rec.autos.simulators

Sorry, I just don't consider Monster Trucks a form of motorsport. Entertainment
maybe, but what's the sport? There are so many wonderful forms of motorsport
out there to model, why Testerone Trucks?

Oh hell, what do I care anyway, Microsoft has already  lost me as a customer of
racing sims ( like Bill cares! ). CPR is such a disappointment, there will be
pigs flying in a very cold hell before I buy Microsoft's idea of a racing sim
again.

Don

Bart Brown

I see no reason to be so idealistic about it. Careful yes, and check
out the demos before buying (I didn't like CPR either, so I didn't buy
it), but I do that for most companies. I think Microsoft is probably
better suited to arcadish racers, but there's nothing wrong with that,
in fact there's a shortage of interesting, fun, arcade racers.

Joe

Joe,

I have no trouble with a company wanting to sell arcade racers, as long as it's
labled as such. I think what disappoints me the most about CPR is that Racer
Magazine could put their name on the thing!

 >I see no reason to be so idealistic about it. Careful yes, and check<BR>

You are right of course, I'm new to computers and racing sims and that is one
of the first lessons learned. I'll know better next time to check the demo AND
this Newsgroup before spending the $$. Funny, I would never have purchased F1RS
if I had only driven the demo, the newsgroup convinced me that it was worth
buying, and I'm havin' a blast!

Don

That's not true.  It has its defenders.

Nice try.   The fact of the matter is most people here would have
LOVED to love the game.  I'm a CART fanatic and wanted the
be-all,end-all CART game. The problem here is what was promised vs.
what was delivered.  Microsoft ambitiously chose to create a high-end
sim with every option imaginable and claim full realism to the real
thing.  They fell short in too many areas and THAT is why they failed.
How much "Microsoft" the company has to do with this is up to the
individual to figure out.   Think about it this way:  Mauricio
Gugelmin was quoted by Micrososft as saying that the grip level was
"perfect".  This was for version 1.0.  For the patch, they removed
most of the grip in the intermediate and professional modes, to the
degree that you don't get enough downforce at high speeds.  So, is the
grip still "perfect?"  How can it be "perfect" in 1.0 and 1.1 if it
was radically altered?  This is the kind of thing that has caused so
many people problems with CPR.  It had promise and has a ton of
features in it, but Microsoft didn't finish the game, and still
hasn't.

As someone who has raced in CART leagues online, yes its okay in
multiplayer, but certainly doesn't stand up to NASCAR Racing Series on
TEN, where you can race with around 20 other people!

Perhaps because they set their sites lower, and they fall off the
radar a bit.  An arcade racer like Sega Daytona isn't going to get
much attention here.  Why should it?  It hardly belongs in
rec.autos.simulators.  Sega makes no claims that Sega Daytona is a
realistic rendition of a stock car, and there is nothing in the box
which gives it the kind of depth a game like NASCAR does, so its
hardly worth mentioning.  With CPR, Microsoft was here on Usenet and
in our faces about how proud they were of their achievement and how
realistic CART was.  So by setting the bar that high, they made
targets of themselves when they failed to achieve it.  I have been
more balanced than most when it comes to CPR.  I race it occassionally
and am still part of that online league.  But the reality is, compared
to its peers (F1RS, GP2, IndyCar II and NASCAR 2), its got a lot of
flaws that still need fixing, and no one knows when or if its going to
happen.

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

Randy
Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

Randy--

Exceptionally well-put. I think most of the people who had the CPR hype
shoved down their throats were less than exuberant about the final
product (as it now seems to be...no evidence to the contrary, anyway),
while those who came late to the party can't quite understand the depth
of the scorn this sim has produced. The reason for that deep resentment
is exactly what you stated: MS set the bar VERY high right at the
outset, claiming they would out-EVERYTHING the competition. IMHO, it
would have been nearly impossible for *any* company to meet those
expectations; if CPR had, in fact, been on a *par* with the standards
set by Papyrus and Microprose, there would have been the usual grumbling
upon release, but nothing like what has happened.

To compound the difficulties, MS first belittled those who weren't
wetting themselves with joy over v1, then -- when the clamor grew,
rather than abated -- came on with saccharine promises of patches that
would "fix everything"; promises which, to further exacerbate the
situation, made the sim worse instead of better, and then slightly
better than worse.

People in this NG STILL ask when the final, "fixed" version of CPR will
be released, and MS says nothing, despite their promise of support for
CPR "forever", and their promise of an understanding and helpful
presence in this NG. The only word from Redmond shows up on the Apex
site, which consists of a weak-dick mumbling about how the programmers
need a vacation, and how MS will continue to support "motorsports
simulations" -- no mention of CPR whatsoever -- and that, Oh Boy!, wait
'til you guys see Monster Truck Madness!

