> That's not the case with CART. It might be the case with YOU, but its not the
> case with this title.
For many people, in case you have not noticed, if the game doesn't
steer properly then what is it if not garbage? Where's the good? Her
original review is a "complete, balanced and fair review" in the eyes of
many.
LOL. It's this attitude from the likes of you that prompted Alison
to change her review.
Absolute rubbish!
> Trev
> > How can you cover the good? points when the bad are so bad as to not
> >let you? Her original review was spot on as far as many are concerned.
> If you're going to take the trouble to "review" a product then you
> have a responsibility to do it right. Many people here (myself
> included and probably you as well) have been slamming game review
> sites for glossing over the faults and reporting only the good things,
> and thus coming up with a glowing recommendation. I ask you, where's
> the difference in glossing over the good stuff and reporting only the
> bad?
> Either one is a distorted picture and, IMO, an unethical approach to
> reviewing a product. It's got nothing to do with your own personal
> opinions, or it shouldn't have. It's to do with the way the product as
> a whole will reach it's target market, as they are the ones you are
> writing for - not yourself.
> Cheers!
> John
"CPR is a game in alpha that is showing good potential. Someone
made a mistake and shipped it. This review is deliberately incomplete to
reflect the incompleteness of CPR".
This too me would be the perfect and fair review. Fair to everyone.
> If you're going to take the trouble to "review" a product then you
> have a responsibility to do it right. Many people here (myself
> included and probably you as well) have been slamming game review
> sites for glossing over the faults and reporting only the good things,
> and thus coming up with a glowing recommendation. I ask you, where's
> the difference in glossing over the good stuff and reporting only the
> bad?
> Either one is a distorted picture and, IMO, an unethical approach to
> reviewing a product. It's got nothing to do with your own personal
> opinions, or it shouldn't have. It's to do with the way the product as
> a whole will reach it's target market, as they are the ones you are
> writing for - not yourself.
> Cheers!
> John
The second was a much fairer review after taking time to really evaluate
CART PR and her feelings toward it.
Given her experience as a real life race car driver, I would put a lot
more creedence in a review from her than others :).
Trev
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:23:39 +0100, Ronald Stoehr
>Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to
>the point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things
>about a sim in a review...
Eagle Woman
Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison
Whatever the factors influencing Alison's rewrite, Microsoft would be
well advised to take a long hard look at the original, and really go
to school on it.
Their average customer for CPR is going to experience exactly the same
frustrations as Alison, and they are unlikely to come on here and come
under fire to take another look. They are far more likely to take it
straight back to where they bought it and pocket a copy of F1RS.
Does that mean the original review, or only her reviews that you would
agree with? Personally I thought the first review better. Although
harsh in tone the content seemed more accurate - given the harsh way
that MS treated their customers in firing this out the door early, I
see no problem in taking a harsh tone in the review. People reading
the review should be in no doubt about whether you think they would
enjoy the product, and the first review conveyed that very well. I'd
give CPR about a 55% rating, on a scale where 50% is strictly average
for the genre. As released it is little better than average, doing
some areas pretty well and other areas (the important ones) poorly at
best. Don't let your thinking be clouded by the patch, since the
majority haven't seen that yet, and all those poor suckers who bought
CPR and do not have internet access will probably never see it.
Ah the harsh realities of the modern software business at Christmas
time. "Do unto the consumers whatever they will let you get away
with".
Cheers!
John
Exactly right, Randy. Plus I realized that the harsh tone of my
original review was not constructive, and didn't contribute to
encouraging TRI and MS to keep working to improve the sim. Nor did it
acknowledge the very considerable effort that went into this sim, and it
failed to offer enough information for those whose priorities are
different from mine, or who might not encounter the difficulties I did.
Now that I've been able to run the sim effectively, my impressions of
CPR are very different, and my revised review reflects that.
Actually, my entire original discussion about bugs and design issues is
still in the review. I split this part out to a separate page because
the byte count of the detailed analysis got so large. New navigational
enhancements as of today make this section easier to find.
<grin> Thanks, Randy! I do appreciate your thoughts, though! The
voice of reason, as always!
Eagle Woman
Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison
> >Randy, well said, I agree with you and also wonder why it is that if an
> >opinion differs from someone elses, the person is either stupid, bought
> >off or doesnt have a clue!
> Trev, given your recent exchange's about drag racing over on SPRTSIMS
> I find your above statement utterly astonishing.
> Let he who is without sin.....
Roel Canare
> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:23:39 +0100, Ronald Stoehr
> >> I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc
> >> and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my
> >Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to
> >the point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things
> >about a sim in a review...
> Note that I apologized for the *tone* of my review, not the content. I
> stand behind the content, and it's all still there.
I reread your review and it's still on the spot.
l8er
ronny
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
> >There's "ignore" and then there's "defer". I would be willing to be that the
> >coding involved in getting yellow flags implemented correctly is much bigger
> >than getting a few more FPS or adding a null zone slider, don't you think? If
> >people are finding the cars undrivable right now, then I agree that Patch #1
> >should address this and not be held up for yellow flag implementation, don't
> >you think?
> Personally I rather think that the code for yellow flags should be in
> the original release, being a part of the sport that has a major
> influence on the outcome of the vast majority of races.
> Given that it's not, a step-by-step approach to patching would be
> best, but we need to keep in mind that a) it should have been in there
> from the outset, and b) there has been no commitment from MS or TRI
> that it will _ever_ be in there.
> Cheers!
> John
> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:23:39 +0100, Ronald Stoehr
> >> I would like to apologize publicly o the people at Terminal Reality Inc
> >> and Microsoft for the incendiary tone of the initial version of my
> >Oh, my god! Why are you apologizing?? Your review was excellent and to
> >the point. You have no obligation to mention any of the positive things
> >about a sim in a review...
> Note that I apologized for the *tone* of my review, not the content. I
> stand behind the content, and it's all still there.
> Eagle Woman
> >Randy, well said, I agree with you and also wonder why it is that if an
> >opinion differs from someone elses, the person is either stupid, bought
> >off or doesnt have a clue!
> Trev, given your recent exchange's about drag racing over on SPRTSIMS
> I find your above statement utterly astonishing.
> Let he who is without sin.....
> Cheers!
> John
Trev
Oh Trevor, please save the wild accusations. First of all you're
countering SS's politely stated statistics quoted from a respected
source by calling it "BS", and now it's saying that my comments are
made purely because I dislike drag racing - what argument would you
have used if I hadn't told you that?!
Here's a scoop for you - no, I don't like drag racing. Having said
that I don't particularly enjoy NASCAR as a sport either, yet I can
still enjoy the game and hold a reasoned discourse on it while
sticking objectively to the facts at hand. I don't have a particular
interest in hyping drag-racing and having no money at stake I'm also
devoid of rose-tinted glasses. Compared to a drag-racing fan who is a
partner in developing a drag-racing sim, I would say I'm _vastly_ more
likely to be unbiased here, and yet you don't hear me accusing you of
"taking out your love of drag racing on me".
Before you can say something is "BS" you need to be able to prove that
it is BS - even then there's about a million better ways to phrase it.
You simply telling me that it's BS means absolutely nothing,
especially when you are an interested party. SS was giving you stats,
and you chose to simply ignore them while offering nothing in return.
That's fine and of course you are at liberty to do that, but please
don't assume that everyone else can be so easily convinced.
Come back and talk to me when you can be either civil or have
something to say which is based in fact, preferably both. Either one
would be an improvement on the above - but then on your recent form I
suspect this is just more "BS" in your book.
John
