--
Ian Parker
ICQ# 21772592
--
Ian Parker
ICQ# 21772592
--
Ian Parker
ICQ# 21772592
>Is it, probably you didn't know. The AI adjusts to your racing style, in a
>new AI way called the Global AI scaling, witch after about 1-2hours on each
>tracks adjust to your racing style. Still you have to remember that you
>can't set the AI to a % level like other racing simulations. This ain't a
>canned AI where you can say "race at 86% of your laptimes". This is racing
>against realistic driver settings.
>>> 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.
>>I wonder how Jan's F-15 managed a 5star review? That is mostcertainly a
>>sim, so why GPL wasn't treated the same way is beyond me.
>Because flying a plane is a lot easier than driving one of these cars
>on the limit. Also most people think they could drive these cars
>because they've been driving since they were 17 etc etc and it looks
>easy.
Martin
Nigel Mansell RIP!
Both reviews sports games, both review driving games - where's the
gulf?
Granted the reviewer did mention that he felt the game could appeal to
the hard-core sim fan, but I still feel the review was slanted utterly
wrongly given the product being reviewed.
Cheers!
John
PC Gamer is most certainly not a 3D *** mag. It is a general *** title,
with that whack Future sarky twist.
Z.
>>Excuse me, there is a huge difference about what that portion of the market
>>looks for in a game......
>Both reviews sports games, both review driving games - where's the
>gulf?
>Granted the reviewer did mention that he felt the game could appeal to
>the hard-core sim fan, but I still feel the review was slanted utterly
>wrongly given the product being reviewed.
>Cheers!
>John
We've got a situation where a simulation is being reviewed by a site which
main caters for the mroe arcade oprientated market. The review is quite fair
in that respect.
However, iw ould point your attention to all the arcade racers out there which
are slammed by the simulation crowd.
We are simply having the reverse in this situation here.
While they both may be about driving cars, there really are quite seperate and
distinct markets, and the players of those i'd feel won't cross over.
Z.
>>The music "incident" as it is now being termed was an editing goof on my
>>part. It is text that was supposed to be in my other review of Red Baron
>>3D.
>BTW, the above statement is 100% proof positive that Craig Miller is a
>liar (and he's no better at lying than he is at reviewing). I quote
>from the review:
>"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
All the same it's a strange goof. Does he have some pre-written
sentences for all circumstances in all categories he pastes together
for each game? Odd.
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."
> >All the same it's a strange goof. Does he have some pre-written
> >sentences for all circumstances in all categories he pastes together
> >for each game? Odd.
> I don't think so ... since the statement about the lack of music
> refers SPECIFICALLY to the 60s, it really can't be talking about any
> other game than GPL.
> Joe
The statement you're quoting is from the updated version of the review.
The original review mentioned music, but not music from the sixties.
Trips
Joe
Sims should never be judged by how popular they are gonna be to the wide
market but instead how well they have achieved the goal of simulating
their particular subject. The judgement of how popular they are gonna be
is left to the market. The reviewers job is to be knowledgable enough to
rate how the developers have done in regards to the simulation of the
subject. Craig Miller is about as clueless as anyone I have ever had the
displeasure of reading in this regard. Craig should just stay the course
in reviewing action games and leave off judging simulations.
Its not an easy thing to do a review. You must be an expert in the field
or at the very least extremely well read, you must be a fan of the field
in that you are keeping up with developments, and you also must be a
good enough gamer to be able to play the game well. Rating simulations
is best left to grognards who love the stuff. Its far easier for the
grognard to state that the developer did not make the sim easy enough to
encourage entry level play than it is for the casual reviewer to attempt
to understand the nuances of a complex sim.
As a flight simmer Im lucky to have the likes of Rob Kim, Tom Chick, KC
Basham and others to depend on for reviews. Unfortunately car sims have
only just now reached the level of fidelity that demands a reviewer on
their level so there is a definite shortage of reviewers with brains as
evidenced by the Avault review. Grand Prix Legends is that in
spads....to me its the very best simulation I have ever had on my
PC....scary thought since Im primarily a Flight simmer. But the truth is
Sierra and Papy kicked some with this sim.
Also the argument that he is just expressing his opinion is just wrong.
Its bad journalism in the extreme. Not that I have any problem with his
article being published...but if Avault wants to retain some credibility
then the editors better start doing their jobs. There is nothing wrong
with them putting out bad reviews...but I would think they would take my
critique and instead of being offended be glad that someone has the time
to tell them they did wrong. Its not often in the world of business that
you get too many second chances and credibility is a hard thing to
regain.
PAPA DOC
+AD4-Because flying a plane is a lot easier than driving one of these cars
+AD4-on the limit. Also most people think they could drive these cars
+AD4-because they've been driving since they were 17 etc etc and it looks
+AD4-easy.
Spoken like someone who's not played F-15.
-dobe-
If you sneeze/blink/twitch in a 1967 Formula 1 car at 150mph trying to hold
a line in a decreasing radius turn ---> you skid off the track and die.
Any questions?
One of the biggest problems facing the fighter pilot was information
overload....he just cant concentrate hard enough on all items that
absolutely demand attention. Therefore he dies....
To me both are extremely similar in that they demand absolute
attention. Pilots who dont pay attention, die...simply put. I think
you would find that both types of individuals are extremely similar,
the pilot and the driver of the top of the line probably if it were
not a matter of learning the systems, step right into both vehicles
and do extremely well. Both have the uncannay knack for paying
attention to the things that count and not being distracted by the
things that dont.
PAPA DOC
>If you sneeze/blink/twitch in a 1967 Formula 1 car at 150mph trying to hold
>a line in a decreasing radius turn ---> you skid off the track and die.
>Any questions?
>+ADw-3635c79c.1414810+AEA-news.demon.co.uk+AD4-...
>>+AD4-Because flying a plane is a lot easier than driving one of these cars
>>+AD4-on the limit. Also most people think they could drive these cars
>>+AD4-because they've been driving since they were 17 etc etc and it looks
>>+AD4-easy.
>> Spoken like someone who's not played F-15.
>> -dobe-