rec.autos.simulators

>I've read all the posts about "everyone is entitled to their own opinions",
>but The Adrenaline Vault is a commercial *** site. They present
>themselves as a definitive *** site for reviews, previews, patches,
>demos, etc. Many gamers may rely on their site(among others) for reviews of
>games so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Not everyone has
>enough time and bandwidth to weed through the good and bad of usenet and
>download huge demos. Therefore, a gamer may check out a *** site like
The
>Adrenaline Vault for some advice. Hopefully they will get an unbiased,
>educated(meaning much time spent with a game), review that will help to
>steer them in the right direction on a specific game, given a gamers likes
>or dislikes. All reviewers will have different opinions, but The Adrenaline
>Vault should have some basic standards to help to make reviewing
consistent,
>espeially within a genre. I have not found any information on their site
>that really outlines their reviewing criteria, outside of the individual
>categories(Graphics, Gameplay, Music), but overall there seems to be no
>rhyme or reason to it. The lack of consistency can be shown in the
following
>list of racing games, Arcade and Sim(only 6 that I would really consider
>Sim-like), that Avault has rated. I did not include hybrids like Interstate
>76, Carmageddon, Jet Moto, or Twisted Metal 2.

>***** 5 Stars *****
>Monster Truck Madness 2 - Microsoft
>Motocross Madness - Microsoft

>***** 4 1/2 Stars *****
>CART: Precision Racing - Microsoft
>Motorhead - Fox Interactive
>Need for Speed II - Electronic Arts
>Need for Speed II: Special Edition - Electronic Arts
>Need for Speed III - Electronic Arts
>Redline Racer - Ubi Soft
>X-Car - Bethesda Softworks

>***** 4 Stars *****
>Andretti Racing - EA Sports
>Moto Racer - Electronic Arts
>Sega Rally Championship - Sega
>Test Drive 4 - Accolade
>Test Drive: Off Road - Accolade

>***** 3 1/2 Stars *****
>Burnout Championship Drag Racing - Bethesda
>Formula 1 - Psygnosis

>***** 3 Stars *****
>Castrol Honda Superbike World Champions - Intense Entertainment
>Circuit Racer - WizardWorks
>Formula 1 Championship Edition - Psygnosis
>SODA Off-Road Racing - Sierra

>***** 2 1/2 Stars *****
>Daytona USA Deluxe - Sega
>Grand Prix Legends - Sierra Sports
>Power F1 - Eidos Interactive

>***** 2 Stars *****
>NHRA Drag Racing - Mind Magic

>How, how , how can a game like Cart Precision Racing be rated so far ahead
>of Grand Prix Legends? Especially since that review was of the pre-patched,
>extremely buggy, terrible AI,  version of CPR! They even mention the bugs
>but still give a great score, whereas the GPL review makes no mention of
the
>incredible AI. I know it's different reviewers, but still this is just not
>right for Avault as a reviewing site to not at least have some consistency
>in reviews of similar products. Circuit Racer, Test Drive 4: Off Road, Need
>for Speed II? Ouch! It is also interesting to note the publisher of the top
>3 products. Hey, I am a fan of some of these arcade titles also, but 5
>stars? I would say for the most part, the formula according to Avault is:

>Sim Racing=Bad
>Arcade Racing=Good

>Microsoft=Good
>EA=Good
>Sierra=Bad

>Huh, maybe they are consistent and just not fair!

>Don Chapman

>I think the below sums up the inconsistencies - I have no problems
>with Motocross Madness getting five stars or MTM2 - both are really
>fun arcade games. However, anyone who rates the horrible handling
>X-CAR as 4.5 stars, SODA as 3 stars and then ranks GPL alongside Power
>F1 and Daytona USA obviously has a _serious_ reviewing deficiency.

>I mean really, X-CAR is better than GPL? It falls down horribly on
>every issue that GPL was seen as having problems on - difficult to
>drive, massively confusing setup options for the arcade fans, so-so
>graphics and AI etc etc. If the defence of Avault's review is that it
>is an arcade oriented site then no way should X-CAR or SODA have
>scored more highly.

>>Microsoft=Good
>>EA=Good
>>Sierra=Bad

>I'm not necessarily sure that "Sierra=Bad", but I'm sure that the
>"Good" will be near to the mark. Most of these sites (and magazines)
>will have had some pressure brought to bear by the games companies.
>That's the downside of most of your revenue coming from advertising.

>Cheers!
>John

> Soda just needs d3d or 3dfx support, the game is a fabulous fun drive and I
> think it was the original model that gpl was started with. Do yourself a
> favor and pick SODA up, it is in the bargain bin ~20 us dollars. It works
> well online as well .
>  SODA definitely gets my vote for most under rated driving sim.

