Lock On: Modern Air Combat

 PC
  • Publisher: Ubisoft
  • Release Date: Jul 26, 2005
User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 553 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 383 out of 553
  2. Mixed: 72 out of 553
  3. Negative: 98 out of 553
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Werner
    Nov 23, 2003
    3
    Gets only three points from me, because the full version doesn't work with Windows ME. Major issue and a strange thing because the demo worked. There is no key overview card in the package, most of the manual is only available als Acrobat PDF. Some graphic bugs, complicated and confusing menus and mission planer, poor performance especially when flying over city, crashes somethimes Gets only three points from me, because the full version doesn't work with Windows ME. Major issue and a strange thing because the demo worked. There is no key overview card in the package, most of the manual is only available als Acrobat PDF. Some graphic bugs, complicated and confusing menus and mission planer, poor performance especially when flying over city, crashes somethimes with bluescreen. Looks overall very unfinished. X-MAS is coming. SO RUSH RUSH Hope the fix the major issues soon, I don't want another "Strike Fighters-Project 1" in my shelf! But even then LOMAC will be far from being perfect!… Expand
  2. NoclueNeeded
    Jan 16, 2004
    2
    The first patch has improved many things, but the starting point was so low that it?s moot point at this point in time. It appears several more patches are going to be needed to bring this GAME up to playable levels for the majority of users, not just those on the fanboy sites. If you have a blind obedience mindset, like to play follow the fool, and only want to post rave reviews and The first patch has improved many things, but the starting point was so low that it?s moot point at this point in time. It appears several more patches are going to be needed to bring this GAME up to playable levels for the majority of users, not just those on the fanboy sites. If you have a blind obedience mindset, like to play follow the fool, and only want to post rave reviews and comments, warranted or not, about the game, rush out and buy it. Or, you can use common sense and wait until things are fixed before buying a game that contains un-optimized code making unplayable on anything less than a machine made for the gods. Good Luck!… Expand
  3. KORN_WWTE
    Dec 16, 2003
    3
    The game is uncomplete, to much emphasis on having to create interesting missions yourself. Default missions are plain and short, starting in the air and not on the ramp, no need to learn engine start sequences. Campaigns are dull und unispiring. Any action on screen or weather other than clear starts to slow the FPS down until unplayable. This game needs a patch before I reconsider The game is uncomplete, to much emphasis on having to create interesting missions yourself. Default missions are plain and short, starting in the air and not on the ramp, no need to learn engine start sequences. Campaigns are dull und unispiring. Any action on screen or weather other than clear starts to slow the FPS down until unplayable. This game needs a patch before I reconsider giving it another go.… Expand
  4. TomD
    Dec 16, 2003
    2
    Unfriendly user interface, taxing mission editor, vague missions, bugs bugs and more bugs. The game was rushed out, if your not into tweaking and tweaking then leave this on the shelf until the developers finish it of properly.
  5. PhillipM.
    Dec 16, 2003
    3
    Weak documentation, buggy, rushed out earily to beat Falcon4 Gold OIR in my opinion. Will be a great sim when fixed.
  6. frag_tallnmbao
    Dec 16, 2003
    0
    They 've to give us money cause we need CRY2 system to run this missed game, i said "game" ok? :) that is.
  7. TorL.
    Dec 17, 2003
    2
    Poorly written graphics engine, will not perform on current hardware. Minimum specs (on the box) is a joke / marketing ploy. I returned the game for a refund.
  8. CarlN.
    Dec 17, 2003
    3
    It's a bit shite.
  9. Hocking
    Dec 17, 2003
    4
    In it's current state, the F15 can be considered still in development, and therefore not flyable at this time. The radar has a few bugs, but more importantly, the missiles are under-modeled by about 10 times. They are simply not effective at all, and extremely unreallistic upon the time of release. They need a complete makeover to bring them up to the level that can be considered In it's current state, the F15 can be considered still in development, and therefore not flyable at this time. The radar has a few bugs, but more importantly, the missiles are under-modeled by about 10 times. They are simply not effective at all, and extremely unreallistic upon the time of release. They need a complete makeover to bring them up to the level that can be considered realistic. The Aim120 has a range of less than 5 miles, the Aim 7 is the most accurate of the group, and the Aim 9 has difficulty tracking down a target at less than 2 miles (I once fired three Aim 9's at a MIG about 2 miles in front of me while I was on his six and all three missiles missed). Can't beleive that this passed the beta testers. The game can become good, but upon release, it is about 70% complete.… Expand
  10. DavidDuce
    Dec 17, 2003
    3
    Buyer BEWARE and not so fast my 9/10 rating friends. This game may be a 9/10 in a few years, but right now it?s just another little light on the horizon. Many things are wrong with this game that will need heavy patching to fix.