If anyone finds it difficult to understand a certain measure of cynicism
towards MS after such a chain of events, please drop me a line: I've got
some beautiful waterside acreage in north central Florida I'll sell you
for such a deal!

Bart Brown

Something to think about:  Terminal Reality went off and joined g.o.d.
This might have thrown a monkey wrench into well-laid plans for CPR's
future even if sales did not.  If TR decided they weren't happy with
the money/credit or both they were getting for CPR, then they might
just choose to develop for g.o.d. instead and assure themselves the
right be publicize themselves more and get more royalties per copy.
They would probably not get the rights to the source code for MS CPR
if MS funded it.  Therefore, MS may be in a situation where they are
quite simply trying to decide whether to find another developer to
continue CPR or quit development of it altogether.    Perhaps I'm
giving MS too much of the benefit of a doubt here, but I do think its
important to remember that CPR was not a homegrown MS product, so MS
is to some degree at the mercy of the developers of the product.  If
TR decides not to re-up for another version, MS is stuck with the code
and no developers to give it to.  So they may well have fully intended
to keep their promises at the outset, only to find that TRI said
"enough of this" and left the party.  This, combined with possible
lackluster sales of the first version, may well seal CPR's fate.  I
personally welcome competition in the CART arena and would like
nothing more as a CART fan than to see Papyrus, MS and whoever else
slug it out in the CART arena and may the best sim win.  We have lots
of competitors trying to sell F1 sims, but precious few selling stock
car and CART sims.  Look at the result.  F1RS has to best GP2, and
look at the product we get.  I wonder what MS might have done had
Papyrus been working on a sequel to IndyCar II all this time.  We
might well have a real fight on our hands.

At any rate, all of the above is nothing more than unfueled
speculation, based upon reading the same press releases and
announcements that everyone else does.  

Without taking a thing away from your criticisms of CPR, I'd recommend
that you not pre-judge MTM2 based upon what happened with CPR.  The
products are very different in their focus and scope.  You may well be
cutting off your nose to spite your face if you condemn MTM2 sight
unseen.  Cynicism I understand, but at the same time I recommend that
whenever they come out with a demo you try it out.  You might find
yourself pleasantly surprised and having fun.  This won't necessarily
make you forgive MS for CPR, but at least you might find something
else fun to play while you wait for the next CART sim.

Randy

Randy Magruder
Contributing Reviewer
Digital Sportspage
http://www.digitalsports.com

Well, you *could* be right, but I have no interest in trucks, Monster or
otherwise. For me it's kinda like military sims: while I'm a sucker for
anything Civil War or WWII, I would have no interest in a sim about,
say, the Crimean War; no matter how good it is graphically or in terms
of playability, I'm not even going to take the time to mess with
something I'm not interested in historically. Tunnel vision, perhaps,
but it's *my* tunnel vision.

That's beside the point, however: my beef with this apparent MTM/CPR
bait-and-switch is that MS, through its rah-rah reps John Browne and
Dean Lester, have not had the consideration (after a hundred miles of
blather about how they would "listen to this NG" and how responsive they
were going to be to our concerns) to make any statement about the
still-unfinished CPR. Their cutesy-pie "we've got a secret and you're
gonna love it!" BS about MTM just adds injury to insult, AFAIC. Their
"intentions" may have been fine and noble, but their performance has
basically said to the NG: "You guys are so stupid you'll take anything
we give you. All we need to do is TELL you how great it is." This
attitude may not (yet!) have been copyrighted by MS, but they certainly
are good at it, and not just in the area of simulations. Just ask the
DOJ.

As for MS' original intentions -- well, we all know what the road to
Hell is paved with...

Regards

Bart Brown

No Confused I am not.  I do know the diff between a race car and a Truck.

Now the diff between you and a wimp, now there I might be confused!

Flame on!

No Confused I am not.  I do know the diff between a race car and a Truck.

Now the diff between you and a wimp, now there I might be confused!

Flame on!

As I said in another post TRI is the developer of MTM2 right?
Mike

As I said in another post TRI is the developer of MTM2 right?
Mike

--
Remove-No-Spam to Reply

But this has nothing to do with MTM. They are two different products,
in different genres.

That's just silly. They released a game generally thought of poorly
(CPR). Now if they release a different game that meets its goals
better and is more fun that's somehow an "insult"?

BTW, Microsoft hasn't posted ANYTHING about MTM here, not a peep.
There's just been a couple innocent comments from beta testers that
the game looks hot (from the same people, I must point out, who did
NOT think CPR was a success).

How so? The general consensus in this newsgroup seems to be that CPR
is not a worthwhile purchase (to put it mildly). So, clearly, telling
us how great it is (which all publishers do of course) is obviously
NOT "all they need to do".

Joe