rec.autos.simulators

by **David Butter** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:57:06

Now, how predictable is that? It's not up on their website yet (perhaps
they're embarrassed...?), but I flicked through the mag in WH Smith,
and it was just weird. The gist of the pice was "well, it's not really
much of an improvement over GP3, but we're going to go all gooey over
it anyway 'cause we worship Geoff Crammond". The text of the review
doesn't equate with the 92% (I think) they gave it at the end.

--
Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-)
England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D

The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.racesimcentral.net/~gplscrapyard

by **David Ciemn** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:31:03

I don't think the mags are as *** racing sims as we are here. I see some
shaky games get decent reviews.

DC

by **Frod** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:09:37

The PCG preview from february of so slated it as "Geoff's new masterpiece".
Can you imagine what a sorry state that game must've been in back then? I
think they automatically label everything with "Geoff" on it as a
masterpiece. Actually one of the first things I thought after having played
GP4 a bit was "god, and this game is gonna get 90%+".

--
Frode

by **Card** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:42:41

I remember PC Gamer in America giving Grand Prix Legends a review in the
seventies and in the same magazine they gave CART Precision Racing (a joke)
a score of eighty six. I knew that PC Gamer was helping to end future
serious sims with great physic modeling with their ignorant review of GPL
and that was the last magazine I ever read from them. Geoff Crammond is well
known for putting out race games that are not completed in his effort to
make quick money and from what I have read so far with GP4, things have not
changed. Typical review for PC Gamer though. Reward junk programs like CART
Precision Crashing and GP4 and then turn away potential buyers from GPL
created by a company (Papyrus) who really worked hard to put out a great
finsished/polished program.

by **Ascende** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:37:41

Predictable review but what was strange is their review fo F1 2002 from EA.
The screenshots used in the review look pi$$ poor when compared to those in
the GP piece. But the reviews I've found online praise the graphics engine
in F1 and a few even say it is just as good as GP4.

Is this just another case of a mag getting the exclusive first review and
having to give it a great mark regardless?

I'd also be interested to see if the problems people have been experiencing
getting the thing to run well were put into the "they'll be fixed by the
time it ships category" in the same way that GTA3's problems were ignored by
the mags.

M.

by **David Butter** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:41:21

<snip>

Actually, I have to stick up for PC Gamer UK here, as they gave
completely different reviews from the US magazine - 74% for CART
Precision Racing, and 93% for GPL. They're generally quite tough in
their marking, but there are one or two things (Geoff Crammond being
one) they seem to have a blind spot about.

--
Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-)
England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D

The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

by **David Butter** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:54:18

<snip>

Yes, it does - most issues have at least two games under 30%. Here
are some examples of mediocre scores from the racing genre:

CART Precision Racing 74% (Okay, not a *bad* mark, but much lower
than the US mag gave it)
F1-2000: 58%
F1 Champ Season 2000: 43%
Harley Davidson Ride Across America: 14%
NASCAR Racing 3: 28% ("depressing, shoddy")
Prost Grand Prix: 57% (Okay, so this is wildly overmarked...)
Redline Racer: 50%
Sega Touring Car: 47%

They just seem to have a blind spot about Crammond games. They gave
GPL 93%, incidentally, so it's unfair to blame them for the idiocies
of the US mag in that particular case.

--
Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-)
England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D

The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

by **Card** » Mon, 24 Jun 2002 02:36:24

Yeh, I know where you are coming from and is why I mentioned the American
version of PC Gamer. I had heard that the UK version had the ratings of
those two gave more in line with reality. (Although I would not have given
the CART game a rating that high because it was useless when purchased when
it came to racing because of the sorry AI. They should have titled it
"Presicion Hot Lapping" and just left out the racing part. But regardless of
what magazine would rate GPL so much lower than that Microsoft rip-off, a
person has to wonder about the people testing such games. And now it seems
like PC Gamer UK might have missed the boat when they gave GP4 such a high
review rating.

> > I remember PC Gamer in America giving Grand Prix Legends a review
> > in the seventies and in the same magazine they gave CART Precision
> > Racing (a joke) a score of eighty six. I knew that PC Gamer was
> > helping to end future serious sims with great physic modeling with
> > their ignorant review of GPL and that was the last magazine I ever
> > read from them.
> <snip>

> Actually, I have to stick up for PC Gamer UK here, as they gave
> completely different reviews from the US magazine - 74% for CART
> Precision Racing, and 93% for GPL. They're generally quite tough in
> their marking, but there are one or two things (Geoff Crammond being
> one) they seem to have a blind spot about.

> --
> Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-)
> England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D

> The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

by **Nick** » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:38:18

This isn't a shock at all, as the review was written by Trevor Witt. He
thinks he knows about race sims, and he thinks he knows about F1. Wrong on
both counts.

by **Frod** » Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:23:15

not

Just thought I'd point out, for the irony of it, that what PCG has always
said about GC is that he delays release until the game is so perfect it
should never need a patch. What a crock of BS uh.

--
Frode

by **Card** » Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:12:33

Thanks Frode,

Did he say the game is so perfect it "should never need a patch" or "will
never get a patch".

> > and that was the last magazine I ever read from them. Geoff Crammond is
> well
> > known for putting out race games that are not completed in his effort to
> > make quick money and from what I have read so far with GP4, things have
> not

> Just thought I'd point out, for the irony of it, that what PCG has always
> said about GC is that he delays release until the game is so perfect it
> should never need a patch. What a crock of BS uh.

> --
> Frode

by **David Butter** » Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:19:38

> On 22 Jun 2002 14:54:18 GMT, David Buttery

>>F1 Champ Season 2000: 43%

> This deserved more than 43% A lot more.

>>NASCAR Racing 3: 28% ("depressing, shoddy")

> What?? N3 was great for it's time.

> Maybe they give the scores by picking numbers out of a hat.

Here are the links to the full reviews of those two games:

F1 Championship Season 2000:
http://www.pcgamer.co.uk/games/gamefile_review_page.asp?item_id=6113

NASCAR Racing 3:
http://www.pcgamer.co.uk/games/gamefile_review_page.asp?item_id=3533

--
Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-)
England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D

The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.btinternet.com/~gplscrapyard

by **Frod** » Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:18:04

Those were PCG's words, not GC's. Although I'm sure he's said something
similar. The gist of it is that PCG feels Geoff is a total perfectionist. A
one man coding and gamemaking army that never makes mistakes. That only
releases superb quality workmanship both in features and lack of bugs.

PCG really really believes that to be true. It just proves they've never
really played any of the previous GP games for longer than they had to to
review. :/

As for patches, look at his trackrecord (feel free to correct me if I forgot
something). GP2 - 0 patches. GP3 - 1 patch. Both had serious bugs that were
never addressed. I doubt GP4 will fare any better.

--
Frode

by **Card** » Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:17:59

What I wrote was just a joke. When you wrote "should never need a patch" I
assumed that was correct and was just
kidding about "will never get a patch". I am so tired of programs being
released for the public to buy in a half playable
condition. These sorry game developers rush things out the door knowing full
well the problems that are on the CD.
People should not have to wait for some downloadable patch to get a game
that they paid good money for to run. What
about those who are not connected to the internet? Bottom line: Many of the
manufactors of programs today just do not
care in the least as long as they get their money and I am really getting
burned out on even buying games. I have only
bought two race games in the last three years due to this.

You write that Geoff is a total perfectionist. I don't doubt that is what is
said of him but I would be ashamed to have my
name connected to one of his products. Just the frame rate issues alone
would keep me from releasing his programs. But
he is not the only one out there doing this to the buying public. The key is
for the public to send a loud message to developers
such as this by refusing to purchase these programs. I remember about six
years ago there was talk of getting Congress
involved in some way. Someone needs to send these money grubbing people a
stronge message of either placing a useable
product in the hands of the buyer when the game is released or shut their
doors. Geoff is like most all of the developers
today. Take the same unfinished product, known bugs and all, slap a few more
graphics on it, and release it as a full
priced program when it is not much more than a high dollar unpatched effort.

Long story short, I won't be sending any money towards Geoff in the near
future.

> > Did he say the game is so perfect it "should never need a patch" or
"will
> > never get a patch".

> Those were PCG's words, not GC's. Although I'm sure he's said something
> similar. The gist of it is that PCG feels Geoff is a total perfectionist.
A
> one man coding and gamemaking army that never makes mistakes. That only
> releases superb quality workmanship both in features and lack of bugs.

> PCG really really believes that to be true. It just proves they've never
> really played any of the previous GP games for longer than they had to to
> review. :/

> As for patches, look at his trackrecord (feel free to correct me if I
forgot
> something). GP2 - 0 patches. GP3 - 1 patch. Both had serious bugs that
were
> never addressed. I doubt GP4 will fare any better.

> --
> Frode

by **Dave Henri** » Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:55:45

"Sebastion Melmoth"

One does NOT have to like a paticular form of racing to review a product.
However, you must be able to put the title into perspective. i.e. how does
it compare to first, other Nascar titles, and THEN how is it compared to
other racing simulators. If you can't do that, you are doing your readers
no service.
dave henrie

rec.autos.simulators

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer

GP4 gets >90% from UK PC Gamer