    1. System requirements, high and low end: Who came up with them? They are way off and badly misleading to the consumer. Looks like a badly programmed    Buyer BEWARE and not so fast my 9/10 rating friends. This game may be a 9/10 in a few years, but right now it?s just another little light on the horizon. Many things are wrong with this game that will need heavy patching to fix.

    1. System requirements, high and low end:
    Who came up with them? They are way off and badly misleading to the
    consumer. Looks like a badly programmed graphics engine. Heavy optimizations are need to allow the average consumer to play this thing.

    2. Gamplay:
    Too scripted, boring, and clean. Limited missions for those that want to jump in and have fun. Seems to an update Flanker, another boring game.

    3. Encyclopedic bug list:
    Way too may to have let this product hit the market, Why? Where was QA? Does the company expect buyers to be beta testers? If so, we deserve a rebate!
    4. Documentation:
    No keycard shipped, but you can download one. How about the people without the means to see that chance?
    Disgustingly useless PDF manual. When you try to print it, it?s unreadable. But wait! You can purchase anadditional manual for $40 plus shipping. What a deal, they sell you a game without the documentation to properly play it, but will gladly sell you one. What a scam.

    People, educate yourself before buying this game, in its current state, it can?t be called a SIMULATION. To compare it to previous SIMULATORS is a slap in the face to them. Take the advice of several other reviews here and elsewhere, wait at least a year before buying it, you?ll save yourself a lot of wasted time and by then, hopefully, the beta testing period will be over.
    … Expand
  11. ErikF.
    Dec 17, 2003
    3
    This game has problems, many problems. The system required to play this game is not yet available, but people say to upgrade this and upgrade that. What a bunch of bull! If the game is suppose to play satisfactorily on mid range systems, why do they say to upgrade? To cover up a poorly programmed game, that?s why. Those that say they have bought this and that are only fooling themselves This game has problems, many problems. The system required to play this game is not yet available, but people say to upgrade this and upgrade that. What a bunch of bull! If the game is suppose to play satisfactorily on mid range systems, why do they say to upgrade? To cover up a poorly programmed game, that?s why. Those that say they have bought this and that are only fooling themselves and buying into the hype, don?t fall into the trap they have! How it can be rated over a 6 at this point in time is beyond me. There are bugs everywhere, the game runs slow, setup is horrendous, and no one knows how many patches it will need to bring it up to an acceptable level. As far as looking good, that?s the best thing that people can say about it. See it in action before you buy it. If the store won?t load it up for you, walk away from it until summer. It will need longer, but at least you?ll get it at cheaper price. $40 is way too much for a game that was slapped together with proper Quality Assurance procedures in place.… Expand
  12. FaelF.
    Dec 17, 2003
    4
    Ok, First I have to be honest about my experience with fighter sims. Im not an enthusiast who logs 30 flight hours per week. In fact, the last flight sim I played religiously was US Navy Fighters (loved that game). But I am a hardcore gamer that tries to keep up with the hardware upgrades (as much as my wallet allows). So with that my review. Dissapointment...plain and simple. Im not Ok, First I have to be honest about my experience with fighter sims. Im not an enthusiast who logs 30 flight hours per week. In fact, the last flight sim I played religiously was US Navy Fighters (loved that game). But I am a hardcore gamer that tries to keep up with the hardware upgrades (as much as my wallet allows). So with that my review. Dissapointment...plain and simple. Im not talking about the graphics and in-game realism. Im talking about my expectation as a consumer...ipso facto...a money spending one. The amount of support available, the state in which my product was purchased (incomplete), ease of use (this game is more dialed into experienced flight simmers so it has a steep learning curve), and the famous bug issues most lo-mac forums are rife with. Let me say that most of those bugs are fixable if you tone down the settings and take the time to bug hunt your problems. But for ease of use and consumer satisfaction....lo-mac is stuck with a generous 4. Its just not "out of the box" satisfaction.… Expand
  13. GrantM.
    Dec 17, 2003
    3
    The reason for the low score is that the game is not finished yet by a long shot. Its like a beautifull woman that never stops moaning. An irritation at this stage. The game should still be on the development desk sorting out the similar problems that were in the demo. No doubt this game has potential to be a fantastic flight sim and a 9/10 rating at the end of the day. The minimum specs The reason for the low score is that the game is not finished yet by a long shot. Its like a beautifull woman that never stops moaning. An irritation at this stage. The game should still be on the development desk sorting out the similar problems that were in the demo. No doubt this game has potential to be a fantastic flight sim and a 9/10 rating at the end of the day. The minimum specs on the box are a total thumb suck. If you dont have the biggest, meanest pc with an 'UBER' GPU forget about getting this game. Patches will no doubt sort out a lot of the problems, but this is a clear case of getting releasing the game before Christmas just to reap in the sales when they new all to well the game was still in a beta stage. It does have fanatastic potential though.… Expand
