rec.autos.simulators

by **Lutrel** » Sun, 13 Dec 1998 04:00:00

The January issue of PC Gamer give GPL a 70. Most games they consider as
great they give 80 and above. 70 is usually an OK game. They say
"over-modeled physics". Does that mean its too realistic and not enough
arcade type physics?
I wouldn't be surprized if they give the new Jeff Gordon racing game thing a
better rating.

Lutrell

by **Robert Youn** » Sun, 13 Dec 1998 04:00:00

See previous posts on this topic, most of which conclude PC gamer is a comic
written for half-wits with an attention span of counting five on one hand -
so 70 out of a hundred is quite generous in the circumstances.....

Robert

>The January issue of PC Gamer give GPL a 70. Most games they consider as
>great they give 80 and above. 70 is usually an OK game. They say
>"over-modeled physics". Does that mean its too realistic and not enough
>arcade type physics?
>I wouldn't be surprized if they give the new Jeff Gordon racing game thing
a
>better rating.

>Lutrell

by **Russell D. Laughlin Jr** » Sun, 13 Dec 1998 04:00:00

It seems their biggest beef with the game was the lack of any skill settings
a la NASCAR 2. I kind of agree that this should have been included as most
people aren't willing to put in the time to learn a sim this difficult.
OTOH, I truly enjoy the difficulty of it. I spent an hour trying to shave a
second of my best time at the Glen last night and was thrilled once I did
it.

Keep the Shiny Side Up,
Russ

>See previous posts on this topic, most of which conclude PC gamer is a
comic
>written for half-wits with an attention span of counting five on one hand -
>so 70 out of a hundred is quite generous in the circumstances.....

by **Lutrel** » Sun, 13 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Yes, the reviews biggest gripe was lack of difficulty setting, and I agree
that there could be an easier setting option but I this should not give such
a low review score since GPL is suppose to be a simulator and does it better
than any other program. I think that like most people that don't understand
racing think that to go fast you just grit your teeth and mash down on the
accelerator.
Lutrell

>It seems their biggest beef with the game was the lack of any skill
settings
>a la NASCAR 2. I kind of agree that this should have been included as most
>people aren't willing to put in the time to learn a sim this difficult.
>OTOH, I truly enjoy the difficulty of it. I spent an hour trying to shave
a
>second of my best time at the Glen last night and was thrilled once I did
>it.

>Keep the Shiny Side Up,
>Russ

>>See previous posts on this topic, most of which conclude PC gamer is a
>comic
>>written for half-wits with an attention span of counting five on one
hand -
>>so 70 out of a hundred is quite generous in the circumstances.....

by **G Spar** » Mon, 14 Dec 1998 04:00:00

It probably means the game needs more than 60 seconds to master. Mass market
demands simple arcade-style scenarios and the contents of the correspondence
column of that mag show the level it is pitched at. Similarly Gran turismo
is a superb "game" but simulator it is not.

I would give the review a credibility rating of zero,.

I wonder how long the reviewer spent trying to drive the car - probably got
frustrated with crashing all the time and blamed the game for his
inadequacy.

I've got CPR and F1RS and played both extensively. For realism, accuracy,
and online play it leaves both wayyyyyy behind - in fact haven't booted up
CPR since GPL installed!! F1RS is great but who drives modern F1 cars - GPL
is like driving a modern car on dirt - fantastic!!!!!

My .01c worth

Greg

>The January issue of PC Gamer give GPL a 70. Most games they consider as
>great they give 80 and above. 70 is usually an OK game. They say
>"over-modeled physics". Does that mean its too realistic and not enough
>arcade type physics?
>I wouldn't be surprized if they give the new Jeff Gordon racing game thing
a
>better rating.

>Lutrell

by **NORDICSK** » Mon, 14 Dec 1998 04:00:00

I think that the PC GAMER review was right on the money in criticizing GPL.
Their job is to impartially evaluate a game and judge the merits of it for the
*** public as a whole.

The review clearly made it plain that the game has all of the merits that
everyone touts on this thread. It clearly stated the merits of the physics
model and the driver AI.

