rec.autos.simulators

I reviewed GP2, and I have to say I didn't run into any of those
problems in hours of playing it at home and at the office.

As for the speed of the game -- maybe it was the ET6000-based video
card I was using, or maybe I just have a more generous definition of
"smooth" than some other gamers (it's a pretty subjective thing, after
all) -- but GP2 ran smoothly on the P120 I was using at the time, even
in SVGA with most of the details turned on.

Well, that's an issue I have no control over, but I'll address it as
best I can. I've seen a few people complaining about how recent issues
of PCG have had more than 50 percent ads -- but the fact is that the
magazine has almost always been more than 50 percent ads.

In fact, that's not at all uncommon in magazine publishing -- the
bean-counters will tell you it has to do with the cost of producing an
issue; every page that doesn't bring revenue in (i.e., every editorial
page) has to be "bought" by a number of pages that do bring in revenue
(ad pages). This becomes more and more important as the size of the
magazine grows (a bigger issue doesn't just mean more paper and ink;
it means exponentially higher shipping and distribution costs, too).
Of course, if we were People or Entertainment Weekly, we'd just charge
five-figure sums for every page of advertising -- that'd bring the
ad-to-edit ratio way down. But -- thank God -- we're not People or
Entertainment Weekly.

Unfortunately, the ads seem to become a lot more noticeable (and, to
some readers, annoying) as the overall page count climbs toward 300.
Every year, we get a temporary increase in complaints about ads -- it
starts shortly after the November issue hits the stands and tapers off
shortly after the January issue is released. (Those are the big
holiday issues, of course, in which every game company wants to
advertise heavily, and we have to bust our buns to fill the editorial
pages in between.)

If I could wish for the people who complain about the ads in PC Gamer
to notice one thing, it would be this: Every time our ad count has
increased, so has our editorial-page count. If December's 444-page
issue only had as many editorial pages as the previous month's
348-page issue, I could understand people complaining that PCG was
being overrun by ads. They'd be right. But it didn't just have more
ads than we've ever had before; it had more editorial pages (by far)
than we've ever had in a single issue.

Assuming you stayed awake through that long-winded explanation, thanks
for bearing with me.

db

Generous?! How can you be generous as a reviewer?! A reviewer is a
CRITIC!
That means you CRITIQUE the software. I am astonished the more I read!

I wont comment too much on the advertising end of it. I really dont care
how many advertising pages PCG adds to their magazine as long as the
ratio
doesnt rise above 50%. Like I said I make my livelyhood in this field
and understand publishing and press costs, even though with the adds
compaired to information ratio PCG prints, the executives arent starving
by any means.

Not to mention high bonuses for top advertising executives. I am
sure your boss doesnt drive a volkswagon.

Fortunately people magazine can truly critique events they review
in their magazine because their not knocking heads with their
advertisers

Well with a comment like "busting buns" to fill edit***pages opens up
the truth to why your reviews are far from complete and unsatisfactory.

Again the comment above explains why your review of GP2 is so
inefficient.
Your basically saying you were rushed by release pressure. When in fact
if you hired "***" help during the holidays(like most Business)
then you would not
have to gamble the integrity of PCG's ruputation for quality. But thats
not the case.
Instead you have been rushed in your reviews and that does not fly with
my decision to purchase quality information, instead, it seems the truth
is in this newsgroup because most of these serious racing sim fanatics
are not bound by release pressures and "heat" from their advertisers.
Therefore it is not your fault.

Dan, I appreciate your replying to this group. I am grateful for your
honesty
You have opened alot of our eyes as to why your review was so off the
wall.
Unfortunately my subscription to PCG will be terminated shortly.
Maybe in a perfect world *** magazines could *** their reviews
out
specifically to people who have spent countless hours on certain types
of games and sims. But this is not a perfect world and BIG business is
governed
by politics and the public is who pays for it. I am not blaming you for
your actions.
I have a good idea what type of "leash" you are on in your employment.
If I had been in your postion I would have been fired the first day
because
I would truly critique these games. As for GP2, I would have gutted it!!

-David Gary-

OK, sorry about that, it must have been another mag who reviewed a
prerelease version (but I'm not mentioning any names now :) )

Regards,
--
Dave Bowers

I see your point as to how in a perfect world, Dan Bennett would have
spent 24/7 for 2 months playing GP2 before reviewing the game.  I also
see how he should have considered the use of options and features from
every possible perspective before claiming that it is so great.....  
But, I must point something out here.  While we get the nitty-gritty on
racing sims here is r.a.s., the average computer game reviewer is not
NEARLY as fanatical about racing and racing games as the members of this
newsgroup.  Even many of those half million or so who bought GP2 play it
much more casually than we do.

Perhaps Dan likes other types of games and just got stuck reviewing a
game he doesn't feel that passionate about with GP2.  That happens and
must be understood.  He should NEVER give a soft review to any game
company.  Their anticlimactic review of Quake was embarassing to ID
software, but ID still advertises there.  

I don't agree with their rating of GP2 any more than you do.
Nonetheless, I can see how the "more casual" gamer with a killer video
card could really like it and give it a great review after a couple
weeks.  The annoying nuances only creep out after months of fanatical
racing.  

We should neither let PC Gamer go soft nor fail to put the shoe on the
other foot.