  14. GunterH.
    Dec 18, 2003
    4
    So-so game with good graphics. Needs work.
  15. M.
    Dec 18, 2003
    0
    Great ideas behind the game BUT realisation is poor for now. Very bad. Lots of bugs of important functions, killing the fun to use the game - very, very sadly...
  16. NikkiS.
    Dec 18, 2003
    2
    Compared to Falcon 4.0, this is just another game. The avionics are arcade-like and a generation behind the king. To compare this game in its current state to Falcon 4.0 only hurts LOMAC! Its graphics are the best thing going for it and if it weren?t for that, who knows where it would stand. It appears plenty of work needs to be done to get this lump of code in working order. It actually Compared to Falcon 4.0, this is just another game. The avionics are arcade-like and a generation behind the king. To compare this game in its current state to Falcon 4.0 only hurts LOMAC! Its graphics are the best thing going for it and if it weren?t for that, who knows where it would stand. It appears plenty of work needs to be done to get this lump of code in working order. It actually appears to be Flanker rewrapped with a few more planes ?thrown? in. The consumer was taken for granted on this one and it seems many fell for the trap and hype. Don?t be one of them. Wait until Falcon 4:OIR comes out before making your decision. There?s more to calling yourself a flight?SIM? than pretty graphics.… Expand
  17. SimonL.
    Dec 18, 2003
    3
    I really should have given a 0, but that's to harsh and would really like to give it a ten, but I hate to lie. This has got to be the most overrated game in a long time. People state to make sure your system is properly configured and optimzed, but even that doesn't cover up the sloppy coding that has brought out hundreds of bug reports. They say they are being sorted out, I really should have given a 0, but that's to harsh and would really like to give it a ten, but I hate to lie. This has got to be the most overrated game in a long time. People state to make sure your system is properly configured and optimzed, but even that doesn't cover up the sloppy coding that has brought out hundreds of bug reports. They say they are being sorted out, we'll see. My money goes elsewhere for now, your's should too. Read the 9 and 10 reviews with your fingers crossed, they are misleading and an attempt to ramp up the ratings,… Expand
  18. ShawnD.
    Dec 18, 2003
    3
    Really poor programming. This program was not ready to be released. It may improve in the future if they have competent developers on-hand.
  19. GaryP.
    Dec 18, 2003
    3
    Plenty of PROMISE, but in its current state, its still a dream.
  20. NolanS.
    Dec 19, 2003
    1
    Sickening framerates and useless support! This puppy is going back. Anybody want to follow me and be the next sucker to buy it?
  21. Warthog
    Dec 19, 2003
    2
    Assumptions by some, like Bruce and Steve, are what landed this game in the position its in. The programmers thought they needed to develop the game to novices and it shows and that?s why you see all the 9 and 10 ratings. The hardcore simmers are the ones that don?t like it due to its simplicity and piece-meal design. Some say it?s a follow up of the Flanker series. This game makes you Assumptions by some, like Bruce and Steve, are what landed this game in the position its in. The programmers thought they needed to develop the game to novices and it shows and that?s why you see all the 9 and 10 ratings. The hardcore simmers are the ones that don?t like it due to its simplicity and piece-meal design. Some say it?s a follow up of the Flanker series. This game makes you glad you didn?t play Flanker. This game will lead the real flight SIM genre in the wrong direction. There is no immersion factor in the game; the terrain is bland, it contains useless cockpits that add nothing to the feel of the game except in reducing frame rates, and the hundreds of bugs make trying to setup your system to play this things a pain in the royal behind. If you have time and money to waste, this is your game, but realize you?re not getting a true FLIGHT SIM, only an arcadish survey game with aircraft in it. … Expand
  22. RichT.
    Dec 19, 2003
    2
    This has got to be a joke. A company should not be allowed to release something in this state and people give it a 10? On what basis do they give it a 10? These people are mindless Lemmings that would by the Grand Canyon if you tried to sell it to them. Do believe a game in this condition is a 10. If you buy it now, you'll be sorry and if's a gift, you'll be laughed at! This has got to be a joke. A company should not be allowed to release something in this state and people give it a 10? On what basis do they give it a 10? These people are mindless Lemmings that would by the Grand Canyon if you tried to sell it to them. Do believe a game in this condition is a 10. If you buy it now, you'll be sorry and if's a gift, you'll be laughed at! Make an informed decision.… Expand
  23. Curtis
    Dec 19, 2003
    2
    If you're old enough to drink a few beers before playing, it's not too bad. When you try it sober, you start looking for another few beers. Who let this out the door? Where were the quality people? You can its Christmas time when trash like this comes out. Under the influence rating: 7 Sober rating: 2.
  24. ErikK.
    Apr 29, 2004
    4
    Played the demo, but I don't think I'm gonna invest my few euros on this sim. It's just another Flanker-sim with a couple of american jets thrown in. The western aircraft somehow have too much of a russian feel. Sure it looks good, but it still can't beat that certain modern air combat sim that has been released six years ago and has gotten better ever since.
  25. Loucetios
    Feb 21, 2013
    2
    Here's the problem with this game.