Bu the review also gave a big debit for lack of any kind of scaling of the
difficulty factor. IMO the low score serves as a big (and fair) warning to
those who might buy this product.

I personally feel that Papyrus made a huge mistake here. As the article quite
correctly points out, there would have been little shame if Papyrus allowed us
"weekend racers" a little fun by allowing different difficulty settings. This
was a fair review IMO.

by **Zonk** » Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:00:00

>Path:
> I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the
>physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are
>owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:((((((
>dan

which of course, the comrades at papy are not.

Z.

by **Michael E. Carve** » Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:00:00

% >Path:

% > I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the
% >physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are
% >owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:((((((
% >dan

% which of course, the comrades at papy are not.

Don't panic folks... Grand Prix Legends is selling well.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **John Walla** » Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:00:00

> I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the
>physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are
>owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:((((((

Jeez, that's awful! Do you know of any other companies who were formed
in order to make money, or people who only go to work in the morning
to get that paycheque at the end of the month?

Cheers!
John

by **david kar** » Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:00:00

I think the fellow was trying to make a distinction between art (Papyrus)
and commerce (Sierra). It's not a new dsinction . . .

I understood it anyway.

Ciao!
David

>> I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down
the
>>physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they
are
>>owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:((((((

>Jeez, that's awful! Do you know of any other companies who were formed
>in order to make money, or people who only go to work in the morning
>to get that paycheque at the end of the month?

>Cheers!
>John

by **Anssi Lehtin** » Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:00:00

> I really really hope that Papyrus doesnt get suckered into dumbing down the
> physics modeling for the next sims with GPL's model considering how they are
> owned by Sierra who is in it just to make money:((((((

Dumbing down is probably not needed, they just have to make a game with
cars that are easier to drive :)

--
Anssi Lehtinen

by **ymenar** » Wed, 16 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Anssi Lehtinen wrote

Errrr... that would be dumbing down a simulator Anssi.

Racecars are very difficult to drive. Most of real racecar drivers will
tell you this. It's not everybody who is able to hop in a 67 Formula 1 and
be as performant as a Clark or Gurney. But even still, 98 stock cars ALSO
are difficult to drive. As CART's, and Formula 1 of this year.

There is no easy racecars to drive, especially when your near the limits of
it.

- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard> Good race at the Brickyard!
- Official Mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
- Excuse me for my English (I'm French speaking)
- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide <NAS-Frank> http://www.nros.com/
- "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."--

by **John Walla** » Sat, 19 Dec 1998 04:00:00

On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:38:45 -0600, "david karr"

>I think the fellow was trying to make a distinction between art (Papyrus)
>and commerce (Sierra). It's not a new dsinction . . .

That's a possible interpretation, but it does imply that Papyrus
_aren't_ in it to make money. I think that will come as news to a lot
of people who work there...

Cheers!
John

by **david kar** » Sat, 19 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Not so. Such a distinction can be made for the purposes of delineating what
seem to be broad company philosophies (Papyrus: "to make great sims and
money"; Sierra: "to make great heaps of money"). No one is suggesting (or
implying) that Papyrus isn't out to make a pile of cash.

Wasn't it Jackie Stewart who, when asked if motor racing was a form of art,
said (and I'm paraphrasing be the way), "I believe any human endeavor, when
taken to the outermost limits of skill, becomes a form of art." Yes, one
could take this too far, but in our own little driving sim universe those
words could be seen to apply to what Papyrus is doing with GPL. I think a
lot of us would agree.

Anyhow, I only chipped in because I found your response to the fellow that
originally made that distinction (commerce/art) to be rather glib and
willfully harsh, despite the softening, ever-present . . .

Cheers!

David

>On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:38:45 -0600, "david karr"

>>I think the fellow was trying to make a distinction between art (Papyrus)
>>and commerce (Sierra). It's not a new dsinction . . .

>That's a possible interpretation, but it does imply that Papyrus
>_aren't_ in it to make money. I think that will come as news to a lot
>of people who work there...

>Cheers!
>John

rec.autos.simulators

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review

Another low score GPL review