I know I may be beating a dead horse with this one, however, I am once
again amazed at another ridiculously positive review of CART Precision
Racing(CPR). This time from Operation
3DFX(http://www.op3dfx.com/reviews/cart/index.shtml)
I realize that the patch is imminent, but this is a review of the
current product, not with the patch. It lists a patch, but it is the
paintkit(not the frame rate, AI, yellows, pit, etc. patch that we are
all hoping for).
Anyway, Eagle Woman, Alison Hine, released a very informative and
intelligent review of CPR several days ago on her excellent web
site(http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/index.htm). While
somewhat harsh in tone, it was very honest and fact based, and I
believe she did a great job of describing the frustrations and
disappointments many of us have experienced with CPR. She received
alot of backlash from the CPR supporters, that what she said was
unfair and that she failed to mention CPR's positives.
She has since revised her
review(http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/sims/cpr.htm) to make it
more "balanced". I do not know if this was pressure from said
backlash, or on her own accord, but it seemed more accurate and honest
in its original form. This is her own personal web site which contains
some really good info on racing sims, and as far as I know she gains
nothing commercially from it.
However, it was still suggested by some members of r.a.s that she
should be more responsible and "balanced" when publishing her opinions
and experiences about a game such as CPR.
It is with this in mind that I feel it is just as important to point
out web sites and/or posts that seem to misinform, overlook, or
flat-out lie, when they review a product and give a score that is far
too un-balanced on the positive side. The most glaring of these
reviews on CPR was posted several weeks ago by The Adrenaline
Vault(http://www.avault.com/reviews/cart1.asp). However, the newly
released review by Operation 3DFX takes a close second. The Adrenaline
Vault review pointed out some of CPR's limitations(AI) but then seemed
to ignore it in the final score(4 out of 5 stars for Intelligence &
Difficulty??)
Operation 3DFX essentially lies altogether giving gameplay an 87% and
actually stating,
"Precision Racing's artificial intelligence is not your normal lazy,
noncompetitive, computer opponent. It knows every trick in the book,
such as rolling starts, and daring passes. I found that on rookie
level, the AI was a little too easy. "
What!?! Did they play the same game as the rest of us. Are rolling
starts an AI trick? Is ramming someone from behind, as opposed to
going around, considered a daring pass(ok maybe by Zanardi). Not your
normal, non-competitve computer opponent?? I have beaten the AI by
almost 20mph average in a 20 lap race at full realism/pro settings!!
That, my friend, is NOT competitive. I am not even that good a driver.
The reviewer then goes on to say that on rookie level, the AI was a
little too easy. Come on! I doubt even the CPR supporters will argue
that the above statment is even remotely correct as far as the current
un-patched version of CPR. Opinions are one thing, facts are another.
This is just dishonest journalism. It completely ignores possibly the
#1 problem with CPR in its current form, the AI. Overall, the AI is
just plain bad. Even the CPR development team(Dean and Eric both)
acknowledged the AI limitations from the get go.
Lets go to CPR's major problem #2 - frame rate. Operation 3DFX gives
the graphics a rating of 88% and states,
"As far as graphics go, I didn't see much not to like. With hardware
acceleration on, and all the graphic options turned on, this game
looks incredibly realistic. A lot of racing simulations out today are
great games, but they fail to convince the player that they are racing
at 200 mph's. The good use of hardware acceleration in Precision
Racing, allows you to drive 200mph with the scenery and opponents
zipping by just as if you were in a real racing car. "
First of all, the reviewer fails to mention the system specs of the
machine he tested on. Now I will agree that if any processor and 3D
accelerator were capable of running CPR with all graphic options on
AND a full field of cars, AND perform at a consistent 30fps, then it
would look incredibly realistic. HOWEVER, my machine is ONLY the CPR
recommended P166, 32MB, Pure 3D(3DFX). If I run with full detail in 3D
accelerated mode with any opponents, I get a slide show somewhere in
the range of 10-15fps. I DO NOT feel like I am racing at 200mph. I
will tell you that to achieve frame rates that has "scenery and
opponents zipping by just as if I was in a real racing car" on my
machine, requires me to turn off the cockpit, sky & clouds, shadows,
roadside objects, draw hills, and smoke effects. Only then, I am able
to achieve frame rates in 20-25 range. With all these graphic options
turned off, it no longer looks "incredibly realistic", even if the
