based on the fact that it was in development for 4 years. I can
understand the disappointment, but I for one am hardly surprised that
GP3 fails to meet many of our expectations. Any computer
game/simulation that is in development for more than about a year or 2
is almost always a disappointment upon release. Computer hardware
performance increases so rapidly that a game designed to take advantage
of today's systems will generally be viewed as ancient in 4 years.
Thus, if a game is in development for a couple of years, the progammers
are left with the decision of either continuing with the current model
(which will be less than state-of-the-art by the time it is completed)
or starting over from scratch so that new hardware and software
technologies can be used. Obviously Mr. Crammond and team chose to
stick with the original game design and graphics engine, even though it
is not state-of-the-art by today's standards. I'm sure the opinions we
all have of GP3 would be substantially different had it been released 3
years ago. Whether the long delay in the release of this product was
due to insufficient funding from the publisher during development, or
from a design team that was too small or not skilled enough to get the
product out the door within a reasonable timeframe (18 months or less?)
I will probably never know.
So what is my point? Actually, I have no idea... (sorry for wasting
your time if you have actually read this far!). I guess just that GP3
is a fine product -- if we can just mentally turn back the clocks to
1998 and pretend that computer games/simulations/graphics/etc... have
not evolved past that point...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Before you buy.