> 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.
the one to review
GP2 for a national, major *** magazine of the calibre of PC Gamer.
It should be ***d or reviewed or done on a more proffesional level
inhouse.
It is simple to say that one does not need to play the game "24/7" to
give it a thorough
review. I knew the major blunders of this sim within the first hour of
testing it and
can rest assured, say that anyone with a grain of knowledge could have
done the same.
That statement is of false pretense as Mr. Bennett did not give an exact
time barrier
of reviewing and only quoted "several hours"
The above statement is irrelevant to the point at hand.
Reviews should not be targeted just towards "casual" game players. A
review is a critique
and this game or "sim" was NOT critiqued and credit was given without a
thorough "critique".
I am sorry to say but it sounds like you are standing up for
incompetence
and its degrading my confidence in your intellegence.
When people accept proffesional establishments, i.e. PCGamer, cutting
corners and lacking in quality information which is what we, as
consumers, PAY for in these magazine reviews, because their reviewers
dont have a "passion" for what their reviewing, then these are the type
of people who refuse to progress and this is a prime example of why our
society has become reluctant to succeed in our goals and is a bad
influence on the next generations to come. It is because people like you
my friend accept this incompetence and label it as "OK" or acceptable. I
used to sell Toyotas and believe me, there was NO "passion" in it, but I
did my job thoroughly
and proffesionally and did the job completly. Not because I had a
"passion" for it but because thats what I agreed to in the contract I
had with my employer.
I agree with you here. I might have jumped to "unsure" conclusions and
for that I apologize.
It is common sense however to affiliate negativity about a product when
their is a proffesional
relationship between two companies and one is critical of the other. Its
called politics.
This is a personal opinion and holds no relevance in the point I made to
Mr. Bennett.
It is common sense and has been proven time and time again that games
can and should be reviewed
thoroughly, including the pros AND cons. My debate challenges the
competency of Mr. Bennet's
chosen profession, not generalising a certain time bracket that needs to
be met to give a
thorough review. The fact of the matter is, the review Mr. Bennett gave
in a proffesional,
national *** magazine was neither complete or thorough enough even
for any considered
time bracket and that is the point of debate.
I dont consider a "cliche' a valid argument in this debate. The bottom
line is that the general
public did not get a thorough review on this particular simulation and
therefore is cause for
question and criticism. I think I gave a "thorough" critique of Mr.
Bennetts review and therefore
it challanged his competency. I will reply to and welcome any debate
that challenges my critique of Mr. Bennetts review.
Take care and
You too!
-David Gary-