rec.autos.simulators

I don't for a minute think that the reviewer will change what he has to
say about the level of difficulty in regards to the driving/physics
model: if he likes arcade games and dislikes *** sims this will
still be portrayed is a subsequent review.  He may still tell recommend
that many should stay away from the sim because they will find it too
frustrating.

However, he should (hopefully!) clean up comments about his experience
that any and every new purchaser of the game certainly will not share
i.e. inclusion of a manual and references to music.

In fact, I think that it is professional of the reviewing house to pull
an article that is clearly erroneous... the article is not being
reviewed/edited because of a question of opinion, but as a result of
inadequate research and blatant factual errors (naturally, the editor of
the web-zine also has to consider the competence of the reviewer).  A
magazine or newspaper would print either a retraction or notice of error
in a subsequent edition... the web doesn't work like that :).  Rather,
the article is pulled and replaced.

Just my thoughts on the subject... hopefully this thread will die out
soon! :)
[Not that I am helping any, lol!]

Cheers,
Gian Vitzthum
(remove "*no-spam*" from address to reply)

<snip>

* the "cover story" - that they didn't have "Four Wheel Drift" and
thus the review was incomplete.

* the "music" issue - indicating at least sloppiness or downright
incorrect reporting.

* the lack of *any* mention of online play - again, incomplete
reporting.

* AVault's own policy (quoted in another thread) is to judge a game on
what it attempts to do, not fault it for what it doesn't do - Papyrus
aimed to create the most accurate and challenging racing sim to date,
which most would agree they have done.  How does that square with the
2 1/2 of 5 stars rating?  If they were cranking out the latest arcade
racer, sure, "being too difficult" would be a valid complaint and
might justify such a rating.  But how do you fault an accurate
simulation for being "too real" (ie: too hard)?

   Sure, people disagreed with it, but I think it was largely on a
factual basis, not mere opinions.

NAR Northeast Regional Contest Board site - points and more...

Seriously?! Jon, this is Power-F1 and Daytona USA we're talking about.
Have you ever played either of these? For more than the time it takes
to quit out and press your recycle bin into service? Do me a favour!

So you think such a person is suitably qualified to carry out an
objective review of such a product, making suitable comparisons with
SODA, X-CAR, CPR etc, all of which scored highly? No, I thought not.

They took the same risk with SODA which scored more highly, and
Bethesda took the same risk with X-CAR which also somehow scored
highly despite being abysmal in every aspect when compared to GPL.
Confused? You should be.

You don't put three years into a project and laugh when someone hurts
sales or fails in putting together a simple review of your last three
years. I know you see it as minimal and yes it could well be. The fact
is that shutting up about it helps no-one. It loses Papyrus that
"minimal" level of sales and Avault's reviewing quality slips another
couple of rungs down the ladder.

A chef in one of Edinburgh's restaurant's used to say to diners after
their meal "please don't tell me it was nice - I can learn nothing
from nice". No coincidence that the food there was incredible. This is
not an exercise in slamming Avault, it's an exercise in demonstrating
dissatisfaction. Avault can take it on board and improve (in my eyes
at least) or decide it's irrelevant and continue on their current
course. Shutting up offers only the latter option, and they can do
nothing with that.

Cheers!
John

I know people that seriously will play GPL less than they have played
Daytona. I'm sorry that you know of no such gamers. But between the
people I know, GPL would be the one going in the re-cyc, and I am the
strange person that has one game as a hobby, and not every (race) game
under the sun as a hobby.

Our idea of quality is one thing, other people's can be completely the
opposite.  From what I can figure, something that takes minutes to
learn but a few weeks to "complete". They just can't plain understand
the reward and accomplishment feel I get lapping oval tracks or
spending the time getting to grips with GPL.

I therefore can't help but have the views I do. I agree that the score
should be changed, and that GPL should never have been marked down
(regardless of what it is now "on par" with) for being what it sets
out to be. But the bulk of the review text is undoubtably, spot on.

I think you made a very good analogy with the Ferrari car and a
magazine road test.. We'd call them fools if they marked it down
because of lack boot space, but I certainly wouldn't go ape if they
pointed out things like that, no room for the dog, ***mpg, insurance
etc etc if the magazine was aimed at the average motorist. Another
angle to this analogy is to *why* they would review it in the first
place...

I really admire your passion for this product that you have obviously
worked very close to for so long, and I am I hope a true/loyal fan of
Papyrus who appreciates their work as much as anyone. I just can't
take the review to heart, much less be humiliated by it, because there
is so much truth in it. Regardless of whether he became biased towards
things like the graphics out of frustration, his views near enough
tally with what many people I know have said about GPL. I'd just
_hope_ my friends, if placed in the reviewers chair, would appreciate
the work involved and conclude much like this "there's the most
amazing driving model ever created in here, if you have the time,
passion or skill to wrestle it under your control. Otherwise for the
rest of us, there's a few weeks worth of spectacular accidents with
the beautiful graphics. 4/5". Again, this is a best case scenario, if
they thought it right to score it down because of the driving model
than so beit.. I'd accept that it would represent many many gamers.

I also apologise for most of my last post. I try my best to get my
point across without causing friction, and it wasn't meant to demean
you or Papy or anything...

Thanks!

-:http://www.racesimcentral.net/

The only way you'd get me to play Flight Sim 98 would be if you coded
an easy-landing feature, allowed me to bomb cars on the roads below
and fly past office windows mooning people - that's what I want to do
in a Cessna. Probably wouldn't add to the product for the intended
market though.

As far as reviews are concerned they should be marked BY the intended
market (or an expert thereof) and FOR the intended market. Reviewing
Chessmaster 2000 by a Quake fan isn't going to work and the line must
be drawn somewhere.

Your friends are obviously not fans. Why make a factually questionable
review by a non-fan and non-expert saying "This is shit but might be
okay if you're a total nut and into that sort of thing" when it's far
better to make a detailed review by an expert saying "This is a
milestone of the genre, but be careful if you're looking for arcade
fun"? The former gets across a very negative impression to arcade and
a mixed message to fans, while the latter gives accurate info to both
- surely the purpose of a review?

Cheers!
John