> Doug Greer

> >What?? Soda very close to GPL as far as physics? Man, what you been
> >drinking?
> >Oops, wait a minute, I've never driven Soda
> ><G>

> >--
> >Don Burnette
> >Palmetto Racing
> >Dburn on Ten
> >AOLL Iroc Administrator

>Actually, I would rate SODA very close to GPL as far as physics.  The
>rest of SODA is what fell *somewhat* short, but it is a very close
>sibling/precursor to GPL. Xcar was a sick, sick, joke. :)

>The Avault review listing is quite interesting indeed.  It's a shame
>that people would depend on a site of reviews to purchase a game
>anyway, IMHO.

>Brett

>>I think the below sums up the inconsistencies - I have no problems
>>with Motocross Madness getting five stars or MTM2 - both are really
>>fun arcade games. However, anyone who rates the horrible handling
>>X-CAR as 4.5 stars, SODA as 3 stars and then ranks GPL alongside Power
>>F1 and Daytona USA obviously has a _serious_ reviewing deficiency.

>>I mean really, X-CAR is better than GPL? It falls down horribly on
>>every issue that GPL was seen as having problems on - difficult to
>>drive, massively confusing setup options for the arcade fans, so-so
>>graphics and AI etc etc. If the defence of Avault's review is that it
>>is an arcade oriented site then no way should X-CAR or SODA have
>>scored more highly.

>>>Microsoft=Good
>>>EA=Good
>>>Sierra=Bad

>>I'm not necessarily sure that "Sierra=Bad", but I'm sure that the
>>"Good" will be near to the mark. Most of these sites (and magazines)
>>will have had some pressure brought to bear by the games companies.
>>That's the downside of most of your revenue coming from advertising.

>>Cheers!
>>John

>What?? Soda very close to GPL as far as physics? Man, what you been
>drinking?
>Oops, wait a minute, I've never driven Soda
><G>

>--
>Don Burnette
>Palmetto Racing
>Dburn on Ten
>AOLL Iroc Administrator

> Actually, I would rate SODA very close to GPL as far as physics.  The
> rest of SODA is what fell *somewhat* short, but it is a very close
> sibling/precursor to GPL. Xcar was a sick, sick, joke. :)

> The Avault review listing is quite interesting indeed.  It's a shame
> that people would depend on a site of reviews to purchase a game
> anyway, IMHO.

> Brett

> >I think the below sums up the inconsistencies - I have no problems
> >with Motocross Madness getting five stars or MTM2 - both are really
> >fun arcade games. However, anyone who rates the horrible handling
> >X-CAR as 4.5 stars, SODA as 3 stars and then ranks GPL alongside Power
> >F1 and Daytona USA obviously has a _serious_ reviewing deficiency.

> >I mean really, X-CAR is better than GPL? It falls down horribly on
> >every issue that GPL was seen as having problems on - difficult to
> >drive, massively confusing setup options for the arcade fans, so-so
> >graphics and AI etc etc. If the defence of Avault's review is that it
> >is an arcade oriented site then no way should X-CAR or SODA have
> >scored more highly.

> >>Microsoft=Good
> >>EA=Good
> >>Sierra=Bad

> >I'm not necessarily sure that "Sierra=Bad", but I'm sure that the
> >"Good" will be near to the mark. Most of these sites (and magazines)
> >will have had some pressure brought to bear by the games companies.
> >That's the downside of most of your revenue coming from advertising.

> >Cheers!
> >John

> Don Chapman wrote...

> >How, how , how can a game like Cart Precision Racing be rated so far ahead
> of Grand Prix Legends?

> Money talks ?

> All the best,
> Edwin Solheim
> REMOVE SPAM-GUARD IN ADDRESS TO REPLY!
> Check out "The Paddock - a legendary site..." for
> some cool GPL-stuff!!
> [http://home.c2i.net/thepaddock)

>>For now this is the only link, but soon will be tied to the main site.

>>> Soda just needs d3d or 3dfx support, the game is a fabulous fun drive and I
>>> think it was the original model that gpl was started with. Do yourself a
>>> favor and pick SODA up, it is in the bargain bin ~20 us dollars. It works
>>> well online as well .
>>>  SODA definitely gets my vote for most under rated driving sim.

>Thanks for the link. I missed Dougs original post here, but I agree
>with him, and also think Steve Smiths article was great.
>With the simple inclusion of 3Dfx support, this would have been my
>favorite racing sim of all time, and I'd still be playing it.

>Unfortunately, I don't have a Rendition card in my main PC, nor will I
>ever, because the next card I get is going to be an AGP Riva TNT to
>complement my STB V2 card.
>SODA plays OK on my current 2D card now that systems are so much
>faster, but alas, I've been spoiled by 3D cards and can't stand the
>look of sims without 3D acceleration.

>I remember reading the message here saying that NASCAR2 was getting a
>3Dfx patch, and the SODA patch had been cancelled.
>Man, was I bummed. I felt SO bad for the Software Allies guys, because
>I think they wanted to do the patch.
>Steven Travers, you still out there buddy?

> Hey, hi. Still in here, but not often. And I'm not at Papyrus anymore.

> steve
> sdt at rocketmail.com