion so forgettable that I didn’t recall playing it until seeing the name jolted my memory. To be honest, that probably says as much about my memory as it does about the game. If it happened in the nineties it’s imprinted for good, but anything after that is hazy at best, which includes everything I’ve forgotten that I learned at university and minor details such as where I’ve left my keys and which house I actually live in.

If the missions in Pacific Carriers are, or at least feel, a little less scripted then I could be tempted back into the cockpit. The simplistic handling is about as close to flying a metal tube as is suitable for a man of my limited capacities. Give me too many buttons to press and I’ll only mix them up and end up bombing US carriers while trying to perform a fly by complete with a cheeky wink and a wave to the engineers on deck.

Inclusion of a carrier command mode raises hope that there may be a stronger campaign offering, with elements of strategy to make the arcade-styled engagements rather more engaging. Maybe this will mean more to the WWII devotees among the readership:

Slip into the role of Admiral Lucas Stark or Hideaki Hashimoto and become the captain of an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean in WW2.

No release date beyond Q3 2012.

, , , .

22 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Sp4rkR4t says:

    “about as close to flying a pain as is suitable”

    flying pain?

    Also the Starks get everywhere. How is Lucas related to Ned or Tony?

  2. Shadowcat says:

    A: They go under the wheels to prevent the plane from moving prematurely.

    • Adam Smith says:

      That makes much more sense than the image in my head, which was of a sort of celebratory confetti that pilots hurled out of the cockpit as they prepared for another rousing mission.

    • Moni says:

      To be precise: They’re triangular blocks of chocolate, like Toblerone. Hence the name “ch-ock”.

  3. wodin says:

    Please tell me the windows where transparent and not blocks of colour?

    A major gripe of mine that. I hate it when you cant;t see the pilots in games. I find space combat games the worse for that. A minor niggle but winds me up.

    Edit: Just read the article again and I don’t want to slip into any Rear Admirals role.

    Sorry abit Carry On that wasn’t it.

  4. Julhelm says:

    Do they really have to style the air combat to look that Pearl Harbor abortion of a movie?

    • westyfield says:

      Ugh, you had to remind me of that film.

    • thegooseking says:

      To be fair, what was bad about Pearl Harbor wasn’t how it looked.

      • Julhelm says:

        Yes it was. WW2 fighters don’t behave like RC planes. You’d think anyone developing a flight game would at least try to get the flight part right. But they don’t. Apparently the average user in 2012 is too retarded to understand concepts like physics so let’s just make the planes fly like RC planes. I find it sadly hilarious how none of these studios who evidently have tons of money to burn on graphics cannot code a dogfight AI that is anywhere near the one in Strike Fighters.

        • StormTec says:

          Or maybe they’re just not making that hardcore flight-sim set in the Pacific theatre of WWII that you wish this was? That’s kind of unfortunate. For you.

          • Julhelm says:

            False dilemma. It doesn’t have to be “hardcore sim” like Il-2. It just has to be not totally disconnected from reality in order to be cinematic. All these arcade flight games could as easily be about spaceships since there is never anything even approaching flight physics in them.

  5. jackflash says:

    Looks way too consoley. Shame there are no good simulations in the pacific theatre these days.

  6. seventhrib says:

    Is it me or is Adam the best headline writer here? Top notch wordplay there.

  7. Skeletor9000 says:

    Why would anyone play this when they could be playing Birds of Steel?

    • Simas says:

      As far as I know BoS is for consoles only. Still, this one looks too silly and arcadish for my taste. I am more of IL-2 fan.

      • Skeletor9000 says:

        I assumed this was for consoles as well; the idea that something like this could succeed on the PC where there are so many decent flight sims is ludicrous.

  8. Pugiron says:

    The ship supossed to be the Enterprise in the fake newspaper has a Port-side island, meaning it is either the Akagi or the Hiryu, Japanese carriers and the only two carriers in history with that arrangement.

  9. Fumarole says:

    They got the US flag wrong at 1:08.

  10. Arglebargle says:

    “… admire the cheesecake nose art on the 22nd’s B-24s ….” — I loved this…my father flew B-24s in the South Pacific, the 307th Bombardment Group, and yes, his plane had cheesecake nose art.