rec.autos.simulators

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

Phil Winsto

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by Phil Winsto » Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

Phil Winstow
     ICQ: 57400677

mic

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by mic » Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:00:00

I think they must have reviewed a different game to the Nascar 3 everyone
play's and raves on about, or maybe they tried playing it on an old 386 sx ?


>Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

>I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
>them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

>Phil Winstow
>     ICQ: 57400677


Morgan VW

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by Morgan VW » Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a
game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've
rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3
(which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The
only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!?


> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

> Phil Winstow
>      ICQ: 57400677


--
-----------------------------------
Morgan Vincent Wooten

http://members.tripod.com/~morganv/
-----------------------------------
skott

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by skott » Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:00:00



PLONK*



>> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

>> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
>> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

>> Phil Winstow
>>      ICQ: 57400677


Philste

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by Philste » Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Why plonk him? I agree with him. I mean 84% wasn't bad. It's not the
PCGamer game of the month. If you look at the beginning of the review
section, you will see what corresponds to the ratings given. The
graphics are good, the gameplay is good, but let's face it, it didn't do
a revolution physics wise. You better plonk me too then. Btw, with NL,
N3 is the only racing sim I'm playing right now, so it gives you an idea
where I stand.

Philster




> >Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a
> >game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've
> >rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3
> >(which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The
> >only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!?

> PLONK*



> >> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

> >> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
> >> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

> >> Phil Winstow
> >>      ICQ: 57400677


Bob Nielse

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by Bob Nielse » Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Skotty,

In case you haven't read the review, here's a few choice quotes:

American stock car simulation on the market..."<<

powerful new 3D sound engine..."<<

There are a few comparisons to GPL, but, only in the sense that "this is how
they did it in N3, but, if they'd used the GPL engine, they could've done
this...."

N3 is a kick-ass ride!!

Bob


> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:23:09 -0500, Philster

> >Why plonk him? I agree with him. I mean 84% wasn't bad. It's not the
> >PCGamer game of the month. If you look at the beginning of the review
> >section, you will see what corresponds to the ratings given. The
> >graphics are good, the gameplay is good, but let's face it, it didn't do
> >a revolution physics wise. You better plonk me too then. Btw, with NL,
> >N3 is the only racing sim I'm playing right now, so it gives you an idea
> >where I stand.

> I may have jumped the gun. :) I didnt personally check out the review
> so Im not sure what they rated it at.
> It just kinda sounded like a GPL fanatic abusing the Nascar sims
> again. It may be an old engine, but it's still the best Nascar
> simulation. Is the review comparing it to GPL? cause thats the only
> "better physics" sim they could even try and compare it to.
> Guess I should read the review myself. :)

> >Philster




> >> >Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's
as good a
> >> >game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it
would've
> >> >rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real*
NASCAR3
> >> >(which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much
higher. The
> >> >only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!?

> >> PLONK*



> >> >> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

> >> >> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
> >> >> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

> >> >> Phil Winstow
> >> >>      ICQ: 57400677


skott

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by skott » Sat, 18 Dec 1999 04:00:00

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:23:09 -0500, Philster


>Why plonk him? I agree with him. I mean 84% wasn't bad. It's not the
>PCGamer game of the month. If you look at the beginning of the review
>section, you will see what corresponds to the ratings given. The
>graphics are good, the gameplay is good, but let's face it, it didn't do
>a revolution physics wise. You better plonk me too then. Btw, with NL,
>N3 is the only racing sim I'm playing right now, so it gives you an idea
>where I stand.

I may have jumped the gun. :) I didnt personally check out the review
so Im not sure what they rated it at.
It just kinda sounded like a GPL fanatic abusing the Nascar sims
again. It may be an old engine, but it's still the best Nascar
simulation. Is the review comparing it to GPL? cause thats the only
"better physics" sim they could even try and compare it to.
Guess I should read the review myself. :)

>Philster




>> >Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a
>> >game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've
>> >rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3
>> >(which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The
>> >only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!?

>> PLONK*



>> >> Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

>> >> I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
>> >> them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

>> >> Phil Winstow
>> >>      ICQ: 57400677


Olav K. Malm

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by Olav K. Malm » Sat, 18 Dec 1999 04:00:00


> Looked about right to me. It's based on an ancient game engine. It's as good a
> game as anyone could expect being based on such an old engine, but it would've
> rated higher if Sierra would've allowed Papy to release the *real* NASCAR3
> (which may wind up being N4). Could've been lower, but not much higher. The
> only review that still gets me is the January '99 review of GPL: 70%!?

The original poster looks like he is reffering to UK PC Gamer. They put GPL
on the cover in October 98, gave it 92 % and put it on their favourite list
for some months.

I haven't read the Nascar3 review myself yet but I think they are not to fond
of NASCAR-racing in general and probably not too e***d over an old game
engine.



> > Have any of you read the recent review of N3 in PC Gamer?

> > I can't believe they gave it such a bad score. I intend to write to
> > them and complain about what the fudge they think they're doing!

> > Phil Winstow
> >      ICQ: 57400677

> --
> -----------------------------------
> Morgan Vincent Wooten

> http://www.racesimcentral.net/~morganv/
> -----------------------------------

--
Olav K. Malmin
remove spam when replying
Phil Winsto

Lame brain reviews, by PC Gamer

by Phil Winsto » Sat, 18 Dec 1999 04:00:00



> The original poster looks like he is reffering to UK PC Gamer. They put GPL
> on the cover in October 98, gave it 92 % and put it on their favourite list
> for some months.

You're right, I was refering to the UK PC Gamer. I wasn't aware there
was a different PC Gamer magazine in the States or anywhere else.

They're not. All they did was moan about how Nascar makes you turn
left all the time, and never right. Obviously they haven't noticed the
other non-oval tracks, including the Glen.

Phil Winstow
     ICQ: 57400677


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.