>Z.
M
>>Us, as the SimRacing community, can't accept to be dissed by such a gamer.
>>Let's ALL post our comments about him.
>This is my letter : PLEASE all do so, we can't accept to be dissed by such
>gamers. Im just sick and tired of those arcade drivers who have no
>knowledge of the hard-core market and their needs.
"We don't like what you said about our favourite game so unless you say it's
great we'll throw our toys out of the pram"
You're entitled to your opinion, they're entitled to theirs. Live with it.
M
You just did, or is a "general 3D *** site" and a "general ***
site" such a different proposition? Not in my book, but you may split
hairs differently than me.
At worst it should be one person's view of how the buying public are
likely to view a product - simply stating your own opinion is not only
arrogant but damaging a software company's sales by an incompetent and
lazy approach. Look at Digital Sports to see how differing products
like NFS3 and GPL can not only be reviewed in depth by a mainstream,
"general (3D) *** site", but reviewed in depth and on their own
merits to their own markets.
Avault's review was, and remains, a joke.
Cheers!
John
>>>Because is a general 3D *** web site, and it is reviewed as it is likely
>>>to be recieved by it's audience?
>>Er,... i would by no means describe the avault as a "general *** site".
>You just did, or is a "general 3D *** site" and a "general ***
>site" such a different proposition? Not in my book, but you may split
>hairs differently than me.
Digital Sports is not the same niche at all. I find myself in agreement with
what the avault review said: If you're timid of full on sims, stay away.
Z.
There's no difference as far as the game itself is concerned other
than flashier graphics. A sim is still a sim and an arcade racer is
not.
The only difference is that their "hook" is that they review only
sports sims - beyond that there is no difference (except of course for
the difference in quality and accuracy of review).
? I find myself in agreement with
You're reaching there, that is paraphrasing taken to the extreme. The
review says nothing of the sort.
Cheers!
John
>>They are distinctly different. 3D *** sites cater for the crowd of people
>>who spend all too much money on hardware and on the latest kit for their
>>comp's. :)
>There's no difference as far as the game itself is concerned other
>than flashier graphics. A sim is still a sim and an arcade racer is
>not.
er:
"Simulation fanatics will probably love this game -- I just don't think that
anyone else with a lower level of enthusiasm will get much out of it. "
". If you have read this far, you can tell that I think the game is too
difficult. This doesn't mean that it won't appeal to *** racing
simulation fans, but it will require the patience of a saint in order to
become good."
"I can't recommend this game to the majority of people out there. If you like
difficult, ultra-realistic driving games, then by all means rush out and buy
it. If not, you will find yourself growing more and more frustrated as you
play and it takes hours in order to produce even mediocre track times."
Nothing of the sort.
Ho-hum.
Z.
> "Simulation fanatics will probably love this game -- I just don't think that
> anyone else with a lower level of enthusiasm will get much out of it. "
>> "Simulation fanatics will probably love this game -- I just don't think that
>> anyone else with a lower level of enthusiasm will get much out of it. "
>Then it must be a good game, deserving of more that 2 1/2 stars, right?
>After all, it's good enough to satisfy simulation fanatics.
On the critea, which was assessing the suitablity of this game for all users,
not self-styled "***" users.
GPL is accessable only to the ***, so by this standard of review, it is a
failure.
Z.
> >Path:
> >> "Simulation fanatics will probably love this game -- I just don't think that
> >> anyone else with a lower level of enthusiasm will get much out of it. "
> >Then it must be a good game, deserving of more that 2 1/2 stars, right?
> >After all, it's good enough to satisfy simulation fanatics.
> Michael, why?
> On the critea, which was assessing the suitablity of this game for all users,
> not self-styled "***" users.
And just where does Avault state that that's part of their review
criteria?
Though I did find this quote:
"Original games are compared against other games in their genre and/or
class that are currently available in the market. Therefore we may
compare *** with Shadow Warrior but not *** and Daggerfall because
*** is a 3D/Action game while Daggerfall is an RPG. Also, comparisons
of different game engines are not directly compared in the scoring due
to different technologies used (Build vs. Quake for example)."
I also found the following:
"Please note that games are not penalized for not doing the same things
other games do. All games are judged for what they allow you to do, not
for what they don't (we have to be fair here -- it wouldn't be fair to
say that Quake sucks simply because you can't crouch like you can in
*** or Shadow Warrior)."
It seems to me that the Avault review violates these criteria in spirit,
if not necessarily in letter. Noting that the game has a steep learning
curve is one thing. So is noting that it will probably require a great
deal of practice to master. Complaining about the game not having an
arcade mode? His "Intelligence and Difficulty" evaluation ran entirely
counter to the stated criteria! His review would have been just as
perceptive (and probably more honest) if he had just said, "I can't win
this game after two hours, so it sucks."
His comments on hardware specs were especially laughable. "I really
don't see how a PII 300 with 64 megs of RAM and two Voodoo 2 cards
should have any problems running a racing game; it is simply
unacceptable." This after saying he immediately set it at 1024x768. I
find a comment like this extremely irresponsible. What other racing
simulations (not arcade racers) has he played that offer 1024x768
resolution with smooth, fast framerates?
>>Because is a general 3D *** web site, and it is reviewed as it is likely
>>to be recieved by it's audience?
>>Z.
>Avault, gagames and the rest are 3D *** sites first and foremost. These are
>NOT sim racing afficionados and are so coming from the "general" opinion. This
>is pretty consistent to magazines that have no "sim racing expert" on the
>staff to review the game.
>M
As Damon Hill commented (paraphrased): "There are some people who
think in order to go fast you simple put your foot harder on the pedal
and whoever has the most guts goes fastest."
On a somewhat unrelated topic (but similar theme) I've always felt the
same way about flight simulators. Always tried them, always gave up on
them for one reason or another. Today I tried the WW2 Fighters demo.
It is to flight sims what GPL is to auto sims - truly incredible. I
highly recommend trying it out.
Joe
What kind of an idiot reviews a game CD and just ASSUMES there will be
no manual in the shipping version?
Joe
"There is no music in the game so I didn't rate this section. Heck,
the game is supposed to be set in the sixties -- they missed their
chance to get some really good music in the game to provide a mood."
The prosecution rests.
Joe