    Bugs.. so many bugs it's stupid. After you solve the bugs you find a mediocre game. First off, there's 2 american planes, the rest are Russian. No european jets nothing The missions are half baked generic garbage. Not much attention paid to detail at all This game purely comes down to the flying.. which it does exceptionally well to the    Here's the problem with this game.

    Bugs.. so many bugs it's stupid.

    After you solve the bugs you find a mediocre game.

    First off, there's 2 american planes, the rest are Russian. No european jets nothing
    The missions are half baked generic garbage. Not much attention paid to detail at all
    This game purely comes down to the flying.. which it does exceptionally well to the detriment of everything else.

    The radar is stupid. I have read manuals/forums to no end to try and get the upper hand on my enemy. The way I see it if you're flying the F15 you are LUCKY to get a radar reading of anything beyond 10 nm.. when something comes within 10 miles of you it's a scramble to get the heap of radar system back down to a 10m radius to lock on to the damn planes.. IF... IF you can find them again in time before a missile is launched.

    It's just not the reality of most situations.

    The missiles.. the missiles. They're stupidly effective.. and for some reason hard to see. On that note everything is IMPOSSIBLE to see in this game due to the lack of proper anti aliasing.

    Basically if you enjoy flying jets this is the game for you, but ONLY flying jets. Everything else plays out terribly, inaccurately, and above all frustrating.

    This is after playing both the F15 and A10 campaigns. The A10 campaign was fun, but was just shooting tanks non stop. The F15 campaign was an exercise in relying on my wingman to direct me to the bandits as you're essentially flying blind 90% of the time.

    The AWACS is useless too, every few seconds it bleats in your ear the enemies bearing instead of being any actual help. Wingman likewise RARELY throw out a 'Watch your six'

    Your early warning radar is the epitome of useless despite what the manual says. It is blank 90% of the time when it should be flashing to telling you where missiles are, telling you where everyone is.

    Nope, instead it just tells you where the enemy AWACS is half the time then proceeds to tell you when a missile is launched but gives you no idea of how long until it's right at your doorstep.