sense of speed has improved. Even so, the frame rate will drop back in
the teens if there are computer controlled cars. Now, some peolpe are
going to say, "Your video drivers are not up to date", or "You are not
in Full Screen mode", or "Your 3DFX card is not kicking in". I have
tested CPR on 3 different P166 machines - one with Pure 3D and latest
drivers, one with Diamond Monster 3D and latest drivers, and one with
STB Velocity 128 and latest drivers. The results are virtually the
same. If you need further proof, please go the the excellent CPR fan
site The APEX(http://cart.gamestats.com) and then proceed to the
benchmarks page(http://cart.gamestats.com/benchmarks.htm). These
benchmarks were tested in 3D and non-3D mode, but we are only
concerned with 3D mode here. The third column over from the right
represents 640x480 3D accelerated mode with all graphic options on at
highest detail settings, no map overlay, no pip, no cars on the track,
stopped on the middle of the back straight at Fontana. A P133 with
Diamond Monster 3D shows a frame rate of 9.4fps. A P166 w/Diamond
Monster 3D shows 13.5fps. And a Dell PII300mhz , 64mb ram, STB
Velocity 128(currently the fastest Direct 3D performer), shows
25.0fps. This would theoretically be the fastest setup availble to
regular consumers for running CPR and it ONLY runs at 25fps. Again,
this is with NO other cars on the track. Add some cars, and the frame
rate will drop from there. Now I know that with graphic detail
tweaking many machines can run close to 30fps, but the review above
states "all graphic options turned on", "scenery and opponents zipping
by", "looks incredibly realistic", and "good use of hardware
acceleration". The point is, CPR is definitely not an example of good
use of 3D hardware acceleration. In fact, I would say that many will
agree with me that it is one of the worst of the current batch of "3D
accelerated" titles. Whether it has to do with CPR's advanced physics
model, limitations of Direct 3D, inefficient programming, or whatever,
the final result remains the same - unimpressive 3D performance. Look
at Ubisoft's F1 Racing for a real example of good use of hardware
acceleration. The recommended settings for that title are the same as
CPR(P166, 3DFX card) and I can run that game with full detail and
cars on the track and I get smooth, fast performance with a great
sense of speed. Even though I cannot give an exact frame rate(I have
not found if there is a counter), I would venture to say that it
approaches the 25-30fps range. Anyway, since the Operation 3DFX review
does not state what system config the review was performed on, AND in
fact lists the recommended P166, 32mb, D3D card, I would assume from
the info stated above that CPR would give me an incredibly smooth,
detailed, fast 3D racing game. This is just not the case, and the
review just fails to tell the truth about real world results.
The final issue I have with the CPR review by Operation 3DFX is a
minor one, but it is still a good example of the complete omission of
anything negative about the game. The gameplay section of the review
states:
"While I was playing, one of the things that made me sit up and take
notice is pit row. When I first decided to get some gas, I was
expecting the normal look of pit row, nothing special. The reason for
this is because none of the good racing games out today have realistic
looking and acting pit crews. As I was driving down pit road, a menu
popped up, asking me a few options. I picked recommended, and
proceeded down pit row. As the car pulled to a stop, the pit crew got
to work. They did the normal tire change. To my surprise, they also
came out carrying a new nosepiece for my car, and the put it on. After
they were done, they yelled, Go-Go-Go. This kind of fully animated,
realism is what I have been looking for in a racing simulation. "
I agree that the pit animations are cool, but this whole paragraph
talks about how much this adds to the "realism" of the sim without
even mentioning that this "realistic sim" does not even let you drive
your own car in and out of the pits. I know this is a preference
issue, and that supposedly the patch will allow you to choose whether
you or the computer drives your car in and out of the pits, but to
talk about "realism" and not mention that the pit entrance and exit is
controlled by the computer is again deliberately not telling the whole
story.
I hope the patch solves all the above problems, and that I can enjoy
the game for what it claims to be on its packaging and in its
advertisements. I think that it is unfair that the trend recently in
r.a.s has been to accuse those pointing out CPR's limitations as being
biased or too negative, while many commercial gaming sites and mags
are posting overly postive reviews that either ignore the glaring
problems, or glaze over them because of the promise of a patch.
By the way, which do you think is the more damaging review to the game
buying public? The overly negative review that points out
...
read more »