Happy Racin'
--
Matt & Audrey Lewis

Hi Dan
Thanks for responding, I have a hard time swallowing some of what you said
but
at least you have the guts to come in and expose yourself to the group.
"Sticks n stones my break your bones, But Flames from ***space can't hurt
you"
PS- May I have your PC, It must be a Real BadBoy!!  :)

Mr Bill

I *wish* <g>. If I had my way, we'd get to spend three months with
every game we review and see how it runs on 15 different systems. Like
you said, in a perfect world....

I wrote that review, too. But I really don't think it was embarrassing
to id Software. Heck, Quake got a 90 percent and an Editor's Choice
rating. A lot of Quake fanatics griped about it, but no one at id
complained.

Dan Bennett
Editor, PC Gamer

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:42:28 -0500, David Gary

No. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is absolutely wrong. And it
suggests that, however much you know about advertising, you don't
understand the magazine business very well.

The writers and editors of a national magazine like PC Gamer have
nothing at all to do with advertising. That's handled by a completely
different department. The advertising sales department is responsible
for selling ads; they're paid a commission for every ad they sell, so
they do whatever is in their power to keep the advertisers happy. But
they have absolutely no power over the editorial department.

People in the editorial department don't get commissions. When we talk
to game companies, we speak to their public relations people, not to
the people who buy ads. We don't even know what ads are going to
appear in a given issue until it's printed.

It's not our job to keep advertisers happy; it's our job to please the
readers. I can assure you that no one in the editorial department
gives a rat's behind about what our advertisers think. We play the
games; we make up our minds about them; and we print our honest
opinions of them. Sometimes, you'll agree with those opinions;
sometimes, you won't.

You could take my word that our reviews aren't influenced by
advertising dollars, or you could look at some recent issues and prove
it to yourself. You'll find plenty of games published by major
companies and/or regular advertisers, which nevertheless received
less-than-glowing reviews from us. Just a few examples: Deathkeep
(SSI, 20%); Mindgrind (Microforum, 45%); MegaRace 2 (Mindscape, 65%);
Striker 96 (Acclaim, 40%); The Neverhood (DreamWorks, 40%); Sonic CD
(Sega, 65%); Hellbender (Microsoft, 66%); Gene Wars (Electronic Arts,
61%); Caddy Hack (***, 29%).

I was going to go through the last five issues, but I think I found
plenty of examples in the November and December issues. No need to
belabor the point. Check for yourself, and you'll see there's really
no correlation between who advertises with us and who gets good or bad
reviews.

The bottom line is this: if we enjoy playing a game, it gets a good
review. If we *really* enjoy playing a game, it gets a great review.
If we don't like a game, it gets a bad review. If we hate a game, it
gets an abysmal review. That's where it begins and ends.

I really liked Grand Prix 2, and I didn't run into any significant
problems with it, so I gave it a really good review. I didn't stop for
a second to think about MicroProse. If I was worried about hurting
MicroProse's feelings, I would've flexed my editor-muscles and killed
our earlier review of This Means War (49%).

We're always looking for good *** writers who are passionate
about games. If you're seriously interested, I'll extend a serious
invitation: work on your spelling and punctuation a bit, and send us a
couple of sample reviews.

I'll try to explain: On a Pentium 120 with 16MB of RAM and an STB
Lightning 128 video card, I found GP2 ran smoothly enough that I had
no trouble at all controlling my car in SVGA mode, as long as I turned
a few of the minor detail options off (backgrounds in rear-view
mirrors, that sort of thing). As far as I'm concerned, that's smooth
enough. I only suggested that my definition of "smooth" might be more
generous than others because I couldn't think of any other way to
explain why some people say GP2 doesn't run smoothly enough for them.

Actually, I walked out to the parking lot with the president of our
company this evening. I got into my Chevy Cavalier; he got into a
Saturn sedan, and we drove away. As you said, no one here is starving,
but no one's getting *** rich at the expense of our readers,
either.

Having said that, I don't think you can have it both ways: You can't
accuse us of having too many adverti***ts, then accuse us of being
so desperate for ads that we'd sacrifice our credibility by writing
dishonest reviews to please advertisers.

PC Gamer is the #1 computer *** magazine; I'm told we have a
qualified circulation of more than a quarter of a million every month.
We don't need to pander to advertisers; they come to us. In fact,
we've lost at least one advertiser because we refused to retract a
review they didn't like -- that advertiser came back recently to buy a
run of two-page ads from us. Software companies don't advertise with
magazines that write nice reviews of them; they advertise with
magazines that reach the most readers.

I'm not saying all this to try and convince you that PC Gamer's a
bigshot magazine; I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, and it
shouldn't. I just want to make it clear that we've been successful
enough in pleasing readers that we don't have to worry about pleasing
advertisers.

No, David. I never said that. I had plenty of time to review GP2. I
liked it; I gave it a good review. Disagree with my *opinion*, if you
like. Tell me you think my *opinion* was wrong. But please don't
accuse me of kowtowing to the advertisers or rushing the review;
you're jumping to too many conclusions simply because I wrote a review
you disagree with.

Actually, that *is* the case. That's precisely the case. About half of
PC Gamer is written by ***rs -- not just during the holidays,
but every month.

Dan Bennett
Editor, PC Gamer

If you did read r.a.s regularly you would realise that a few individuals
have been taking every chance possible to flame GP2. This isn't limited
to GP2 though - another group of individuals will take every opportunity
to flame N2 and yet another group will probably do likewise with the next
major release.

They are not representative of the majority of sim racers and my advice
is to simply ignore any author who doesn't back up accusations with any
facts or can only flame someone who doesn't agree with them. If they keep
it up, add them to your kill file and have a more peaceful time <g>

Cheers,
Richard