>Randy,
> Let me be the first to flame you for that horrendous review...ha ha,
>just kidding<bg>
> Just wanted to say that I read your review and think you did an
>excellant job with it. The only thing I disagree on is how much the
>damage model and AI flaws detract from the game. To me these ruin the
>game so much that overall I give it a 6.6 whereas I believe you gave
>itan 8 or so. I suppose determing how much these flaws detract is
>somewhat subjective. For me they ruin the game...for you they seem to be
>minor hurdles. I agree that a good patch could make this an awesome
>game. Anyway, I just wanted to say I think your review was very
>thorough...nice work.
Thanks for the kind note. I fully realize that others might rate the
problems differently than I did. I was more interested in getting the
info out on the good, bad & ugly than I was in convincing anyone that
the game deserved a particular numeric score. The numeric is my take
on how much *I* enjoyed each of the aspects of the game. Obviously
the breakdowns in those categories are rather coarse, so I couldn't
just rate AI by itself, or damage by itself, etc. It had to be taken
as a whole. And on the whole, I would say it was more than a "minor
hurdle" for me, but at the same time, I really did enjoy racing the
thing. All faults aside, that's what it ultimately comes down to,
right? Anyway, if someone says (as you did) that the negatives in my
review are such that the product is a pass...then I still did my job
:)
Thanks again,
Randy