    As I said if you enjoy flying the aircraft, get it for that but do not expect anything other than that.    … Expand
  26. AnonymousMC
    Dec 16, 2003
    0
    This game isn't even half-way finished. If I buy a car, I expect it to be delivered with wheels so I can drive it. Its a reasonable assumption, isn't it? This game is unstable and unplayable even on high end machines running XP (which im using). A game cannot be released for hardware that hasnt even been invented yet. The minimum system requirements on the cover is not only aThis game isn't even half-way finished. If I buy a car, I expect it to be delivered with wheels so I can drive it. Its a reasonable assumption, isn't it? This game is unstable and unplayable even on high end machines running XP (which im using). A game cannot be released for hardware that hasnt even been invented yet. The minimum system requirements on the cover is not only a joke, is also a legal cause to return the game and getting your money back purely because its a lie. Furher, there isnt a patch in this world that can fix everything that is broken in this game. Im not even going further into that, because its already been dwelled over and over again by hundreds. My advice to anyone considering to buy this game is to think twice (just read the forum posts). Why should you spend your hard earned money on a product that isnt even finished. Its a beta1 release only witout the ?beta? label. If you buy it, youre only going to be dissapointed and feel cheated, like I did, no matter what hardware you have. This game is an insult to all of us that paid good money for it, just to get a box of frustration. It doesnt even come with a proper manual. I could live with that, simply because the good old days of Falcon4-type-of-manuals are long gone and will probably never come back. If the game should be delivered with a proper printed manual, there wouldnt be just as much money over for the sharks, now wouldnt it? What really bothers me though, is that it doesnt even come with a proper un-printed manual!! The documentation that follows this game is the same kind of joke as the system requirements. So what am I exactly paying for? A half way finished, poorly documented pre-beta release for a full retail price. I admit, I must be stupid to have such high expectations. After all, its only a game. Gamers/simmers aren?t real customers, theyre just a bunch of stupid kids we can cheat money from over and over again.. Think again, Ubisoft. The amount of effort put in by the developer in this game is yet amazing. Still, its all wasted because of the short-term economical-or-whatever disaterous descisions leading to this premature release of an unfinished product. I feel cheated, and I?ll certainly think twice before buying anything from Ubisoft again. I also feel sad for the developers that put their hard work and effort into bringing this game to the sim world community. I feel sad because they dont really deserve all this critisims. However, as a paying customer I reserve the right to make some demands. I dont demand a perfect product. At the least however, I demand that the game is playable more than five minutes, has more than 1 fps on a high-end machine 5-6 times faster than the ?minimum? specs, and doesnt contain a zillion bugs and wrongs that ruins the whole experience. … Expand
  27. Someguy
    Dec 16, 2003
    1
    worthless crap game buggy as hell for most people few get it to run and it still is missing much funtionality i returned it 3 days after i got it might be good in 6 months when fully patched but dont get ripped of by this beta quality crap.
  28. Mike'sDaddy
    Dec 19, 2003
    0
    I wouldn't give this to Goodwill, it would be a crime! Don't ruin someone's Christmas by giving them this.
  29. LiquidFuse_RW
    Dec 19, 2003
    0
    Really sucks.
  30. LarryS.
    Dec 19, 2003
    2
    Misleading reviews and forum comments. Reading the bulk of reviews here you think the game is great, not true. After loading I was met with many crash-to-desktops and a game that when it ran, was slow as hell. If you buy this game, be sure your machine is a very high one, over 3ghz, or you will be very unhappy. This is probably a good survey sim, it?s more an arcade game, but the problems Misleading reviews and forum comments. Reading the bulk of reviews here you think the game is great, not true. After loading I was met with many crash-to-desktops and a game that when it ran, was slow as hell. If you buy this game, be sure your machine is a very high one, over 3ghz, or you will be very unhappy. This is probably a good survey sim, it?s more an arcade game, but the problems don?t warrant buying at this time. … Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

66
#66 Best PC Game of 2005
2
#2 Most Discussed PC Game of 2005
66
#66 Most Shared PC Game of 2005

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
76

Generally favorable reviews - based on 20 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 20
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 20
  3. Negative: 0 out of 20
  1. PC Format
    88
    Our favourite is the A-10 Warthog – cruising at 50 feet, on the prowl for enemy tanks, it’s one of the most exhilarating missions available in any recent simulator.
    Read full review
  2. Computer Gaming World
    70
    Detailed terrain, buildings, water, and effects lend an unprecedented feeling of speed to low-level flight. [March 2004, p.82]
  3. Gamer's Pulse
    70
    It has great graphics, fairly simple controls, great scenery, a decent choice of planes, and a great editor. Although the sounds easily get on your nerves, it will be the load times and need for a computer upgrade that will have you pulling your hair out.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »