complete joke. Either they don't have any decent sim reviewers on their
team or they are just plain incompetent.
--
Robert Pollard
--
Robert Pollard
<snip>
I agree - it's the worst aspect of PC Gamer UK. For example, if you
read a review of a baseball game, it will spend half the time
complainign that it's not a proper sport anyway. Unfortunately other
UK magazines are just as bad. The only one that ever rose above this
was the old Computer *** World (later PC *** World), but sadly
it got swallowed up by PC Gameplay, which was just as bad :-(
To refer to an earlier point of yours, though: from what I've read of
the US PC Gamer, I don't think it's much better.
--
Hey, why be defeatist...? There are other sports :-)
England 2 Sri Lanka 0! Yyyyeeeessssss! :-D
The GPL Scrapyard: http://www.racesimcentral.net/~gplscrapyard
1. You write "you say" a whole lot. I was quoting others' words, they were
not mine (nor did I agree with them)
2. Join the club. GP4 is the first game in the GP series I do *not* intend
to buy. Maybe if it gets patched to fix the most glaring omissions (yeah,
like that'll happen).
--
Frode
>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%+".
Calis
'The public' will never do anything. Even when +90% of the people are
against something, nobody will ever actually take any action, because they
can't be bothered. What would be a really good idea is to have a panel of
the best reviewers in the world, each a specialist in one particular area,
and when games are released the entire panel reviews them, so for something
like GP4 you get an arcade racer's view, a simmers' view, and viewpoints
from people who are not really interested in F1 or racing games to see if
they would actually play the game. Then they rate the game on performance,
functionality and code stability. Then their findings are put on the cover
of all the boxes in a little box, so for GP4 you would get something like:
'This game isn't a huge update from the previous version. There are a few
neat new effects, but they take quite a performance hit. The game has a few
problems which detract from the gameplay, and it is unlikely (due to the
developers' track record) that a patch will be released. Simulation accuracy
6/10.'
This could be incorporated into a little box like you find on videos (which
say stuff like: 'Bad Language: Twice, strong'). It is often said that there
simply isn't enough time to review each and every game release in this
manner, but if all the top reviewers from every PC games magazine were
brought together to achieve this, it is easily possible.
It would be like a kind of 'PC Game Seal of Quality', on a sliding scale. If
a game states on the box that it is a small update, and still has problems
which need fixing, then nobody will buy it, regardless of what PC Gamer UK
says. Then Geoff Crammond will be forced to make better games.
Take care
> > The key is for the public to send a loud message to developers
> > such as this by refusing to purchase these programs.
> 'The public' will never do anything. Even when +90% of the people are
> against something, nobody will ever actually take any action, because they
> can't be bothered. What would be a really good idea is to have a panel of
> the best reviewers in the world, each a specialist in one particular area,
> and when games are released the entire panel reviews them, so for
something
> like GP4 you get an arcade racer's view, a simmers' view, and viewpoints
> from people who are not really interested in F1 or racing games to see if
> they would actually play the game. Then they rate the game on performance,
> functionality and code stability. Then their findings are put on the cover
> of all the boxes in a little box, so for GP4 you would get something like:
> 'This game isn't a huge update from the previous version. There are a few
> neat new effects, but they take quite a performance hit. The game has a
few
> problems which detract from the gameplay, and it is unlikely (due to the
> developers' track record) that a patch will be released. Simulation
accuracy
> 6/10.'
> This could be incorporated into a little box like you find on videos
(which
> say stuff like: 'Bad Language: Twice, strong'). It is often said that
there
> simply isn't enough time to review each and every game release in this
> manner, but if all the top reviewers from every PC games magazine were
> brought together to achieve this, it is easily possible.
> It would be like a kind of 'PC Game Seal of Quality', on a sliding scale.
If
> a game states on the box that it is a small update, and still has problems
> which need fixing, then nobody will buy it, regardless of what PC Gamer UK
> says. Then Geoff Crammond will be forced to make better games.